Author Topic: Universal acceptance of a Pope (Read 24664 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #75 on:** January 18, 2015, 05:04:29 PM »

Quote from: Nishant

I agree indefectibility is a serious consideration that needs to be taken into account by all sides, but where sedevacantists err in this matter is in trying to use indefectibility in reverse, what you have justly syled modus tollens sedevacantism. Now, indefectibility was never meant to be applied in this manner and even the attempt to do so is heterodox.

I agree that one cannot use indefectibility for modus tollens sedevacantism. I believe, however, that it can be used to establish positive doubt regarding the legitimacy of these popes.

Quote

Everything since the Council only requires the obsequium religiosum, and the Society renders this submission to the Roman authorities. The SSPX is not outside the communion of the Church.

I actually agree with you, AGAINST the SVs, that nothing clearly requires more than the obseqium religiosum since Vatican II. But it just doesn't seem as if you're addressing Father Fenton's point. At no point can Magisterium get so corrupted that Catholics must REFUSE submission to the Holy See and to the Magisterium because doing otherwise would cause harm to souls; in other words, nothing from the authentic Magisterium of the Holy See (in particular when it's addressed to the Universal Church) could EVER require the breaking of submission to the Holy See.

You have redefined obsequium religiosum (OR) here into the false lip-service "submission" that SSPX practices. That's NOT what OR means.

Quote

(2) The right to critique the Council on points where it is shrouded in ambiguity or imprecision, which lead to error in practice, with Tradition and prior Magisterial teaching being the judge and criterion.

OR entitles Catholics to respectfully question of the Magisterium through the appropriate channels. Lumen Gentium itself in fact reaffirms this, and this is exactly where +Fellay is going. Where the Vatican has issues is in the open chest-thumping kind of rebellion ("We reject Vatican II.")

Quote

If you are having doubts or scruples about whether the Society and traditional Catholics who support it are in "full communion" with Rome,

There are no doubts or scruples involved, Nishant. SSPX is in open rebellion to and clearly rejects the V2 Magisterium. They conver the Sacraments, including those which require the power of the keys, i.e. jurisdiction, despite not having the jurisdiction to do so. They offer Mass in the diocese of local ordinaries contrary to their wishes. There's NOTHING that would qualify as canonical submission to the Holy See in the SSPX apostolate.

I'll comment more later, but you did not directly address Monsignor Fenton's post head on.

Cantarella · « **Reply #76 on:** January 18, 2015, 06:06:56 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Where the Vatican has issues is in the open chest-thumping kind of rebellion ("We reject Vatican II.")

This is true and the reason why the Saint Benedict Centers, for example, were granted canonical status and are in "full communion" with Rome while the SSPX does not. Because for the "feeneyites" the real issue concerns the literal interpretation of the EENS dogma and NOT Vatican II. There is legitimate Catholic resistance outside the SSPX, there are other anti-Modernist groups that are doing it from the inside.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #77 on:** January 18, 2015, 06:14:24 PM »

The Feeneyites posting here are desperate to prove Sedevacantism wrong, because if the Conciliar popes are not Popes, it means that Fr Feeney is still excommunicated.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #78 on:** January 18, 2015, 07:44:25 PM »

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: awkwardcustomer
The Feeneyites posting here are desperate to prove Sedevacantism wrong, because if the Conciliar popes are not Popes, it means that Fr Feeney is still excommunicated.

This is true in some, or many, cases. Ladislaus points out that some Feeneyites, like the Dimonds, don't care about that.

Sorry Nado, but what the Dimonds care about, or don't care about, or think, or say, is of no interest to me whatsoever.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #79 on:** February 23, 2015, 10:14:33 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

From the pages of the American Ecclesiastical Review, December 1965,

Quote from: AER
Certainty of the Pope's Status

Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church – that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?

Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty ... This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.

But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty – a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty ... This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church's magisterial authority to declare it infallibly. The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church.

Msgr. Gerardus Van Noort explains further some of the principles on which this teaching of the faith is based, applying it to the Supreme Pontiff of his day.

Quote from: Van Noort
“So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter”; similarly (and as a matter of fact if this following point is something “formally revealed,” it will undoubtedly be a dogma of faith) one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: “Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.”

For — skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place — when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession”

St.Alphonsus as well as Cardinal Billot, in treating the case of Pope Alexander VI, in addition to a host of others have also written about the same.

This evidently seems to pose a problem for sedevacantists in our day, who say Pope Benedict XVI is not the Pope, for the notion that we are currently in an interregnum would be self-refuting in light of this, especially considering that a mere moral unanimity suffices to establish the above. This renders sedevacantism rather untenable and what Cardinal Billot says also applies here, "

Quote from: Cardinal Billot
Putting aside here other reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic at least in that sense in which the fact of being a heretic takes away one’s membership in the Church and in consequence deprives one, by the very nature of things, of the pontifical power and of any other ordinary jurisdiction"

That is, that the Pope is at best a material heretic, but not a formal one.

How do sedevacantists who are aware of and accept this Catholic principle deal with its implications to our situation today?

This is really a double-edged sword for the R&R folks. If it is true that Pope Francis and the Conciliar hierarchy constitute the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church then you will have to explain how you can claim that they are proposing harmful liturgical rites and errors and heresies in official Church docuмents which are protected by the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium.

Consider this:

Quote from: Fr. Eugene Sylvester Berry

MAJORITY INFALLIBLE. Since the bishops are infallible in their corporate capacity only, individual bishops may err at any time in regard to faith and morals, but all cannot fall into the same error at the same time. The further question now arises: Can a majority of the bishops fall into error at one and the same time regarding a matter of faith or morals? Or, to state the opposite side of the question: Is the agreement of a majority of the bishops of the world sufficient to establish the infallible truth of a doctrine, or must there be a practically unanimous agreement? It seems most probable that the agreement of a majority is sufficient to insure the truth of any doctrine, for it would certainly be a great evil for the Church if the greater part of her teaching body could fall into error at any time. It is true that in such a crisis the infallible authority of the Roman Pontiff would be sufficient to preserve the faith, but the Catholicity of the Church would be seriously affected, if not destroyed. Besides, it can scarcely be admitted that Christ, in His wisdom would allow such a calamity to befall His Church. But it may be objected that this very thing did happen at the councils of Arimini and Seleucia, in 359, when practically all the bishops of the West and many from the East signed an heretical formula of faith. An examination of the facts show that no defection from the faith really took place. ...

cf. E. Sylvester Berry, STD, The Church of Christ, 1955, p. 267-268

conclavist · « **Reply #80 on:** February 25, 2015, 06:55:01 AM »

Introibo blog did a few posts on why Siri couldn't be pope:
It's black and white, there is no pope in red:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/02/its-black-and-white-there-is-no-pope-in.html
and The One Question Siri Can't Answer:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/02/one-question-siri-cant-answer.html

Some links against the Siri Theory:
Siri Theory: A good example of anti-Scholastic thinking
http://betrayedcatholics.com/wpcms/free-content/reference-links/7-recent-articles/siri-theory-a-good-example-of-anti-scholastic-thinking/

Siri thesis: http://www.geocities.ws/prakashjm45/sirithesis.html

Teresa Benns: Some Thoughts On The Sirian Theory
http://www.geocities.ws/prakashjm45/tsb.sirianism.html

Basically, Siri never renounced the Vatican 2 sect publicly, so we can presume he was not pope as he would be a public heretic (and there have been no cases of papal heresy, as far as I've seen - all alleged cases have been debunked, supposedly, including V2 "popes" who never became pope). Further, St. Alphonsus states that when a candidate is doubtful or a heretic (if this were possible), the cardinals may proceed to elect without the consent of the pope.
See What is Sedevacantism? http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/05Oct/oct13tra.htm

There is basically no reason why a papal line like this should be hidden when submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary to salvation, so I would presume Siri was not pope but maybe that this "theory" was designed to yet again prevent a legitimate conclave. Through rumors and whispers that maybe Siri was the pope, the logic goes: "don't elect a pope, Siri could be one!". The "white smoke" could have been done on purpose, Siri could be in on the whole thing or at least have been controlled by the modernists without his consent or without him knowing what to do. Because he says he was "bound by the secret", that suggests to me there is so malice involved, because if he was secretly pope, he would just get away from the modernists and risk martyrdom setting up a true papacy apart from them. Silence is consent, so Siri would be a strange schismatic pope who was subject to antipopes in competition to him, if he was true pope, because he was around those antipopes without denouncing them.

In short, I hope this theory soon goes away because I don't think it has much merit, though I'm open to discussing it until it's gone.

Pope Michael met Fr. Khoat in the 80s as he heard Khoat was in contact with Siri and that there was some kind of apostolate in exile, and he wanted to be subject to the pope (if there was one) rather than hold an election. He concluded Khoat spoke heresy and was a fraud.
http://popemichael.vaticaninexile.com/?p=553

conclavist · « **Reply #81 on:** February 25, 2015, 07:17:46 AM »

(edit: Interestingly enough, by this principle of universal acceptance, a "Siri successor" might be able to become pope even if he wasn't actually elected and if sedes believed he was and accepted him as pope, right?)

Yeah, Nishant in the original post brings up the point that SSPX HQ tried to. I think the simple solution is that pre-election heretics cannot become pope. They and other SSPX people seem to concede that Francis and other claimants are heretics, but that they are convalidated as popes due to a [near] universal acceptance.

Read #6 and part of #7 in cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/cuмexapo.htm

It says that if any bishop or even pope before their election has fallen into heresy their election shall be null and void even if unanimously uncontested by the cardinals and it cannot acquire validity (be convalidated) by obedience given to such a person. Nor is the election held as partially legitimate in any way. Such "elected" received no authority. Their acts as "pope" have no force and they are deprived of authority without need of declaration. Further, anyone who adheres to such a heretic as superior shall become a heretic himself and and/or a schismatic.

cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio was retained in the 1917 code. It also expresses the general rule of the Church that heretics, since they are not members of the Church, cannot become pope. Popes must be male Catholics above the age of reason.

Moreover, if it is judged that Vatican 2 is heretical, then Vatican 2 "popes" don't have the universal consent of Catholics but [at least material] heretics. The SSPX itself, which correctly rejects Vatican 2 as heretical, also does not fully obey these Vatican 2 "popes", and further testifies by their actions that the V2 "popes" are not popes (even though SSPX confusedly says they are popes).

P.S.We might also see a precedent in the Western Schism where the true pope was the least followed, with the 2 antipopes having larger followings.

P.S.2 Since there isn't universal acceptance of one person as pope among sedes or trads, I am considering the necessity of a new election as I stated in another post.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #82 on:** February 25, 2015, 08:08:58 AM »

Somehow I think that Siri's (past) claims to the papacy outweigh Bawden's. But that's just me. Perhaps 99% here on CI would find in favor of Bawden.

But a Siri thesis would solve your problem, conclavist. Bawden need not resign in order to have a new conclave because Siri would have impeded the See at the time of Bawden's "election".

roscoe · « **Reply #83 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:54:37 AM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

The Feeneyites posting here are desperate to prove Sedevacantism wrong, because if the Conciliar popes are not Popes, it means that Fr Feeney is still excommunicated.

In case you haven't heard, any paperwork claiming that Fr Feeney was called to Rome or ex-communicated because he failed to comply is a Fraud..... :reading:

conclavist · « **Reply #84 on:** February 25, 2015, 07:27:45 PM »

Ladislaus: Yeah, Siri would solve the problem. But really, as I said, Siri was unfortunately an enemy at least materially and I think this "Siri thesis" (like sedeprivationism) needs to go away. It's kind of weird to me that both of those positions are taken seriously but conclavism isn't. It might seem anti-climatic but I'm guessing some kind of conclavism is how Vatican 2 crisis will end, with sedes and conclaves being consolidated into unity or a new election or something. I think that we'll probably be able to achieve this soon. What caused so much divided confusion was the wolves in sheep's clothing (Lefebvre, Thuc) who divided trads further and offered false solutions. Presumably, these people knew better and could have implemented the correct solution to the problem (a conclave) but didn't.

Fr. Saenz y Arriaga tried to organize a run-off cardinal election, but died [suspiciously] before he could. And that would have pretty much been without controversy, because cardinals elect a pope. But after that, now for some reason sedes seem to think it's impossible to elect a pope because there are no cardinals. However, there are writings on what to do to hold an election if all the cardinals died, so I think soon we're going get a handle on things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Siri

Does Cathinfo really like Siri? Siri was supposedly a friend of Lefebvre but condemned Lefebvre's actions. To me, Lefebvre is a contradiction, but it looks like Siri sided with the Modernists over "Tradition": In a biography of Cardinal Siri, Nicla Buonasorte reports that Siri was a friend of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, but disapproved of what the newspaper report on the book called his schismatic undertakings. Up to the last minute he begged him ("on his knees", the Cardinal wrote) not to break from Rome, but finally accepted that excommunication of the dissident bishop was unavoidable. Buonasorte commented: "In all probability, it is due to Siri that Lefebvre had no significant following in Italy" [8]

Siri did not support sedes: Siri entirely submitted to the authority of the popes and remained in full communion with the Church, refusing to support any sedevacantist organization. One small sedevacantist group, centered in Houston, Texas still claims him to have been the actual pope, despite Siri's own silence as to this claim. This small group, known as "Sirianists", have yet to offer any reasonable explanation[10] for the fact that Siri failed to support the sedevacantist movement, that he recognized John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II as legitimate popes, that despite his conservatism he celebrated the Mass [sic] according to the reformed 1970 Roman Missal and the other revised sacraments, and that he signed all of the docuмents of the Second Vatican Council. ... To explain Siri's silence as to what happened in the conclaves, supporters of the Siri Thesis have suggested that Siri was silenced by the conspirators' use of the Seal of the Confessional,[12] a method of silencing prelates suggested in other literature.

Comment: As Siri was a cardinal, I think it's only fair to hold him to a high standard of Catholic integrity, and his failure to clearly break with the novus ordo is culpable guilt which should prevent any sede from recognizing him as having been pope, or anyone elected along his line. Silence is also consent and is no defense. And Siri was not silent, but by his actions was a Modernist, and as stated above sided with the Modernists over Lefebvre.

The only thing I could think of was that as a true cardinal he might have been able to vote for someone to create a pope, but again all of this is such speculation without any evidence. Some say Vacantis Apostolica Sedis would bar him from being excommunicated and still allow him to vote, but I don't believe V.A.S. applies to heretics.

I wonder if we could track down who started these rumors that Siri was pope; I wouldn't be surprised if the Modernists themselves started the whispers and planted that false white smoke in 1958. Someone said the FBI reported Siri was elected pope: aren't conclaves supposed to be secret though, so how'd they get knowledge of it? Also, can this source be trusted or might they have spread disinformation or been misinformed? Can someone else meet Fr. Khoat and try to cross-confirm pope Michael's statements that he is a fraud? If some sedes really think this is a credible theory, is someone willing to go expose it and at least eliminate this question or find a true pope in exile?

Let's get a grip on these positions and theories. We know they can't all be right. Let's start eliminating them systematically.

roscoe · « **Reply #85 on:** February 25, 2015, 08:27:10 PM »

Are you sure you want to refer to the known favorite of Pius XII as at least a material enemy.

There are many others here who dismiss a Pope Gregory but nothing will change the fact that his election was(is) legal & a name was taken.

Only a future Council with the placet of a real Pope can change it.

The fantasy that someone could have ' planted the false white smoke" has been discredited long ago. :detective:

roscoe · « **Reply #86 on:** February 25, 2015, 09:30:49 PM »

It is only typical that Wikipedia would attempt to debunk the true results of Oct 26 or even the additional evidence that Siri may have been elected in '63 & '78 as well. :reporter:

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #87 on:** February 25, 2015, 10:12:36 PM »

Not a good idea to use Wikipedia as a source.

from Wikipedia:

Quote

Who writes Wikipedia?
You do. Yes, anyone can be bold and edit an existing article or create a new one, and volunteers do not need to have any formal training. The people who create and edit articles in Wikipedia come from countries all around the world, and have a wide range of ages and backgrounds. Any contributor to this encyclopedia, unregistered and registered alike, is called a "Wikipedian", or, more formally, an "editor".

poche · « **Reply #88 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:48:52 PM »

Matthew says "Christ founded a visible Church with a priesthood, with a hierarchy and Pope at the head."

conclavist · « **Reply #89 on:** February 26, 2015, 07:13:59 PM »

PerEvangelicaDicta: Wikipedia itself isn't a source, but it does cite actual sources, so it is a useful shorthand.

roscoe: Pius XII also made Roncalli a cardinal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XXIII). He also instituted the Holy Week changes. Siri/Roncalli: wolves in sheep's clothing?

The Siri thesis seems like another recognize-and-resist position, as Siri totally accepted Vatican 2 publicly. So if one believes Vatican 2 was heretical (as is the common agreement among SSPX/sedes/conclavists on here, right?), then Siri was a heretic. Hence, this is just like how a bunch of people say "Benedict XVI" was a "friend of tradition" but "his hands were tied". I wonder what would have happened if Siri came out publicly as pope and in favor of Vatican 2.

I'm wondering if we might be able to show that Siri was a pre-election heretic and ineligible to be elected.