Thursday and Roscoe, I will respond to your points in more depth a little later. As for Fr.Khoat, the trail went cold with him, since I could only find out about him from sede-impedist and conclavist sources for the most part, that I could not independently verify and that often contradicted each other. Anyway, it was a while ago, but if I recall right, I was given to understand first that he has an on-and-off history with the SSPX and independent groups, he did not consistently hold his story all the way through from 1988 to 1990, then he announced and conducted a conclave in 1990, then again different versions of what happened there emerge. Finally, in around 2005-2006, many of his parishioners in Vietnam left him. Is this accurate and is there anything more about him that is relevant that you are aware of?

There is also the fact that Cardinal Siri wrote his letter to Archbishop Lefebvre on June 22, a week or so after Fr.Khoat says His Eminence had told him he was Pope. But the contents of that letter clearly show a Cardinal who still believed Pope John Paul II was the lawful Pope.

Ambrose, ok, sure, magisterium itself of course just means teaching authority, so when we speak of the ordinary and universal magisterium dispersed throughout the world we are speaking of the teaching Church, and this is even explained in the preceding section by the same writer.

Meantime, notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matter in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call “ecclesiastical faith,” the following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held

This shows the acceptance of the ordinary magisterium throughout the world is the essential acceptance of the whole Church, for such a moral unanimity already requires an assent of "eccesiastical faith" from the Ecclesia discens. Immediately after the above, Msgr.Noort continues to give the example I quoted from him in my first post.

Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia on the same,

But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed truths that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His Church.

Catholic theologians are agreed in recognising the general principle that has just been stated, but it cannot be said that they are equally unanimous in regard to the concrete applications of this principle. Yet it is generally held, and may be said to be theologically certain, (a) that what are technically described as "theological conclusions," i.e. inferences deduced from two premises, one of which is revealed and the other verified by reason, fall under the scope of the Church's infallible authority. (b) It is also generally held, and rightly, that questions of dogmatic fact, in regard to which definite certainty is required for the safe custody and interpretation of revealed truth, may be determined infallibly by the Church. Such questions, for example, would be: whether a certain pope is legitimate

1. Now, if we wish to postulate a 50/54 year sede vacante there are only about 20/15 Bishops today in the world consecrated before the appropriate time who are still even candidates for belonging to the Ecclesia docens. See here. Whether you want to judge they do or do not is a judgment that is up to you, but if not, then the teaching Church has defected, which is impossible. If yes, then the teaching Church with moral unanimity says Pope Benedict XVI is Pope, which refutes the notion we are in an interregnum. There is no way around it.

2. But according to John Lane's theory, which attempts to find one, and with which you agree if I recall right, "jurisdiction is supplied in cases of common error" can apply also to certain unknown Bishops, not in the cases where supplied jurisdiction is given for individual acts, as is traditionally taught, but even that these Bishops receive canonical offices and actual ordinary jurisdiction and teaching authority if they are in "common error" as to whether Pope Benedict XVI is Pope! In this way, John Lane says formal Apostolic succession will somehow continue. Now, this is a fascinating theory, and it has fantastic implications, but taking it entirely for granted here, it still only reinforces the conclusion! For all are agreed one Bishop cannot grant an office to another, so the only candidates for Bishops who can receive this are those who believe Pope Benedict XVI is Pope and this once more shows this notion to be directly self-refuting, even showing the conclusion will always hold (unless perhaps if a Bishop with jurisdiction and teaching office breaks away and becomes a sedevacantist, which is yet to happen but which in any case would not disprove the moral unanimity that exists in the present day under this theory even) in future - the Ecclesia docens or ordinary magisterium throughout the world gives an explicit and infallible witness that the Pope is the Pope.

God bless.

Let's look at this scenario, Nishant.

At the 1958 Conclave, the electors picked Cardinal Siri.  Cardinal Siri accepts and takes the name of Gregory XVII.  Some nefarious Masonic Cardinal (Tisserant has been alleged) threatens Cardinal Siri (unbeknownst to the majority of the Cardinal Electors).  Cardinal Siri steps down under duress.  Let's assume that his stepping down was forced and therefore invalid.  Tisserant announces to the broader Conclave that Siri has turned down the election and that they must try again.  They elect Roncalli.

But, due to the subterfuge, the entire conclave accepts Roncalli without question.

Does the acceptances replace the canonical election?  Does it provide a sanatio in radice as it were to the election?  Or is this notion merely an infallible sign that the election must have been valid in the first place?

I'm asking these questions because I'm trying to get my head around this "peaceful acceptance" issue.

And then of course the issue after that will be what constitutes "peaceful acceptance".  Obviously if one crackpot starts questioning his legitimacy, that means nothing.  Is it a numbers thing?  If so, what number does it take?

There is nothing to argue about as the white smoke( which has been retained on film) alone means he was elected & accepted.... :detective:

... by contrast

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: roscoe

There is nothing to argue about as the white smoke( which has been retained on film) alone means he was elected & accepted.... :detective:

Most likely.  It is theoretically possible, however, on its own that there was a mixup in the smoke signals.  But there are too many other data points that seem to confirm that this was the case.  I am convinced that Cardinal Siri was elected in 1958 and that he initially accepted.

I believe he was elected, and since most prelates who get elected do accept the position, I think the person in charge of the smoke jumped the gun and started the smoke, only to learn that he made a mistake, and Siri did not accept the election. It is quite a common mistake for Catholics not to think that a person elected has the option to decline.

Nice try  :whistleblower:

Thanks, Nishant.  I'll get back to this thread later.

Here's my problem with the entire argument.  As you know, the principle that the Church cannot accept an illegitimate pope derives from the overall inerrancy and indefectibility of the Church.  It's a derivative principle.  You are postulating, though, at the very same time, that this entire body of the episcopacy adhered to and accepted the errors of Vatican II.  So the very foundational principle from which it derives is undermined in the very same breath.  We say that these bishops could NOT have acknowledged an illegitimate pope but COULD have accepted a body of erroneous teaching in Vatican II.

Also, on the Msgr. Fenton analysis, you emphasize the part where he distinguishes "religious assent" from the absolute intellectual assent with certainty of faith.  That's a very common mistake among sedevacantists to confuse obsequium religiosum with intellectual assent.  I argued for a long time with LoT and Ambrose about this.

But you don't address the fact that Msgr. Fenton also taught that it's derivative from the overall indefectibility of the Church that the Pope CANNOT teach to the UNIVERSAL CHURCH (e.g. in an Encylical, or what's more, an Ecuмenical Council) anything that would cause harm to souls, either in doctrine or in discipline.

So, now, recall where I pointed out just above that the principle of peaceful acceptance is a principle derivative from the Church's overall indefectibility.  Well, it's ALSO a derivative of the SAME indefectibility that the Pope cannot teach to the Universal Church anything that would cause harm to souls.  So in the same breath in which you are promoting the one derivative principle, you are rejecting the second.  You can't do that.

If I were to become entirely convinced that we must accept the V2 Popes as legitimate based on the principle of peaceful acceptance, then I would have no choice but to cease being a Traditional Catholic.  I could not justify a state of canonical separation from the Holy See.  I would be schismatic to continue on this path.

A sedevacantist like Nado, for example, needs to show that at least one bishop, but probably much more (since we are talking only of moral unanimity of acceptance) who openly contested Pope Paul VI before the end of 1965, otherwise the sedevacantist explanation of the Second Vatican Council is incorrect.

No, there's no one to be found before 1965 who doubted Paul VI.  But there's some evidence that immediately after the 1958 election Catholics were questioning the results.  But in 1965 there was no data available to make a judgment on Paul VI Montini.

By the early- to mid- 1970s you had several bishops, most notably Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer who clearly did not have the certainty of faith regarding the legitimacy of these Popes.  If you wish, I can back this up.  Archbishop Lefebvre tolerated the opinion of sedevacantism, and even at several point mused about whether or not some day they would have to come to the sedevacantist conclusion.  Archbishop Lefebvre at one point famously said, in what came across as a tongue-twister in French, that he did not say that Paul VI was the pope and that he did not say that Paul VI was not the pope.  Sede-doubtist.  Bishop de Castro Mayer also reportedly was uncertain about their legitimacy and tolerated the opinion.  Bishop Tisser has recently speculated that it may be acceptable to hold as a private opinion.  Bishop Williamson also said that it's not impossible that the See is vacant.

Now, the problem here is that as soon as you say that it's POSSIBLE that the See is vacant, you're saying that you do not have the certainty of faith regarding the legitimacy of that pope.  And that's where "Papa dubius, papa nullus." applies.  Only popes that are known to be legitimate with the certainty of faith can really function as popes.

But here's the real kicker.

What basically defines Traditional Catholicism is a RECESSION from these Vatican II popes as a rule of faith.  And the treatises which deal with the peaceful acceptance criterion always say that it's because it would not be possible for all the world's bishops to adhere to a false rule of faith.  In point of fact, the entire Traditional Catholic world has REJECTED the Vatican II popes as rules of faith.  No Traditional Catholic is sitting here awaiting the up-coming encyclical of Francis with an obseqium religiosum a grave presumption of truth regarding its contents.  In fact, most of us fully expect 95% of it to be incompatible with Catholic principles.  EVERY Magisterial Act of the V2 Popes is viewed with suspicion and a presumption of being polluted with modernism by the entire Traditional Catholic world.

So the R&R can flap their gums all you want about how the V2 Popes MUST be legitimate popes, but it's just hollow lip-service.  In no way do R&R have the proper Catholic disposition towards their authentic Magisterium.

And even the non-infallible Magisterium (and discipline) of the Church must be regarded by Catholics as infallibly safe, i.e. that they cannot lead to the ruin of souls.

Consequently, nothing from the Magisterium, once the legitimacy of the a pope has been established a priori with the certainty of faith can possibly justify refusal of juridical / canonical submission to the Popes.

There's no principle in Catholic theology that allows Catholics to set up churches, set up institutions, and confer the Sacraments which require jurisdiction and the power of the keys for validity (e.g. Confession and Matrimony).

If you believe with the certainty of faith that the V2 Popes are legitimate popes, the only Catholic attitude is to come into juridical / canonical submission to them.  Period.  There's nothing else to do.

As I said, R&R flaps their gums about the legitimacy of the V2 popes, will even put up a picture of the current claimant in a vestibule, but in no way, shape, or form are they in submission to these popes.  You DO NOT accept these men as a rule of faith.

And, along the lines of what I wrote earlier, in citing Monsignor Fenton, it's INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEFECTIBILITY of the Church at large to claim that it could ever happen that the Church could have an Ecuмenical Council addressed to the Universal Church and promulgate a form of worship that must be rejected in conscience.  Then the CHURCH WOULD HAVE DEFECTED.  I remind you that the REASON for the "peaceful acceptance" principle comes from the indefectibility of the Church because then the Church could be led into error.  But then HOW has the VERY SAME episcopal body been led into error by submission to the Magisterium when that too is incompatible with the Church's indefectibility.

In the conclave that elected Pope St. Pius X, there was external interference as well.

In the St. Pius X conclave, the interference was canonically sanctioned.  St. Pius X immediately upon election abrogated this veto power, but it was in fact in force during that conclave.  So that's apples and oranges.

Yes, perhaps the saying was "faulty" but I don't think it was meant to be a theological formula ... due to the fact that he was making a tongue-twister out of it.  But the point remains that Archbishop Lefebvre could NOT have said this or anything like this (which in fact he did on many occasions) if he had a certainty of faith regarding their legitimacy.  There's a great article floating around out there detailing Archbishop Lefebvre's attitude towards sedevacantism.  When he mused about the possibility of needing to become sedevacantist, it was from the perspective of the Church's indefectibility.  From what I understand Bishop de Castro Mayer was even MORE sympathetic.  I even heard reports that the two bishops had discussed coming out openly as sedevacantists right around the time of the episcopal consecrations but considered it imprudent or inopportune to do so.

I even had it related to me that a group of sedevacantists went to visit Cardinal Oddi in Rome and that Cardinal Oddi was quite sympathetic to their position and made some comments implying that it could be true.  I was told this by a member of that group.