Author Topic: Universal acceptance of a Pope (Read 41236 times)

Thursday · « **Reply #40 on:** November 27, 2012, 08:34:02 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Are you saying, Thursday, Cardinal Siri himself broke the eighth commandment, bore public false witness and even called on the name of God and Christ in giving testimony to a falsehood when he said "The words of the Gospel are applied to John Paul II since the moment of his election"? This is what your own position would imply about Cardinal Siri, I do not believe His Eminence did such a thing.

Well, when asked whether he was elected Pope in 1985 by Louis Remi he became stricken and said "I am bound by the secret" When all he had to say was no I was never elected Pope.

Again when Siri was approached in 1988 by the Vietnamese priest Father Khoat he denied it twice and it was only when Fr. Khoat asked him explicitly whether he was the lawful pope not the defacto pope that Siri responded "you know it" Fr. Khoat also describes Siri as being "stricken."

I, personally, have never been set up by masonic agents to accepted the papacy for the sole purpose of having them reject me 5 minutes later but I can guess that it would result in considerable mental anguish, confusion, and perhaps a bit of denial. Regardless JP II was the recognized pope and held the papal office so Siri wasn't exactly lying when he calls him pope. It's kinda like when child introduces his stepdad as his father not wishing to explain the details of his parents divorce to his new friends.

Quote from: Nishant

If the situation were as you describe, that there was duress, Cardinal Siri would know that according to Catholic moral teaching, he could never speak an outright lie, for this is forbidden by the God who cannot lie who taught us that Satan is the father of lies who speaks them of himself, but could only express in a certain equivocal way a statement of what is called "broad mental reservation".

Here is Fr.John Hardon's explanation of the same. The above clearly doesn't come under it, since it expressly calls Pope John Paul II the Vicar of Christ and speaks of Christ giving him the Keys at his election, so I don't think it is just a "usual platitude" as it could have been if Cardinal Siri really wanted it to be.

I am not personally denying myself that Cardinal Siri was overall quite orthodox - I just think that given the conduct of his whole life, it would have been the Indult Groups and the SSPX he would have supported, not the sedevacantists or conclavists in my opinion.

Here and here are two further articles, which despite a certain bias, contain useful facts on Cardinal Siri and show this further.

From the article,

Quote

[T]he efforts of the Genoese Cardinal to repair relations between Rome and Ecône remained alive and were greatest in subsequent years, after the suspension a divinis of Monsignor Lefebvre which occurred in 1976 due to the ordination of priests despite the prohibition imposed by the Vatican. Siri was very active on this subject in 1977-1978. In the last months of that year, after some second thoughts of Lefebvre and public words of appreciation from Lefebvre for the Cardinal during the second conclave of that year, [Siri] asked him to Genoa, proposing a plan of agreement: “full submission to the authority of the Pope and also full adhesion to the norms of the Council. The only request of Lefebvre concerned permission to celebrate Mass in Latin according to the rite of St. Pius V.” (B. Lai , Il Papa non eletto)

...

On June 22 of that year, when Lefebvre announced his intention to ordain four bishops, the Genoese cardinal wrote to Lefebvre: "Monsignor, I beseech you on my knees not to break from the Church! You have been an apostle, a bishop, you must remain in your place. At our age we are at the door of eternity. Think! I am always waiting for you, here in the Church and later in Paradise ."

There are many reasons that Siri would not have supported Lefebvre.

Quote from: Nishant

These are certainly not the words of a man who believed himself Pope.

I think you should familiarize yourself with ALL of the evidence that supports the Siri thesis instead of picking a few quotes from questionable sources. I'll admit that there are a lot of unanswered questions about Siri, and no the it's not 100% certain that he was the pope or that he did not lose his office at some point if he was initially Pope but taking one snippet of a highly formal letter usually does not reveal the true contexts of things.

Quote from: Nishant

Anyway, coming back to the other matter, here is an additional witness to the same truth by an illustrious Doctor of the Church.

Quote from: St.Alphonsus
“It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff.

yes that's all fine until they start having interreligious preyer meetings, polka masses and wearing rainbow vestments.

Nishant · « **Reply #41 on:** November 28, 2012, 09:41:08 AM »

Hello Thursday. Continuing where we left off,

Quote

Well, when asked whether he was elected Pope in 1985 by Louis Remi he became stricken and said "I am bound by the secret" When all he had to say was no I was never elected Pope.

It's quite possible he was elected Pope. But what appears to me impossible to deny is that if he was elected, then he freely stepped down. If nothing else, the public statements he made would effect his tacit resignation from the Papal office.

It's also worth pointing out in response to the above that a true Pope is not bound by the secret of the conclave, so this is perhaps evidence that he was not elected, but that some other serious matters took place.

Quote

Again when Siri was approached in 1988 by the Vietnamese priest Father Khoat he denied it twice and it was only when Fr. Khoat asked him explicitly whether he was the lawful pope not the defacto pope that Siri responded "you know it" Fr. Khoat also describes Siri as being "stricken."

This incident also does not prove that Cardinal Siri considered himself Pope, especially given his two unequivocal denials, and the undue pressure Fr.Khoat exerted by speaking of his own family's sufferings. It's quite possible His Eminence thought he would have made a better Pope or that he should have been Pope given the difficult times the Church was going through.

Quote

I, personally, have never been set up by masonic agents

But if you were, what would you do? Would you not look for someone you can trust to tell the truth. He should have sought Archbishop Lefebvre and set him straight, told him he was Pope. That's why I think his relationship with the Archbishop is important, but in any case, his relationship with Pope John Paul II, to whom he was clearly devoted, probably more than any of us is, proves he did not regard himself as Pope.

Quote

I'll admit that there are a lot of unanswered questions about Siri

Good. Some of the Sirianists I've spoken to are more dogmatic.

I actually examined the matter carefully before coming to a conclusion, and my sources are from full articles or published letters, which are easily and readily accessible, not single quotes, like yours were, for instance, which though in any case I do not deny.

It is not a small matter for Cardinal Siri to say Christ gave Pope John Paul II the Keys and beside there are several other statements to this effect from His Eminence. Whatever difficulties the Church is going through, I don't think a speculative theory like the Siri thesis which the Cardinal himself so often denied is the solution - the better solution is the one Cardinal Siri himself practiced throughout his life - a firm commitment to personal doctrinal orthodoxy and traditional liturgical orthopraxis and no more.

In order to speak of antipopes, we need at least two visible and credible claimants to the Papacy. And when we have had such two or more claimaints, great Saints and Doctors have held that supposing one or more resign and all of these accept the election of the other and venerate him as Pope along with the Church, then that one would be regarded as true and valid Pope.

Thursday · « **Reply #42 on:** November 28, 2012, 04:54:38 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

Hello Thursday. Continuing where we left off,

Quote
Well, when asked whether he was elected Pope in 1985 by Louis Remi he became stricken and said "I am bound by the secret" When all he had to say was no I was never elected Pope.

It's quite possible he was elected Pope. But what appears to me impossible to deny is that if he was elected, then he freely stepped down. If nothing else, the public statements he made would effect his tacit resignation from the Papal office.
see 1

It's also worth pointing out in response to the above that a true Pope is not bound by the secret of the conclave, so this is perhaps evidence that he was not elected, but that some other serious matters took place.
see 2

Quote
Again when Siri was approached in 1988 by the Vietnamese priest Father Khoat he denied it twice and it was only when Fr. Khoat asked him explicitly whether he was the lawful pope not the defacto pope that Siri responded "you know it" Fr. Khoat also describes Siri as being "stricken."

This incident also does not prove that Cardinal Siri considered himself Pope, especially given his two unequivocal denials, and the undue pressure Fr.Khoat exerted by speaking of his own family's sufferings. It's quite possible His Eminence thought he would have made a better Pope or that he should have been Pope given the difficult times the Church was going through.

See 3

Quote
I, personally, have never been set up by masonic agents

But if you were, what would you do? Would you not look for someone you can trust to tell the truth. He should have sought Archbishop Lefebvre and set him straight, told him he was Pope. That's why I think his relationship with the Archbishop is important, but in any case, his relationship with Pope John Paul II, to whom he was clearly devoted, probably more than any of us is, proves he did not regard himself as Pope.
See 4

1. But he never held the papal office, he was elected, the white smoke indicated he accepted and chose his name (assuming it was him elected Oct. 26, 1958 when the white smoke appeared) and there was some kind of threat against him or the church. It seems to me highly impropable that he would freely resign as pope having just acepted without there being some sort of duress.

2.Yes, the interviewer in subsequent articles says that he felt Siri was just using that as an excuse since he had just finished answering several questions about the conclave. Alternatively Siri may have been referring to the seal of the confessional as one of the infiltrators may have confessed to Siri what they had done in order to bind him.

3.Father Khoat met with Siri for extended periods when he went to Genoa in 1988 and confirmed that Siri was the lawful pope. The quote is just a small part of what they discussed, the rest I am not privy to but Fr. Khoat certainly did NOT misinterpret was Siri was saying.

4.If Siri was elected and shoved aside what he should or should not have done is beyond anyone but him to judge. Well, perhaps when more is revealed and a future pope examines the case we can get a judgement but for now the matter remains unresolved. I'll concede that Siri never publically claimed to be the lawful pope which makes for a hard case but other testimony and a great deal of circuмstantial evidence indicate that he was the the legal successor to St. Peter.

roscoe · « **Reply #43 on:** November 28, 2012, 05:16:11 PM »

Like Thurs, I also acknowledge that there are problems with the Siri thesis, but there are Mucho More problems with the alleged 'sede vacantism' or recognising the v2 anti-popes.

Ambrose · « **Reply #44 on:** November 29, 2012, 04:16:43 AM »

Nishant wrote:

Quote

Ambrose, thank you for your admirable summary of the current situation in the Church today, which situation is in many respects deplorable, some aspects of which you mention. But while I do not deny the truth of much of what you relate, I deny that it applies directly to this question.

Do you understand and accept the traditional distinction between the Ecclesia docens and Ecclesia discens and see the bearing it has on this matter? Because the manner in which indefectibility and the visible rule of Faith applies, which is what the theologians allude to in arguing the case for universal acceptance being a guarantor of validity, is based on the same. It is impossible for the whole teaching Church to collectively adhere to and identify a false claimant as Pope, that is why Msgr.Noort speaks of the "ordinary and universal Magisterium", which is the only authority that can make an infallibly true judgment, and this suffices to establish the point.

Now, I agree the acceptance of the Ecclesia discens is not unimportant, but this is only on a secondary level, because, as all concede the Ecclesia discens is bound to accept the judgments of the Ecclesia docens. You yourself say this when you say the one is the rule of Faith for the other.

In summary, then, it suffices to point this out - the Ecclesia discens by its nature is bound to adhere to those judgments of the Ecclesia docens which are infallibly true, and a morally unanimous judgment of the Ecclesia docens that a certain man is Pope is infallibly true, and so the conclusion follows, that the unanimous acceptance of the Ecclesia discens is sufficient to establish that the essential acceptance of the whole Church exists.

Let's take Pope Benedict XVI's election in 2005 or the current status today in 2012. In both cases, it appears to me there is a moral unanimity even under your theory and it alone of who belongs to the teaching Church today, namely a very few Bishops to whom this has passed because of common error or because they were consecrated long ago. Therefore, the notion that we are in an interregnum refutes itself.

Let me know where you disagree. God bless.

Nishant,

Thank your for your response and thoughts. To your points:

1. I agree with the distinction of the theologians, but in this case, the hierarchy is not teaching, it is simply universally recognizing one to be pope. I am not aware of Van Noort stating that it is only the ecclesia docens which recognizes a certain pope.

2. Even if hypothetically your argument is true, I still believe that the remaining bishops of the hierarchy, i.e. those who kept the faith have not peacefully accepted John Paul II and Benedict XVI. By this, I mean that they have not accepted their teaching authority in promulgating new doctrine. It would be impossible for a Catholic to do so.

3. It is very difficult to determine who the bishops were anyway at the time of the elections. We could certainly identify some of them, but not all of them. Archbishop Lefebvre spoke of hundreds of bishops who were quietly on his side (the Catholic side) at the Council, but to this day we do not know who they are.

4. In regards to your statement:

Quote

In summary, then, it suffices to point this out - the Ecclesia discens by its nature is bound to adhere to those judgments of the Ecclesia docens which are infallibly true, and a morally unanimous judgment of the Ecclesia docens that a certain man is Pope is infallibly true, and so the conclusion follows, that the unanimous acceptance of the Ecclesia discens is sufficient to establish that the essential acceptance of the whole Church exists.

I would like to see what you can produce from the theologians on this. You are correct that when the ecclesia docens teaches, the ecclesia dicens must adhere to this teaching, as it is infallible, but I believe you are extending this to the matter of the recognition of the Pope. This is not a matter of the teaching Church. I believe that is the reason the sources you quoted before all spoke of universal acceptance of the Church, not the bishops only.

5. In regards to Benedict's election or today in 2012, you are presuming there is a peaceful acceptance, but I disagree on that point. When Catholics peacefully accept the Pope, they peacefully accept his teaching, his laws, and conversely, they do not refuse to believe him, and reject his laws.

It appears to me that there is a tremendous lack of peaceful acceptance of Benedict among faithful Catholics. Regarding the bishops, those who have kept their faith, have not learned from Benedict, so I would argue that they have not peacefully accepted him, because if they did accept him as their Supreme Teacher, they would have lost the Faith.

Some last points:

1. I believe the Church has not peacefully accepted John Paul II and Benedict.
2. I believe a significant number of Catholics have either rejected their claims or lacked peace about their claim to be pope.
3. I have never spoken to a bishop with jurisdiction, so I cannot be certain of whether or not they have truly accepted the claims of these men peacefully. It is my belief that the remaining bishops have not peacefully accepted his claims.
4. To understand what I mean by the term "peaceful acceptance" I would say look to how the Church accepted Pius XII. They peacefully accepted him as teacher and lawgiver.
5. The lack of peace of acceptance of these men has not been due to any rebellion by certain parts of the Church, it is due to the heresy of the claimants. Catholics have identified the danger of these men, even if they call them Pope, and due to this they reject them in practice even if not in name.