Mr. Conclavist, I don't know if you've read the original text of Cardinal Billot I cited earlier - your opinion is very common among modern sedevacantists, but it is mistaken and exactly backward, universal acceptance proves infallibly that a certain claimant fulfils all the conditions necessary for the validity of the election, in other words it proves that the Pope is not a public and formal heretic, and at most in material error without public pertinacity.

“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis (of a Pope heretic), at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions ... For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one. Therefore he was not a heretic ...

Pope Alexander VI was accused both of heresy and simony. Convalidation would only apply to the simony, but the fact of universal acceptance proves all the required conditions even in the internal forum are satisfied, in other words, it proves the Pope is the Pope, and so not a heretic. This is the unanimous teaching of all theologians. Wernz-Vidal say that universal acceptance is " a sign and infallible effect of a valid election."

After a Pope has been validly elected, you have to prove pertinacity in heresy which is required for loss of office - the bishops and Cardinals can declare sede vacante, after they are satisfied the Pope has become a public and formal heretic. For the sin and crime of heresy alone, the Pope can be declared to have been deposed, and lost his office. Notice that when it happens that a Pope has fallen into error, and then is contested by Cardinals and Bishops, the Pope is no longer universally accepted by the hierarchy, and therefore he can lose his office. After this, a new Pope can be elected by the Cardinals or Roman clergy.

For the person who, admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church ... Therefore the Pontiff who after such a solemn and public warning by the Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod, maintained himself hardened in heresy and openly turned himself away from the Church, would have to be avoided, according to the precept of Saint Paul. So that he might not cause damage to the rest, he would have to have his heresy and contumacy publicly proclaimed, so that all might be able to be equally on guard in relation to him. Thus, the sentence which he had pronounced against himself would be made known to all the Church

Pope John XXII never lost his office even though he publicly fell into material heresy, which is not heresy properly so called, but only error and does not make a man a true heretic nor cause the loss of the Papal office, because pertinacity is what gives heresy its form and is essential to the effect.

Every Catholic who examines this issue has to ask himself two questions - where is the hierarchy having succession from the Apostles today, which includes both orders and jurisdiction? Second, do the remaining valid bishops with jurisdiction who are not heretics, at this moment of time, recognize the Pope? If the answer is yes, that is an infallible proof that the Pope, at this moment, is still truly the Pope, and consequently is not a heretic in the true sense. He can, of course, become a true heretic with manifest pertinacity in the future, and after that time declared by the Church to be outside Her. Personally, I think it is important for traditional Catholics to say frankly and openly that the Pope can be deposed for heresy by the Church - the Cardinals and Bishops - if he becomes a notorious and contumacious heretic, as St. Alphonsus puts it.

Clemens Maria, the opinion that the majority of the episcopate cannot fall into error is only a pious opinion, not an absolute certitude. It is, however, certain that the entire episcopate cannot cease to exist, as you agree, and this suffices for the point that it is necessary to (1) recognize the Pope, which is all that is treated on this thread. On another thread, like the running one on episcopal consecrations, we can discuss the (2) extent to which a Pope can be resisted, and also the manner in which the new rites are harmful, namely that they do not profess the Faith in its integrity, and consequently cause a loss of numerous graces compared to the traditional form, even though they are not per se invalid or explicitly formulate any heresy, which the teaching of theologians does not in any way preclude. We will see the other reasons to be skeptical of the new rites there. Suffice here to say, that in practice, Quo Primum grants all priests the right to celebrate exclusively the true Mass, that this right was re-affirmed by a commission of nine Cardinals in 1986, is explicitly stated in Summorum Pontificuм, and that last docuмent also states all other traditional Sacramental rites may also freely be used.

The case of Boniface is much worse than Alex VI. It is debatable whether the latter is even guilty.  Some future Pope may declare Boniface an anti-pope like Pius X did with Boniface 6 & 7.  :whistleblower:

In this topic, Ambrose has perfectly demonstrated that Wojtyla and Ratzinger have not been accepted by the universal Church - on the contrary, he has well understood that John XXIII and Paul VI have been acknowledged. Now, he did not wonder why there was such a difference...

To the best of my knowledge, there are basicly only three things which can prevent the elected man from being accepted by the universal Church: he is not an able person (not baptized, a woman, a notorious heretic...), or a legitimate pope is still alive. Well, since we know that Wojtyla was not really a notorious heretic nor an unfit person, the reason why he was not accepted is that Pope Paul VI was still in life, as I have demonstrated in my books.

Firstly Vatican II was not infallible, secondly the Novus Ordo has not been promulgated by Paul VI, I have already answered to that.

As for Cardinal Siri, the mere fact that John XXIII and Paul VI have been accepted by the universal Church proves that he has not been elected, because the canonical election of a pope prevents the pacific acceptance of another person.

"But all of this is beside the main point, which is that people like Nishant argue that a pope is necessary for the concrete existence of the Church, all the while utterly refusing to share the religion of the concrete "pope" of which they purport to establish the necessity. Hence, they have a purely abstract relation to their concrete pope, whilst getting all hot and bothered by sedevacantists who insist on a perfectly concrete papacy to which all Catholics are bound to have a real and permanent relation - and that relation being perfect subjection."

Hey Nishant, do you still go to the Novus Ordo Mess?  :shocked:

 !

Fr. Cekada has specifically addressed many of the concerns of those who refuse to consider the sedevacantist position based on the Church's visibility and indefectibility.

http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Where-was-the-latest-Fr-Cekada-video-filmed

You don't have to watch the whole thing (43+ minutes).  The section where he covers these concerns begins at the 35 minute mark ("Pope By Default").  He covers universal acceptance starting at about 37:18 mark.

Yes, his argument can be summed up as, "Well, sedevacantists reject these popes.  And what are we, chopped liver?"  I guess it becomes a question of how one defines "universal".

There are much better arguments than this.

I wish Fr. Cekada had spent a little more time on this topic.  I think Nishant would say, yes, for all intents and purposes priests and laity as well as all who do not possess ordinary jurisdiction whether SV or not are chopped liver when it comes to the concept of universal acceptance.  Only the ordinaries matter.  But you would be hard pressed to find an ordinary that doesn't publicly preach one heresy or another.