CathInfo.com

Well, that was interesting commentary, Brother Francis, but I'm afraid your understanding of the requisite acceptance is pretty much at odds with the teaching of John of St.Thomas and other theologians.

To reiterate the above points,

1. The nominal acceptance required given to an elect as the new head of the universal Church is easily and immediately recognizable as such

2. When we are speaking of moral unanimity of acceptance, it is primarily among the Bishops of the universal Church who have a teaching office and are part of the episcopal college.

both of which were docuмented earlier.

Now, a few additional considerations I did not want to go into since they were somewhat tangential, but since they've all found their way into this thread now, about each of the individual three persons, very briefly,

1. If Cardinal Siri were ever elected Pope, then we fall into still greater difficulties, particularly if we take sedevacantist reasoning for granted. Wouldn't he have lost his office, for not only accepting Vatican II, saying the new Mass, using the new rites, and in addition to all this, giving public veneration to alleged antipopes and notorious heretics? The theory lacks positive corroboration and doesn't escape the very dilemma it was intended to solve.

He also wrote a certain letter to Archbishop Lefebvre on June 22, 1988 - to ask him not to break from the Church. Should he not rather have told his (alleged) underground clergy to get in touch with Archbishop Lefebvre, or others like him, inform them of the truth concerning the election, news they who had been so baffled with the goings on would have received with elation, and work with them?

It's clear this theory is altogether without foundation.

Quote from: Nishant

Well, that was interesting commentary, Brother Francis, but I'm afraid your understanding of the requisite acceptance is pretty much at odds with the teaching of John of St.Thomas and other theologians.

To reiterate the above points,

1. The nominal acceptance required given to an elect as the new head of the universal Church is easily and immediately recognizable as such

2. When we are speaking of moral unanimity of acceptance, it is primarily among the Bishops of the universal Church who have a teaching office and are part of the episcopal college.

both of which were docuмented earlier.

Now, a few additional considerations I did not want to go into since they were somewhat tangential, but since they've all found their way into this thread now, about each of the individual three persons, very briefly,

1. If Cardinal Siri were ever elected Pope, then we fall into still greater difficulties, particularly if we take sedevacantist reasoning for granted. Wouldn't he have lost his office, for not only accepting Vatican II, saying the new Mass, using the new rites, and in addition to all this, giving public veneration to alleged antipopes and notorious heretics? The theory lacks positive corroboration and doesn't escape the very dilemma it was intended to solve.

He also wrote a certain letter to Archbishop Lefebvre on June 22, 1988 - to ask him not to break from the Church. Should he not rather have told his (alleged) underground clergy to get in touch with Archbishop Lefebvre, or others like him, inform them of the truth concerning the election, news they who had been so baffled with the goings on would have received with elation, and work with them?

It's clear this theory is altogether without foundation.

The white smoke & Vatican Radio announcing that there is a new pope hardly qualifies as 'altogether w/o foundation'.

There are problems with Siri Thesis but there are Many More problems with other scenarios.

MO is that the perfidious actions of Boniface( if he is even a pope) , Leo X & Clement VII are worse than what Pope Gregory can be accused of.