Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Nishant on November 22, 2012, 02:55:34 PM

Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Nishant on November 22, 2012, 02:55:34 PM
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?
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe on November 22, 2012, 05:18:18 PM
There is no such thing as a 'sede vacantist'.

The historical evidence is compelling that Gregory XVII( true deciple of Rampolla, Pius X, Card Del Val, and Pius XII-- who named him as his preferred successor) was legally elected Pope in 1958 and was just that until he died in 1989.

IF there is a state of sede vacante, it has only been since then.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe on November 22, 2012, 06:50:45 PM
Quote from: roscoe
There is no such thing as a 'sede vacantist'.

The historical evidence is compelling that Gregory XVII( true deciple of Rampolla, Pius X, Card Del Val, and Pius XII-- who named him as his preferred successor) was legally elected Pope in 1958 and was just that until he died in 1989.

IF there is a state of sede vacante, it has only been since then.


It might be that Card Pintonello was elected in 1990. If so, the state of sede vacante would be even less.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ambrose on November 22, 2012, 09:36:42 PM
Nishant,

I suppose the first thing that needs to be established is which Vatican II "pope" we are discussing.  I believe a very strong case could be made that John Paul II and Benedict certainly lacked a peaceful acceptance.  There has been nothing but turmoil in the Church from the time that they were elected, and a very significant portion of Catholics have during their entire "pontificate" ever submitted to them.

I think a key point here is that when one accepts the pope, then one obeys the pope and learns from the pope.  I would argue that the SSPX has never accepted the papal claims of these men, as they have not treated them as popes.  They have ignored their teachings and laws and have acted in practice as though they do not exist.  This is not a peaceful acceptance of a pope.

Now, with Paul VI, I also believe that despite Catholics referring to him as "pope," Catholics were actively resisting him in matters of Faith.  If Catholics had peacefully accepted his claim, then there would have been no turmoil about settled doctrine at Vatican II.  As in the case of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Catholics were clearly treating Paul VI with skepticism about his papal claim while calling him "pope."

On the point of John XXIII, I will not try to argue that one.  

I think this really comes down to this:  Do you believe peaceful acceptance of the Pope is accepting him as a figurehead who can be ignored, with no power to rule over Catholics, or is acceptance of the Pope actually accepting him as the head of the Church, the Supreme Teacher and Lawgiver, St. Peter's successor?


Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Laval on November 22, 2012, 11:40:11 PM
Quote from: roscoe
Quote from: roscoe
There is no such thing as a 'sede vacantist'.

The historical evidence is compelling that Gregory XVII( true deciple of Rampolla, Pius X, Card Del Val, and Pius XII-- who named him as his preferred successor) was legally elected Pope in 1958 and was just that until he died in 1989.

IF there is a state of sede vacante, it has only been since then.


It might be that Card Pintonello was elected in 1990. If so, the state of sede vacante would be even less.


Even if the sede vacante is thereby limited, it does not seem to negate the near-universal acceptance of John XXIII - Benedict XVI as popes. If universal acceptance is the sufficient condition, then it excludes the possibility of other secret popes.

On another note - where is this historical evidence you find so compelling - beyond mere speculation, that is?  
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Laval on November 22, 2012, 11:45:45 PM
Ambrose, I think Nishant's quotations do not have anything to do with 'peaceful' acceptance, non-turmoil in a papacy, willingness of Catholics to adhere to a pope's teaching etc. It simply speaks of [/b]mere acceptance. That is, Catholics universally accept a person to be the Pope.  
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Telesphorus on November 23, 2012, 12:14:06 AM
Quote from: Laval
Ambrose, I think Nishant's quotations do not have anything to do with 'peaceful' acceptance, non-turmoil in a papacy, willingness of Catholics to adhere to a pope's teaching etc. It simply speaks of [/b]mere acceptance. That is, Catholics universally accept a person to be the Pope.  


No, they don't, and haven't, otherwise these discussions would not be taking place.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ambrose on November 23, 2012, 01:24:39 AM
This from John Daly, posted on the Bellarmine Forums May 26, 2006.  This is directly relevant to the current discussion:

Quote
Hello and welcome Matt! You have asked several interesting questions and I should like to tackle just one of them, when you say “Cardinal Billot and other theologians speak about the fact that universal adherence to a certain man as pope results in an infallible fact that the the man is indeed, pope. Firstly, does such a teaching contradict Cum ex Apostolatus or are we dealing with apples and oranges? Secondly and more importantly, how can one deny that the world has acknowledged the papacy in Benedict XVI and his four predecessors?”

It happens that I had a correspondence a short time ago with an enquirer on the same topic and I am pasting in below the exchange to speak for itself. I am “JD” and my enquirer is “MM”.

JD Yes, if the universal Church with moral unanimity peacefully accept a man as legitimate pope, he must indeed be a legitimate pope. The reason for this is that the pope is the proximate rule of faith. The faithful accept the pope's doctrinal teaching and if the whole Church accepted a false rule of faith, Christ would be exposing His Church to error, which cannot happen.

Thus far I think we are agreed. But notice that, so far are we from peaceful unanimity that in fact practically no-one accepted/accepts Paul VI, John-Paul II or Benedict XVI as his rule of faith! Millions of "fans" went to JP2 rallies where they shrieked ecstatically at his utterances, but as for actually accepting that contraception is necessarily a deadly sin, for instance, hardly anyone did! If JP2 was your rule of faith you had to be against contraception, for religious liberty, against women priests (as theologically impossible) but for the doctrine that Christ is irrevocably united with all men. How many people considered him as pope in that sense? Not the Modernists - they thought him conservative. Not the traditionalists. Anyone?

On the other hand the whole principle on which Billot, St Alphonsus and John of St Thomas base this doctrine is in flat contradiction with the SSPX position. The theologians say that the unanimous recognition of a man as pope proves that he is pope because otherwise the Church would have accepted a false living rule of faith and would be led into error against faith and morals, which is impossible. But the SSPX position actually denies the premise! They cheerfully hold that the pope is not necessarily the proximate rule of faith and that the Church can be and has been led into error by the Vicars of Christ. They are very badly placed to invoke this doctrine against sedevacantists!

[To this I received the following reply with my answers interspersed]

MM In your e-mail you mentioned that JP2's followers who "accepted" him as pope rejected the notion that contraception is a deadly sin. But if that's the case, wouldn't those "Catholics" be outside the Church, therefore making their acceptance of him or not a moot point?

JD Denial of the Church's teaching condemning contraception is not usually considered enough to exclude one from membership of the Church. But supposing it were, you are effectively excluding over 90% of those who constitute the quasi-unanimous consensus recognising the V2 popes. Add those who deny other doctrines - Hell, impossibility of women priests, etc and you reach 95%. Where has your consensus gone? And what kind of a Church is it 95% of whose apparently recognised followers are not even members of her? Certainly not one whose remaining <5% can constitute the peaceful unanimous consensus referred to by John of St Thomas, Billot, St Alphonsus etc. It must after all be extremely uncomfortable giving the "sign of peace" to non-Catholics and elbowing them at the communion-rail (I mean in the cookie-queue) while knowing that they are recognised as Catholics by the Vicar of Christ. Hesitant recognition of a man as a valid though disastrous leader, not to be trusted, during a very grave and manifest crisis of which he is denying the existence...that is not what the theologians mean by peaceful and unanimous recognition.

MM Could it not be said then that those "neo-Catholics" who accept the entire moral teaching of the Church and accept V2 in good faith be the ones who matter as far as universally recognizing a man as pope?

JD To my mind that involves so much adjustment of the Billot doctrine that the result is no more than a private opinion. The neo-Church recognises all the neo-Catholics as her members irrespective of their adhesion to Catholic doctrine. If the consensus is composed by the tiny percentage for whom the teaching of the Catholic Church is the rule of faith and the V2 popes are their proximate rule of faith, it has become invisible and unverifiable.

MM However, does it even matter if in actuality they accept JP2's teachings as long as they recognize in him the papacy (this is only as far as Billot's position is concerned; I'm under the impression that he teaches that what's important is that the man is recognized as pope by Church Universal, and that whether or not they assent to his teachings is irrelevant to this one very particular issue)?

JD No. This is wrong. I tried to make this point clear last time but I probably didn't do a very good job of expressing it. May I ask you to read very attentively the following rather complicated sentence: the reason and the proof of the theologians' teaching that peaceful and unanimous recognition of a man as pope demonstrates him to be truly pope is that the pope is 1. the living rule of faith of the Church's members and 2. infallible, and if the Church adhered unanimously to a non-pope, i.e. a non-infallible rule of faith, she would be liable to be led into error in faith which is impossible. Got that?
Right. Well as you can see, calling a man pope while not recognising him as one's rule of faith simply doesn't have this effect. The teaching of cardinal Billot, John of St Thomas and others on this subject is not a direct teaching of the Church. It is a theological inference made for excellent reasons by theologians and which it would be foolish and rash to disagree with. But this reasoning is based entirely on the fact that Catholics necessarily adhere to the doctrinal teaching of the man they consider to be pope. If the Catholic faith did not in fact require this adherence, the argument would not work and the theologians would never have made the deduction that unanimous recognition is proof of papal legitimacy. It would be a non sequitur.

It would also be a non sequitur if it were possible for the whole Church to err in the faith as a consequence of adhering to the teaching of a true pope. Unanimous adherence to a fallible usurper would not, in that case, be incompatible in itself or in any of its consequences with Catholic doctrine. Claro?

And it would also be a non sequitur for a third reason if the adherence Catholics owe and give to papal teaching were something rare and limited to extraordinary acts like the proclamation of a dogma such as the Assumption. For in that case most popes would not in fact lead the Church to believe anything and if they taught grave and habitual error by their ordinary Magisterium this would not necessarily mean that the Church would follow them.

If you have understood the foregoing you will see that the adherence to the V2 popes of men who did not acknowledge in them their proximate rule of faith has no relevance at all to the principle of recognising papal legitimacy by unanimous peaceful adherence. You will also observe that Billot and the other theologians who use this argument would simply not recognise as the Catholic Church an institution whose members did not have this habitual disposition to recognise papal teaching as their rule of belief.

You will also see that it is the position of non-sedevacantist traditionalists that conflicts with the Billot doctrine, for they consider it possible and even necessary in our days to adhere to a man as pope while not adhering to his doctrinal teaching as their proximate rule of faith - the very point of dogmatic certainty which Billot and the others take as the logical point of departure of their reasoning. For the SSPX to use the Billot argument would involve self-contradiction. They deny the premise (which belongs directly to Catholic doctrine) and cannot therefore reproach sedevacantists with not accepting the conclusion (which doesn't belong directly to Catholic doctrine but which we do accept anyhow).

Ave Maria!

John DALY
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ecclesia Militans on November 23, 2012, 07:01:46 AM
Quote from: roscoe
There is no such thing as a 'sede vacantist'.

The historical evidence is compelling that Gregory XVII( true deciple of Rampolla, Pius X, Card Del Val, and Pius XII-- who named him as his preferred successor) was legally elected Pope in 1958....

IF there is a state of sede vacante, it has only been since then.


Even if this is true, Cardinal Siri renounced his claim to the throne by going along with the revolution.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: TKGS on November 23, 2012, 07:43:07 AM
A while back, John Lane wrote a series of articles for The Four Marks entitled, "The Church Crucified".  In them, he commented on this precise article from the American Ecclesiastical Review.

Quote
   On December 7, 1965 the most controversial of all the documents of Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanæ, was promulgated by Paul VI.  In that very same month, an arresting question was raised at the American Ecclesiastical Review.  “What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church?”   Rev. Francis J. Connell, CSSR, the theologian who responded, gave the standard answer from the theology manuals, as one would expect.  But this was a case in which the answer was not the point of interest—the question was.

   The same question has been popping up, with greater and greater frequency and with increasing insistence, ever since.

   We must understand why this is so.  To explain the phenomenon of persistent and spontaneous sedevacantism since the Council, it will not suffice to accuse Paul VI of being a heretic or even of teaching heresy and error as pope, both on his own and as president of a General Council.  The cause was not that direct.  The problem was bigger that Paul VI.  It was larger in scope and it was deeper in its implications, and it was sending shockwaves through the Church, precisely because it was an ecclesiological  problem.  Frank Sheed, prolific author and principal of one of the world’s largest Catholic publishing houses, Sheed & Ward, gave expression to the general consternation of the Faithful in the title of a book he wrote immediately after the close of the Council.  It was entitled, Is It the Same Church?

   From the beginning of the crisis the “ecclesiological problem” has been alive in the minds of thinking traditionalists, and it has never disappeared.  As Joseph Ratzinger observed in Chile in 1988, “All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people.”   Thus he echoed Frank Sheed, whose book appeared in 1968, and of course, Archbishop Lefebvre, who in 1976 famously declared, “We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong.  That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been.  It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institu-tions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive….  The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical.  This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic.  To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate them-selves from the Catholic Church….”


Indeed, the fact that the sedevacantist question won't go away is not simply an irrelevancy nor is it simply because people are just too stupid to understand the modern situation.  

Additionally, through the 1960s there were numerous articles in secular American periodicals (e.g., Life, Look, Time, and others) that clearly and unequivocally highlighted dissention in the Church.  The Conciliar popes and the Conciliar changes were most definitely not peacefully accepted throughout the Church at the time.  Anyone who claims that they were is engaging in wishful thinking and nostalgia at best, or revisionist history at worst.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Nishant on November 23, 2012, 09:19:07 AM
Ok, excellent.

It's always interesting to read the rather ingenious theories both John Lane and John Daly try to come up with to save sedevacantism, both in trying to blunt the force of the argument and in trying to turn it on SSPXers and non-sedevacantists! It's a good attempt, but I think it falls short.

Against these, though, two points may be noted, which are both alike easily proved from authority.

First, that universal consent given to such and such a person as head of the universal Church and the one to whom supreme jurisdiction has passed in act is not something more or less imperceptible or requires great delay to be certain of but is in fact immediately recognizable as such.

Here is Msgr.Journet describing the same, referencing John of St.Thomas,

Quote
But the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect as to a head to whom it submits is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled. )

Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest (cf. John of St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 2, a. 2, nos. 1, 15, 28, 34, 40; pp. 228 et seq. ).


A simple nominal acceptance of his person as Pope, say in one's letters and speeches, or in one's private and public prayers for Pope Benedict XVI as Pope is enough for the same.

The second point, which it appears to me is even more devastating, is that this is a truth primarily received on magisterial authority - that is, it is declared by a moral unanimity among those bishops who belong to the episcopal college and have a teaching office in the Church. This is also mentioned in both the AER article and by Monsignor Noort when it is said for instance "The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact" in the former and "the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession” in the latter, to which declaration of the ordinary and universal magisterium dispersed throughout the world we give an assent of faith as to something infallibly true called ecclesiastical faith.

That's why I think the notion that we are in an interregnum is self-refuting - for assuming we were in one, then such a universal consent among Bishops that this individual - Benedict XVI - is the Pope would suffice to actually pass on to him the supreme jurisdiction by such an universal acceptance, and also to show infallibly that "all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled".
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: brotherfrancis75 on November 23, 2012, 03:17:10 PM
Quote from: Telesphorus
Quote from: Laval
Ambrose, I think Nishant's quotations do not have anything to do with 'peaceful' acceptance, non-turmoil in a papacy, willingness of Catholics to adhere to a pope's teaching etc. It simply speaks of [/b]mere acceptance. That is, Catholics universally accept a person to be the Pope.  


No, they don't, and haven't, otherwise these discussions would not be taking place.

Well said, Tele.  Well said!

There is an "elephant in the parlour" in this discussion.  We have the dangerous falsehood of (to quote the Maritainist heretic Charles Journet) "the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church" of V2 and the Novus Ordo apostasy.  That is false history and something that has never happened.

This claim of a peaceful consensus in support of the Novus Ordo is something that never occurred in any real time Catholic history.  It took two world wars and the massive violent intervention of Khruschev's K.G.B. (with collaboration by the C.I.A and M-16 Secret Police forces) to brutally bludgeon the Catholics into submission to the Novus Ordo apostasy and that does not fit any description of an alleged "peaceful acceptance" of anything by the Catholics.

There were savage persecutions of Catholics (such as Padre Pio) under John XXIII while Paul VI persecuted the Catholic bishops mercilessly.  Again, that does not in any way fit the Neo-Liberal's fantasy world of a "peaceful acceptance" among Catholics of V2 and the Novus Ordo or its General Apostasy against the faith.  

This Modernist false version of history also presumes that our present time is one of a general peaceful acceptance by Catholics of the status quo.  Again, false!  For example, at present there is a most violent Reign of Terror throughout Europe and South America against the Catholics.  In the U.S the small Catholic minority is much too terrified and intimidated to present the existing Marxist authorities with much need to conduct a Reign of Terror, but even here the savage persecution of non-Zionist dissenters is not far to seek.  (For example, not even a famous Jew dissenter like Norman Finkelstein can stay in a rental apartment in New York to keep a roof over his head.  That indicates persecution on the grand scale.)

There is no "peaceful acceptance" of the Novus Ordo!!  None whatsoever.  Brothers Roscoe and Diego are at least on the right path concerning this.  Cardinal Siri and the Patriarch of Venice fought tooth and nail against the apostasy of Anti-pope Paul VI and finally defeated Paul VI when the Patriarch of Venice became Pope John Paul I in 1978.  The fact that the Modernists had to murder Pope John Paul I so quickly to prevent the Restoration of the Church from happening then is an indication of how strong the Resistance against the Modernists of V2 was among Catholics throughout the 60s and 70s.

The reason so few publicly opposed V2 was the use of terror methods like assassinations, widespread house-arrests, economic ostracism, bribery, blackmail and other such violent techniques on a massive scale to prevent Catholics from going public against V2 and Paul VI.  Men like Cardinal Siri and Pope John Paul I were not cowards but fought against the Modernists as much as the vicious persecutions of those days would let them.  

Today Catholics are being subjected to savage persecutions throughout the Western World, especially in Europe and South America.  Most actual non-apostate American Catholics are frightened to death of the Jewish psychopaths and their Modernist underlings.  This is emphatically not "the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church" that only exists in some Catholic's (or perhaps Neo-Catholic's) lively imaginations.

For the timid souls among us the relevant quote must be:

"If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our temple and our nation."  (John 11:48)

But, as we know, the Romans always come anyway!  The hypocrites and cowards are wrong because God is not mocked and in the end the "angels" of His vengeance always "come and destroy" His enemies, usually with devastating effect.  We can not hide from God and it is always best not even to try such a foolish thing.

In truth it is always much safer to be with Him than against Him.  We should forget about the Novus Ordo.  It is not long for this world.

 




Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: stevusmagnus on November 23, 2012, 03:20:40 PM
Quote from: Van Noort
...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”


This is the position that ABL held. I can't remember where I read it.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: stevusmagnus on November 23, 2012, 03:22:33 PM
Brother,

How was JPI possibly going to restore the Church? He was a liberal just like Paul VI and JPII.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: stevusmagnus on November 23, 2012, 03:25:59 PM
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en//blog-sacri-palazzi-en/detail/articolo/lefebvre-luciani-17653/

Quote
In his homily, Pope Luciani linked the two cases saying: “My brothers, I was a fraternal friend of Franzoni’s and we were on familiar terms; I have heard Lefebvre speak in the Council on many occasions. I am certain that years ago both of them fully accepted the Council’s following words: “by virtue of office and as vicar of Christ, has full, supreme and universal authority, which can be exercised always and everywhere.” How come both Franzoni and Lefebvre now expressly reject these words? To me this is an unexplainable tragedy… Or perhaps “the explanation lies in the conclusion itself, which Paul Bourget gave in his novel Le demon du midi: “We must live according to what we think, otherwise we end up thinking according to how we live”… We may also face this risk…The Lord, however, wants us to obey the hierarchy.” These words are as true today as they were yesterday.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on November 23, 2012, 03:41:42 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Brother,

How was JPI possibly going to restore the Church? He was a liberal just like Paul VI and JPII.


I'm guessing that brotherfrancis is refering to the notion that John Paul I supposedly wanted to get rid of people in the Church whom he knew were Masons, which led to the Masons murdering him.

I believe that to be quite possible, though I don't think the Church would have been restored because he was not against the changes made by Vatican.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Nishant on November 23, 2012, 04:37:40 PM
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 documented 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.

2. Pope John Paul I, for one thing, took the name of the two Popes who preceded him and as others have said, his many statements also make clear his thinking.

3. Lastly, coming to St.Padre Pio, this worthy son of St.Francis for that matter believed Pope Paul VI was the Pope and wrote a letter to him to that effect.

Stevus, as a matter of fact, it was a discussion of Archbishop Lefebvre's views that began this thread. Here is the Archbishop,

Quote
Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of ages, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves, render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on November 23, 2012, 05:59:56 PM
Quote from: Nishant
Lastly, coming to St.Padre Pio, this worthy son of St.Francis for that matter believed Pope Paul VI was the Pope and wrote a letter to him to that effect.


Nishant, I have previously posted something that shows the "letter" Padre Pio wrote to Paul VI isn't credible. Here's what someone else had to say:

Quote
Another set of dubious quotes attributed to Padre Pio are quotes which praise the Second Vatican Council and the encyclical letter Humanae Vitae of Paul VI, which endorsed contraception in the form of Natural Family Planning (for more information, see: Natural Family Planning is Contraception). These dubious quotes come from a Letter to Paul VI which is purported to be written by Padre Pio. There are two versions of the letter. The first version, translated from L'Osservatore Romano, is as follows:


Quote
"Your Holiness:


Availing myself of Your Holiness' meeting with the Capitular Fathers, I unite myself in spirit with my Brothers, and in a spirit of faith, love and obedience to the greatness of Him whom you represent on earth, offer my respectful homage to Your August Person, humbly kneeling at Your feet.


The Capuchin Order has always been among the first in their love, fidelity and reverence for the Holy See. I pray the Lord that its members remain ever thus, continuing their tradition of seriousness and religious asceticism evangelical poverty, faithful observance of the Rule and Constitutions, renewing themselves in vigorous living and deep interior spirit—always ready, at the least gesture from Your Holiness, to go forward at once to assist the Church in her needs.


I know that Your heart suffers much these days on account of the happenings in the Church: for peace in the world, for the great needs of its peoples; but above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the lofty teachings which You, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, have given us. I offer Your Holiness my daily prayers and sufferings, the insignificant but sincere offering of the least of your sons, asking the Lord to comfort you with His grace to continue along the direct yet often burdensome way—in defense of those eternal truths which can never change with the times.


In the name of my spiritual sons and of the "Praying Groups" I thank Your Holiness for the clear and decisive words You have spoken in the recent encyclical, "Humanae Vitae", and I reaffirm my own faith and my unconditional obedience to Your inspired directives.


May God grant truth to triumph, and, may pence be given to His Church, tranquility to the people of the earth, and health and prosperity to Your Holiness, so that when these disturbing clouds pass over, the Reign of God may triumph in all hearts, through the Apostolic Works of the Supreme Shepherd of all Christians.


Prostrate at Your feet, I beg you to bless me, my Brothers in religion, my spiritual sons, the "Praying Groups", all the sick—that we may faithfully fulfill the good works done in the Name of Jesus and under your protection.


Your Holiness' most humble servant,


Padre Pio, Capuchin


San Giovanni Rotondo, 12th September, 1968."


Quote
The second version, which differs from the first one, seems to be an EWTN translation. It is as follows:


Quote
"Your Holiness,


I unite myself with my brothers and present at your feet my affectionate respect, all my devotion to your august person in an act of faith, love and obedience to the dignity of him whom you are representing on this earth. The Capuchin Order has always been in the first line in love, fidelity, obedience and devotion to the Holy See; I pray to God that it may remain thus and continue in its tradition of religious seriousness and austerity, evangelical poverty and faithful observance of the Rule and Constitution, certainly renewing itself in the vitality and in the inner spirit, according to the guides of the Second Vatican Council, in order to be always ready to attend to the necessities of Mother Church under the rule of your Holiness.


I know that your heart is suffering much these days in the interest of the Church, for the peace of the world, for the innumerable necessities of the people of the world, but above all, for the lack of obedience of some, even Catholics, to the high teaching that you, assisted by the Holy Spirit and in the name of God, are giving us. I offer you my prayers and daily sufferings as a small but sincere contribution on the part of the least of your sons in order that God may give you comfort with his Grace to follow the straight and painful way in the defense of eternal truth, which never changes with the passing of the years. Also, in the name of my spiritual children and the Prayer Groups, I thank you for your clear and decisive words that you especially pronounced in the last encyclical "Humanae Vitae"; and I reaffirm my faith, my unconditional obedience to your illuminated directions.


May God grant victory to the truth, peace to his Church, tranquility to the world, health and prosperity to your Holiness so that, once these fleeting doubts are dissipated, the Kingdom of God may triumph in all hearts, guided by your apostolic work as Supreme Pastor of all Christianity.


Prostrate at your feet, I beg you to bless me in the company of my brothers in religion, my spiritual children, the Prayer Groups, my sick ones and also to bless all our good endeavours which we are trying to fulfill under your protection in the name of Jesus.


Humbly yours,            


P. Pio, Capuchin"


Quote
Interestingly enough, the older version of the letter from L'Osservatore Romano, while it mentions Humanae Vitae, makes no mention of the Second Vatican Council. It seems as though the editor of the second version of the letter, which appears to be EWTN, interpolated this statement to make it seem as though Padre Pio embraced the Second Vatican Council. Yet inconsistently enough, EWTN hosts both versions of the letter on two different parts of their website. Due to the varying versions of the letter, the authentic text of the original letter is needed. This is assuming that there in fact is an original text outside of that which was printed in L'Osservatore Romano. The letter was printed for the public for the first time in the October 10, 1968 edition of L'Osservatore Romano, one month after the letter was said to be written by Padre Pio. If it turns out there is an original text, and if the text turns out to match what was printed in L'Osservatore Romano (or on EWTN), the question still remains: was the letter written by Padre Pio? In all probability, it was not. Padre Pio died only three weeks after the letter was supposedly written by him. During this time, he was bedridden and could not write, but instead dictated his letters to others who wrote for him. There is no telling whether or not those who wrote for him faithfully wrote down what he said, or whether Padre Pio proofread and confirmed the text before it was sent.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: brotherfrancis75 on November 23, 2012, 06:06:14 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Brother,

How was JPI possibly going to restore the Church? He was a liberal just like Paul VI and JPII.

This is one of those things that are among the most difficult to understand.  Despite many appearances John Paul I and Cardinal Siri were not liberals at all.  Also words like "liberal' can be used in a more precise Catholic sense or a more imprecise non-Catholic sense.  The complicated truth is that Catholics like Cardinal Siri and (IMO) Pope John Paul I belonged to what is often called the "Bonapartist" tradition.  Their politics and style derive from Napoleon Bonaparte so this becomes a question of whether Napoleon was a Catholic or a militant atheist.

This issue is truly complex (to say the least!) but IMO Napoleon was very much a Roman Catholic soldier.  Heaven knows he was no saint...  But he and his political faction were absolutely anti-Jacobin and anti-atheist.  Therefore it is illogical to say that the Bonapartists were liberals in any Catholic sense of the word.  In standard Catholic language they were Catholic "Imperialists" who supported Napoleon as the actual champion of the Imperial House of Hapsburg in the tradition of Charlemagne and the other Catholic Caesars.

Later the Bonapartists flourished under Napoleon III and had many loyal followers including Queen Victoria, President Jefferson Davis, President U.S. Grant, President Wilson, President Truman and President Ford, along with Cardinal Siri and Pope John Paul I.  If this list upsets many readers, please remember my list is political, not religious.  For example, we don't have to like Woodrow Wilson, but we should understand that he was closely allied with the genuine Catholic Church of his time.  For us Catholics "liberal" means "militant atheist" and Wilson was a pious Protestant, not any kind of militant atheist.  In short, the Bonapartists were conservatives, not liberals in any Catholic meaning of the word.  And Pope JPI likewise.

Assuming there is something to all this, then how "was JPI possibly going to restore the Church?"  Although hypotheticals are always of limited value, there was a pretty clear way in which that "might have been."  Given how profoundly President Ford was anti-Communist and for Catholic Nationalist Spain, what if Ford had received the support from Reagan that Reagan ought to have given to Ford and Ford had won the 1976 Presidential election instead of Carter?

Ford held a genuinely historic summit with Francisco Franco in Madrid in May 1975 where Ford made clear he intended for Nationalist Spain to be the foremost power in Europe and America's number one ally in the Old World.  What if!!  If Ford had won in 1976 the Catholic Nationalists would have remained in power in Madrid, the global network of Nationalist Spain would have protected and promoted Catholicism world-wide, JPI would have become Pope in 1978 and the C.I.A. would never have arranged for the murder of Pope JPI in the Vatican.  Just one among the many "what if's" we Catholics can ruminate over in our leisure hours...

Then the plans of JPI to restore the Latin Mass would have happened, the Catholic episcopacy would have been restored world-wide, V2 would have become only a fading memory of those bizarre 60s, the U.S.S.R. would have been defeated and Russia integrated into a Christian West and, well, you get the point.  Then the Neo-Liberal Bolsheviks of the Mont Pelerin Society  would have shriveled on the vine, Clinton's Reform Communism would have probably been broken up in the streets by riot police, Al Gore would have just been one more weirdo and Israhell would never have had the opportunity to trash the planet as they've now done.  Would've been nice!  And so things might have been if only the pious and conservative Gerald Ford had kept the Presidency in '76.

"Sigh..."
 
 :smile:   :pop:

 
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ambrose on November 23, 2012, 07:23:00 PM
Quote from: Nishant
Ok, excellent.

It's always interesting to read the rather ingenious theories both John Lane and John Daly try to come up with to save sedevacantism, both in trying to blunt the force of the argument and in trying to turn it on SSPXers and non-sedevacantists! It's a good attempt, but I think it falls short.

Against these, though, two points may be noted, which are both alike easily proved from authority.

First, that universal consent given to such and such a person as head of the universal Church and the one to whom supreme jurisdiction has passed in act is not something more or less imperceptible or requires great delay to be certain of but is in fact immediately recognizable as such.

Here is Msgr.Journet describing the same, referencing John of St.Thomas,

Quote
But the peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect as to a head to whom it submits is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled. )

Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest (cf. John of St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 2, a. 2, nos. 1, 15, 28, 34, 40; pp. 228 et seq. ).


A simple nominal acceptance of his person as Pope, say in one's letters and speeches, or in one's private and public prayers for Pope Benedict XVI as Pope is enough for the same.

The second point, which it appears to me is even more devastating, is that this is a truth primarily received on magisterial authority - that is, it is declared by a moral unanimity among those bishops who belong to the episcopal college and have a teaching office in the Church. This is also mentioned in both the AER article and by Monsignor Noort when it is said for instance "The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact" in the former and "the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession” in the latter, to which declaration of the ordinary and universal magisterium dispersed throughout the world we give an assent of faith as to something infallibly true called ecclesiastical faith.

That's why I think the notion that we are in an interregnum is self-refuting - for assuming we were in one, then such a universal consent among Bishops that this individual - Benedict XVI - is the Pope would suffice to actually pass on to him the supreme jurisdiction by such an universal acceptance, and also to show infallibly that "all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled".


A few points:

1.  I do not think we can put the post Vatican II popes in one basket here.  There are differences between John XXIII, Paul VI, verse John Paul II and Benedict who I believe can be studied together.  

2.  I do not see it as any urgent situation to study John Paul I, as his time was short, and his actions as "pope," were not to bind Catholics to evil laws or or heresy.

3.  So, I would like to focus my attention on the two latter claimants who I believe the case of a failure to universal acceptance is airtight.

4.  At the time of the election of John Paul II, there was a growing sedevacantist movement that outright rejected his claim.  Second, there was a very large body of Catholics who accepted him only in name as pope, but not in any Catholic sense as a pope.  

The second group treated John Paul II and Benedict XVI as figureheads whose teaching and laws were rejected.  Further, this group rejected the authority of the bishops in communion with these men.  

Whatever way you want to slice it, your argument that using a man's name as pope, but not in anyway considering him as pope would have not in any age of the Church been regarded as a peaceful acceptance.

Did Catholics at the time of Pius XII's election, form numerous groups of independent chapels in opposition to his teaching, laws, and hierarchical structure?  The idea of would have been preposterous.  Catholics peacefully accepted Pius XII, and recognized him both in name as pope and in practice as pope, the man who took the office of St. Peter's successor, who would rule over all Catholics in spiritual matters.

5,.  In addition to the many sedevacantist Catholics, and Catholics who used the name of John Paul and Benedict, but rejected their claims in practice, another group are those who remained under them, and to some extent accepted their laws, but rejected their teachings, especially on matters such as interfaith, ecumenism, religious liberty, etc.  

Catholics for the entire history of the Church have never accepted a pope, while maintaining the idea that they could reject him on matters of Faith or law.  

6.  The last body of those who accepted the claims of John Paul II and Benedict are by far the largest group, and these are those "catholics" who no longer believe what the Church teaches anyway on many subjects, such as contraception, interfaith, believing the Church's teaching, "no salvation outside the Church, that schismatics and heretics are in partial communion with the Church, believe that all men are saved and no one or almost no one goes to Hell, doubt or deny purgatory, and on and on the list could go.  This body of people is very large, but their acceptance is not relevant, the group who is relevant are the Catholics who have kept the Faith.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on November 23, 2012, 07:27:13 PM
Quote from: brotherfrancis75
This issue is truly complex (to say the least!) but IMO Napoleon was very much a Roman Catholic soldier.  Heaven knows he was no saint...  But he and his political faction were absolutely anti-Jacobin and anti-atheist.  Therefore it is illogical to say that the Bonapartists were liberals in any Catholic sense of the word.  In standard Catholic language they were Catholic "Imperialists" who supported Napoleon as the actual champion of the Imperial House of Hapsburg in the tradition of Charlemagne and the other Catholic Caesars.


Where did you get that idea from? Napoleon was not a Catholic, he was a deist who thought Catholicism was "superstitious". He eventually attempted to portray himself as a Catholic just so he could gain power and a better image amongst the Catholic Church, but a radical liberal such as himself could not possibly be Catholic. I'm not sure where you got the notion that he and his supporters weren't liberal. He thought that he should be the head of the Catholic Church, not the Pope, which was heretical.

Napoleon was also excommunicated by Pope Pius VII, and I don't believe that excommunication was ever lifted.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: brotherfrancis75 on November 24, 2012, 12:42:46 AM
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: brotherfrancis75
This issue is truly complex (to say the least!) but IMO Napoleon was very much a Roman Catholic soldier.  Heaven knows he was no saint...  But he and his political faction were absolutely anti-Jacobin and anti-atheist.  Therefore it is illogical to say that the Bonapartists were liberals in any Catholic sense of the word.  In standard Catholic language they were Catholic "Imperialists" who supported Napoleon as the actual champion of the Imperial House of Hapsburg in the tradition of Charlemagne and the other Catholic Caesars.


Where did you get that idea from? Napoleon was not a Catholic, he was a deist who thought Catholicism was "superstitious". He eventually attempted to portray himself as a Catholic just so he could gain power and a better image amongst the Catholic Church, but a radical liberal such as himself could not possibly be Catholic. I'm not sure where you got the notion that he and his supporters weren't liberal. He thought that he should be the head of the Catholic Church, not the Pope, which was heretical.

Napoleon was also excommunicated by Pope Pius VII, and I don't believe that excommunication was ever lifted.

To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 essay on Emperor Napoleon I:  "Napoleon was not an unbeliever; but he would not admit that anyone was above himself, not even the pope.  'Alexander the great', he once said to Fontanes, 'declared himself the son of Jupiter. And in my time I find a priest who is more powerful than I am.'"  

The same entry also clarifies:  "In the first of his captivity, Napoleon complained to Montholon of having no chaplain.  'It would rest my soul to hear Mass', he said.  Pius VII petitioned England to accede to Napoleon's wish, and the Abbé Vignali became his chaplain.  On 20 April, 1821, Napoleon said to him: 'I was born in the Catholic religion. I wish to fulfill the duties it imposes, and receive the succour it administers." To Montholon he affirmed his belief in God, read aloud the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the acts of the Apostles. He spoke of Pius VII as 'an old man full of tolerance and light'. 'Fatal circumstances,' he added 'embroiled our cabinets. I regret it exceedingly.' Lord Rosebery has attached much importance to the paradoxes with which the emperor used to tease Gourgaud, and amused himself in maintaining the superiority of Mohammedanism, Protestantism, or Materialism. One day, when he had been talking in this strain, Montholon said to him: 'I know that your Majesty does not believe one word of what you have just been saying'. 'You are right', said the emperor. 'At any rate it helps to pass an hour.'"

Catholics should notice that anti-Catholics systematically denounce every Catholic hero much the same.  It isn't just Napoleon Bonaparte.  Emperor Constantine is said to be no good.  Charlemagne is falsely accused of polygamy.  The Ottonian emperors are considered beneath remembrance.  The great Hohenstaufen  emperors are vilified.  Most of our greatest kings are routinely defamed.  Do we see a pattern here?  Are our laymen as incapable of heroic virtues as our enemies claim?  Or is it instead that our enemies are often vicious and hate-filled liars?  Most likely the latter.

We shouldn't mindlessly parrot the hatreds of anti-Catholics against virtually all our greatest heroes.  This is very short-sighted and only serves the interests of those who do us harm.  We should take the trouble to understand that Napoleon Bonaparte did great things for the glory of the Catholics and the Catholics' God.  We owe our Brother-in-Christ the Emperor Napoleon a great debt of eternal gratitude.

And if we can't think of what for we should stop being so lazy and read some good Catholic history books.  The great deeds of our Emperor Napoleon I are vividly recorded in many of them.  Rather than think ourselves too good for Napoleon we should be truly humble and appreciate the greatness of our betters.  

Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Telesphorus on November 24, 2012, 12:45:46 AM
Napoleon was a forerunner of the Antichrist.

He summoned attempted to conquer the Holy Land and he summoned a Sanhedrin.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Nishant on November 24, 2012, 02:51:57 AM
Hello Ambrose.

I think the first question before us should be, Moral unanimity primarily among whom? I gave above my answer, "among those bishops who belong to the episcopal college and have a teaching office in the Church. This is also mentioned in both the AER article and by Monsignor Noort ... "

Would you disagree? The authorities say it follows as something infallibly true which proves that it must come from strict teaching authority properly so called. Thus Msgr. Noort speaks of it being the ordinary and universal magisterium that gives a witness to the legitimacy of the succession.

So I deny that the level the theologians are speaking of is the same as what you seem to require. A morally unanimous acceptance by said Bishops suffices.

The second question is, How many such Bishops are there in the world today and how many of them accept Pope Benedict XVI (yes, we can speak about the current Pope specifically if that is okay with you) as for all practical intents and purposes as being the Pope? John Lane's own theory about this, which I think you agree with, works against you here.

PS: SS, yes, I remember we discussed before what I think a member of your forum said about St.Padre Pio's letter. I don't know if we should go into this in detail here, but if you wish to, I'll say I find the response unconvincing - it implies both L'Osservatore Romano and EWTN committed deliberate forgery or manipulation of the letter based on very little evidence - more likely, something simple like the fact that a newspaper article often edits a portion of a letter for reasons of space constraints is the reality.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ambrose on November 24, 2012, 04:19:40 AM
Quote from: Nishant
Hello Ambrose.

I think the first question before us should be, Moral unanimity primarily among whom? I gave above my answer, "among those bishops who belong to the episcopal college and have a teaching office in the Church. This is also mentioned in both the AER article and by Monsignor Noort ... "

Would you disagree? The authorities say it follows as something infallibly true which proves that it must come from strict teaching authority properly so called. Thus Msgr. Noort speaks of it being the ordinary and universal magisterium that gives a witness to the legitimacy of the succession.

So I deny that the level the theologians are speaking of is the same as what you seem to require. A morally unanimous acceptance by said Bishops suffices.

The second question is, How many such Bishops are there in the world today and how many of them accept Pope Benedict XVI (yes, we can speak about the current Pope specifically if that is okay with you) as for all practical intents and purposes as being the Pope? John Lane's own theory about this, which I think you agree with, works against you here.

PS: SS, yes, I remember we discussed before what I think a member of your forum said about St.Padre Pio's lett  er. I don't know if we should go into this in detail here, but if you wish to, I'll say I find the response unconvincing - it implies both L'Osservatore Romano and EWTN committed deliberate forgery or manipulation of the letter based on very little evidence - more likely, something simple like the fact that a newspaper article often edits a portion of a letter for reasons of space constraints is the reality.


Nishant,

Thank you for your response.  My answer follows:

I do not believe you have carefully examined the sources you use as evidence of your assertion that "among those bishops who belong to the episcopal college and have a teaching office in the Church," is the only group needed for acceptance.

Let us look again at the sources:

AER said:
Quote
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.


Van Noort said:
Quote
“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


Cardinal Billot said:
Quote
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"


I have added boldfacing to the parts I would like you to re-read.  In all of the sources, it is very clear that it is not the acceptance of the bishops only, but also the acceptance of the universal Church.  

I have put forth the argument that in the case of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, many Catholics explicitly denied their claim, others said they accepted it, but only accepted them as figureheads without any power to teach and rule.  These Catholics alone comprise a large body of the Church, and they did not peacefully accept the claim of the these men to be pope.

I would further argue that the remainder of faithful Catholics, who believe the faith in every point as it was always taught by the magisterium until the death of Pope Pius XII, only believe the claim of these men to the papacy due to their ignorance of the heresy of these men.  

As John Daly pointed out, part of the accepting of the pope is to believe he is the rule of Faith, and it is clear that those few Catholics who keep their Faith intact in the structure of the Concliar church do not look to these men as their rule of Faith.  The few that I know in the Concliar church who are in confusion about all of this, keep their Faith because they either they are old and learned their Faith from the Church, or if they are younger they learned it from reading old books.  I am not aware of any faithful Catholics who learned their Faith from these "popes," or the bishops in communion with him.  These Catholics have learned their Faith in spite of these men, not from these men.

Let us analyze this more, who are the members of the Church today who believe the Catholic Faith as taught until the death of Pius XII, and let us look to see if they peacefully have adhered to John Paul II and Benedict.

1.  The sedevantists, not a huge amount of Catholics, but still a significant minority.

2.  Those Catholics who resist the anti-popes, but still call them pope.  This is a very large group, and as I have said, they may call these men "pope," but they are not peacefully accepting them, as that would entail treating them as pope, which they have never done.

3.  Those who adhere to the Conciliar church and live within its structure, but have kept the Faith despite these anti-popes and heretical bishops.  I cannot be certain of the number of these people, but if surveys indicate anything, most "catholics" that call themselves "catholic" no longer accept all of the doctrine or moral teaching of the Church.  

The Catholics who are faithful in group 3, in my opinion are not informed or do not grasp the issues, and in my opinion, they only accept Benedict and John Paul's claim based on a false belief about who they are and what they teach.  

But, even if you wish to argue that group 3 whose numbers we are not certain, are accepting their papal claims, it is certain the group 1 explicitly denies those claims, and group 2 lacks any peace about the matter, because they only accept these men in name only, and do not in practice treat them as a pope in any sense.  Therefore, two large bodies of the tiny population of the universal Church, has not peacefully accepted John Paul and Benedict.  

I am sure I do not need to mention in this that the acceptance of a pope does not rely on the those who are outside the Church, the news media, t.v., and other sources.  The acceptance must come from the Church, and since John Paul II has been elected has become a very small group, as most Catholics have defected from their Faith, and the remainder is the remnant composing the three groups I discussed.  

Therefore, I believe I have made the case that there has not been a universal peaceful acceptance of the claims of John Paul II and Benedict XVI by the remaining faithful Catholics who make up the Church.  

Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on November 24, 2012, 10:21:37 AM
Sorry, burt Napoleon was NOT a Catholic hero. You call someone who imprisoned Pope Pius VII a hero? Nonsense.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: brotherfrancis75 on November 24, 2012, 02:29:03 PM
This thread is showing itself to be quite an important topic for our Catholic education.  It seems our understanding of Catholic history is closely related to our comprehension of who is and who is not a Catholic Bishop of Rome.

We need to correctly identify both the good guys and the bad guys in our history if we are to correctly identify the Catholic and non-Catholic occupants of the Chair of Peter.  The historic Bonapartist heritage shouldn't be seen by us as a primary locus of evil in history because then we fail to see the actual bad guys.  For example, when we imagine that Napoleon was an Anti-christ we thereby fail to notice that the actual Anti-christ of the 19th Century was clearly none other than Abraham Lincoln and not anyone else.  In a similar way it should be glaringly clear to us that  much the greatest enemy of the Catholics in the 20th Century was certainly the Fabian Marxist  Franklin Roosevelt and not anybody else.

Evidently we Americans have a great problem with recognizing our own American role in Catholic history, both past and present.  Our true American history is anything but any reason for us to think like Americanists and shift the guilt for our own actions onto Europeans like Napoleon.  The evil precursors to Lincoln and his Radical Republicans were Maximilian Robespierre and the Jacobin Party that was aggressively destroyed by the Bonapartists.  Later the American Bonapartist President Grant did much the same to our  own Radical Republican Jacobins.  Good riddance to them!  

What we need most today is someone like Napoleon to clear out the Zionist Marxists.  Only then can we seriously think about restoring a Roman Catholic onto the Chair of Peter in Rome.


Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on November 24, 2012, 04:55:51 PM
Brotherfrancis, I don't know where you got that from, but you and whoever thumbed you up are sadly mistaken. Napoleon was not a Catholic nor a hero, he was a liberal and a forerunner to the antichrist.

The fact that you think someone who imprisoned Pope Pius VII and thought he - and not the Pope - should be head of the Catholic was a "Catholic hero" is unfathomable. Please chunk whatever history book you've been reading and find one who was written by a Catholic author with some common sense.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: ServusSpiritusSancti on November 24, 2012, 05:03:14 PM
Quote
Please chunk whatever history book you've been reading and find one that was written by a Catholic author with some common sense.


Correction above.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe on November 25, 2012, 01:01:20 PM
Quote from: stevusmagnus
Brother,

How was JPI possibly going to restore the Church? He was a liberal just like Paul VI and JPII.


It is also my impression that JPI(1?) was a liberal but possibly he had a road to Damascus moment & that is why he was murdered.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe on November 25, 2012, 01:17:07 PM
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 documented 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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe on November 25, 2012, 01:20:44 PM
Throne of Boniface in Agnani.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: songbird on November 25, 2012, 02:12:46 PM
Roscoe:  what is the definition of sede vaticantism?  It means an empty chair of Peter, correct?  We have had periods like that.  We have also had those who referred to themselves as Pope but were not.  Correct.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe on November 25, 2012, 03:07:31 PM
Quote from: songbird
Roscoe:  what is the definition of sede vaticantism?  It means an empty chair of Peter, correct?  We have had periods like that.  We have also had those who referred to themselves as Pope but were not.  Correct.


While there definitely is such a state of affairs as sede vacante, there is no such thing as 'sede vacantism'.  

MO is that Boniface, Leo & Clement each did more damage than Pope Gregory.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Thursday on November 25, 2012, 07:03:45 PM
Quote from: roscoe
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 documented 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.


In answer to why Siri didn't support Lefebvre I started a new thread.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=21720#p0


In her still unpublished memoirs, Vatican news correspondent, and long time reporter for the Associated Press wire service, Gabriella Montemayor (1912-2005), whose career spanned 50 years, summarized the rumors that circulated among informed journalists in October 1958:

Siri was alleged to have been elected at the conclave of 1958, from which, instead, came out Roncalli. The three well-known smoke signals, white, black, and then, finally, white, had aroused not a little perplexity and the same comment throughout the whole of the Italian peninsula: Who had been elected at the first white smoke?

"Everyone in Genoa insisted, even from the first day: it most certainly was Siri. Could he have abdicated? Had he been forced out? Was it politics or the Holy Ghost? The mystery remains yet today. However, the [new] Vatican which burst unexpectedly before our eyes was a totally different Vatican from that of Pius XII, who had condemned Communism, excommunicating whoever had collaborated in any way with the atheists. The excommunication was surely still legitimate when the new pontificate opened its arms to the Soviets, even as Roncalli was hailed, in a shameless manner, as the Good Pope.&#65533; (Gabriella Montemayor, I'll Tell My Cat, 1993, unpublished manuscript, Rome, chapter 4: Conclave,&#65533; page 28.)"


The point of this quote is that Roncalli's election was not "universally accepted"
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Nishant on November 26, 2012, 07:01:38 AM
Well, with regard to Cardinal Siri, Thursday and Roscoe, let me grant for the sake of the argument that he indeed was elected to the Papacy. But, then what, he very clearly stepped down and reverenced the other elects as true Popes, as the whole of the rest of his life very clearly slows. He certainly was close to Archbishop Lefebvre (and my point in this respect was that he would certainly have told him if he was really Pope or believed himself such and had ample opportunity to do so), but he himself tended to support the canonical regularization of the SSPX, which further shows he genuinely considered the Popes as such.

An examination of his relationship with the Popes shows he always was and believed himself to be and professed to be only a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church and no more. Here His Eminence describes Pope John Paul II.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_149_Siri-JPII.html

Quote from: Cardinal Siri
He is the Vicar of Christ. The words of the Gospel are applied to John Paul II since the moment of his election, just as they were to Peter"...” (Mt 16:18). The dignity of the Pope reflects something of the Majesty of God, and when we see him, simple and amiable with everyone, we should never forget that he is the Vicar of Christ

Because of his office, his blessing is worth more than all other blessings; for the same reason his prayers and all his actions are more important than the prayers and actions of all other men. To receive the Pope well, we should consider him not just as a sovereign whose influence has no equal in the world, but as we would receive Jesus Christ Himself.  


How many sede-impeditists and conclavists would agree with this statement of the man you call "Pope Gregory XVII"? Clearly not too many.

Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Nishant on November 26, 2012, 07:19:00 AM
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.

Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Thursday on November 26, 2012, 08:17:24 AM
Quote from: Nishant
Well, with regard to Cardinal Siri, Thursday and Roscoe, let me grant for the sake of the argument that he indeed was elected to the Papacy. But, then what, he very clearly stepped down and reverenced the other elects as true Popes, as the whole of the rest of his life very clearly slows.


There is a difference between being the lawful pope and the de facto pope. The rest of Siri's life was spent doing damage control at the highest levels as well training orthodox priest who are no very close to the seat of power in Rome.

Quote from: Nishant
He certainly was close to Archbishop Lefebvre (and my point in this respect was that he would certainly have told him if he was really Pope or believed himself such and had ample opportunity to do so), but he himself tended to support the canonical regularization of the SSPX, which further shows he genuinely considered the Popes as such.

An examination of his relationship with the Popes shows he always was and believed himself to be and professed to be only a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church and no more. Here His Eminence describes Pope John Paul II.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_149_Siri-JPII.html

Quote from: Cardinal Siri
He is the Vicar of Christ. The words of the Gospel are applied to John Paul II since the moment of his election, just as they were to Peter"...” (Mt 16:18). The dignity of the Pope reflects something of the Majesty of God, and when we see him, simple and amiable with everyone, we should never forget that he is the Vicar of Christ

Because of his office, his blessing is worth more than all other blessings; for the same reason his prayers and all his actions are more important than the prayers and actions of all other men. To receive the Pope well, we should consider him not just as a sovereign whose influence has no equal in the world, but as we would receive Jesus Christ Himself.  



The above quote is just the usual platitudes given when the pope comes to visit.  Does anyone think (at the time completely unheard of) Cardinal Siri would have taken this opportunity to announce that he was the lawful pope, maybe you are forgetting how popular John Paul II was. Siri played the game and from several accounts gave the usurpers more than a little trouble. A few quotes from Italian sources...
From Vatican Insider 'The Catholic Church Reconquers Genoa'

"Under Siri, the most faithful and authoritative interpreter of the pontificate of Pius XII, Genoa became the stronghold of the defense of Christianity and the cardinal point of reference for a church closer to tradition than innovation, leading it to its isolation from the rest of the country, particularly after the Council."


Published in Il Stampa
"They say that once the old curial Cardinal, Sebastiano Baggio, prefect of the powerful Congregation for Bishops in the last phase of the pontificate of Paul VI and the beginning of that of John Paul II, accused Cardinal Siri of growing his seminarians and priests as an island separate from the body of the Italian Church and that this was not taken into account when they were made bishops. ‘Yes, it's true’ - Siri would respond – ‘we are an island, but my own I taught to swim.’"

Here is testimony from a disgruntled Genoese priest who entered the seminary in 1964 and served for 40 years until his recent banishment.  Father Paolo Farinello, who has no love for Cardinal Siri or for tradition writes in his 2007 book,

 “Cardinal Siri, in fact, has never hidden his denigration of the Council and the liturgical reform in particular. In any way he obstructs its implementation in the diocese … We (the seminarians) were trembling with the spirit of the council and each time he (Siri) castrated our passionate enthusiasm by ensuring us that it would take fifty years to remedy the Vatican … He inoculated us unsuspecting with the suspicion that Pope Paul VI was not an orthodox Pope.”

 
Farinello writes in another article more recently,
 
“Siri told us ‘do not say the new mass in my diocese, I did not vote for these changes.’”


Quote from: Nishant
How many sede-impeditists and conclavists would agree with this statement of the man you call "Pope Gregory XVII"? Clearly not too many.



Again, the above quote is just the usual platitudes given when the pope comes to visit, hardly an insight to Siri true feelings or reflective of his legacy, at least not according to the sources I've quoted above.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe on November 26, 2012, 11:14:48 AM
John XXIII(23)-- Benedict XVI(16) anti-popes  :fryingpan:
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Nishant on November 27, 2012, 02:58:29 AM
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.

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 (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32244) 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 (http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/02/cardinal-siri-and-archbishop-marcel.html) and here (http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2008/10/fr-um-lang-on-cardinal-giuseppe-siri.html
) 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 ."


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

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.

Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Thursday 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 (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=32244) 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 (http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/02/cardinal-siri-and-archbishop-marcel.html) and here (http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2008/10/fr-um-lang-on-cardinal-giuseppe-siri.html
) 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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Nishant 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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Thursday 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 circumstantial evidence indicate that he was the the legal successor to St. Peter.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe 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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ambrose 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.


Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Nishant on November 29, 2012, 10:48:46 PM
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.

Quote from: The Sources of Revelation, Msgr Van Noort
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,

Quote from: Catholic Encyclopedia
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 (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/sordb2.html). 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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on January 08, 2015, 12:12:38 PM
I want to bump this thread rather than start a new one.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on January 08, 2015, 04:21:15 PM
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?
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on January 08, 2015, 07:37:08 PM
Quote from: magisterium
Quote from: Ladislaus
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.


The other Cardinals in the conclave certainly saw what the fifth column masons were doing in the Sistine chapel.


I'm not trying to argue one way or the other what actually happened in the conclave.  I simply put forward these conditions so that we can come to understand the PRINCIPLE behind "peaceful acceptance", i.e. as to whether it actually provides a sanatio in radice for an canonically invalid election or else is just an infallible sign that the election must have been canonically valid.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe on January 08, 2015, 10:51:10 PM
There is nothing to argue about as the white smoke( which has been retained on film) alone means he was elected & accepted.... :detective:
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on January 09, 2015, 10:08:01 AM
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.

Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on January 09, 2015, 10:09:47 AM
... by contrast
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on January 09, 2015, 10:52:25 AM
Quote from: Nado
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.


Unlikely; the Vatican has very precise protocols in place to govern the process.  One such protocol would have been a formal inquiry about whether he accepted, and only after that formal inquiry and his selection of a name would the smoke signals go out.  Very little in these arcane little ceremonies is unscripted and left to chance.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe on January 09, 2015, 04:36:01 PM
Quote from: Nado
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:
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Nishant on January 10, 2015, 06:09:35 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
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".  


To your questions, Gueranger writes that when the Church "acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself. Although convalidation and universal acceptance being an effect of a valid election are conceptually distinct in theory, in practice it is of little consequence. Whatever the case, after one Pontiff is universally recognized, the ecclesia docens testifies that he is infallibly the Pope, and the ecclesia discens accepts this with ecclesiastical faith.

In other words, it can happen, of course, as it did in the great schism, that one of two persons seem to be elected, the Cardinals come out with conflicting reports, and each are accepted by a section of the Church. In this case, the status of claims to the Papacy may for a while remain truly and objectively doubtful. However, each adherent to any claimant always acknowledges that should any one claimant ever be accepted by all the bishops, that person is truly Pope, and remaining separate from him after that is unjustified. All sides admitted this during the Great Schism. Fr. Hunter writes, "it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined." St. Alphonsus similarly says, ""It doesn't matter that in past centuries some pontiff has been elected by fraud: it suffices that he has been accepted after as Pope by all the Church, for by this fact he has become true pontiff."

It is said to be not only an infallible effect, but also a sign, and is easily discernible as such in the external forum, Ex Quo by Pope Benedict XIV shows us a simple means by which we can be sure, " it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity." It also shows that no one can by private judgment before the declaration of the Church presume to drop the name of the one universally recognized as Pope from the canon, otherwise he will separate from the external communion of the Church, "It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world." Cardinal Manning wrote,
Quote
"It is de fide,  or matter of faith, that the head of the Church, as such, can never be separated, either from the Ecclesia docens, or the Ecclesia discens; that is, either from the Episcopate or from the faithful ... On this unity all the properties and endowments of the Church depend; indefectibility, unity, infallibility. As the Church can never be separated from its invisible Head, so never from its visible head ... Such separation would destroy the infallibility of the Church itself. The Ecclesia docens would cease to exist; but this is impossible, and without heresy cannot be supposed."


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.

As a matter of fact, no bishop did so at the time, not even Cardinal Siri. I don't doubt personally that Cardinal Siri really was elected, but the fact that Pope John XXIII was universally accepted proves that, at least after that moment, his papacy was no longer doubtful, but infallibly certain. In the conclave that elected Pope St. Pius X, there was external interference as well. But no one, on that account, adhering to another claimant, could justifiably refuse to recognize Pope St. Pius X, after he was accepted by the Church. Likewise, after it became evident that Cardinal Siri and the whole Church publicly accepted the Pope, no doubt could remain anymore, and the visible teaching Church or ecclesia docens, as Cardinal Manning and Fr. Hunter says, by their unanimous acceptance of a single candidate, constitute a sufficient and infallible proof that the Pope was really the Pope, even after that time when sedevacantism requires that he was not. Therefore, this teaching shows that sedevacantism/sedeimpeditism/Sirianism etc are all incorrect explanations.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on January 10, 2015, 07:32:07 AM
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 Ecumenical 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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Cantarella on January 10, 2015, 09:59:13 AM
St. Alphonsus also followed the principle that if the whole Church, (mainly the clergy of Rome) accepts a man as Pope, the man is indeed the Pope and the elections are valid.

Quote from: St. Alphonsus


“It doesn’t matter that in past centuries some pontiff has been elected in an illegitimate fashion or has taken possession of the pontificate by fraud: it suffices that he has been accepted after as pope by all the Church, for this fact he has become the true pontiff.”



This happened for example in the election of Alexander VI who seemed to have been elected through simony but whose pontificate was still considered legitimate because the Church accepted the election.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on January 10, 2015, 12:31:02 PM
Quote from: Nishant
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 Ecumenical 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.

Quote
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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: PG on January 10, 2015, 01:37:17 PM
Ladislaus - I believe that the +Lefebvre french saying went like this - "I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say that you cannot say that the pope is not the pope"(speaking to the nine).  

And, in my opinion, that saying is faulty.  If I were the superior, I would say - "I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say that you cannot say that you believe that the pope is not the pope".  The difference being the addition of the words "you believe".  In other words, you can freely hold and express that opinion; however, you can only freely hold and express that opinion as a private opinion.  Because, it is not a dogmatic fact.  And, in my opinion, for the sake of peace and unity, this distinction is absolutely necessary.  

And, this +Lefebre saying is very different from current sspx policy.  Where, from what I understand, they require intellectual conformity to the position of the mainstream society(which is currently sedeplenism).

Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on January 10, 2015, 01:59:22 PM
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.

Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on January 10, 2015, 02:11:02 PM
Cardinal Oddi:

http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/oddi.asp

Quote
Cardinal Oddi, who had a reputation as a conservative, was well-known for his views on the Third Secret of Fatima and for his comments on the 1986 pan-religious prayer meeting at Assisi, which he considered a scandal.

Regarding the pan-religious prayer-meeting at Assisi, that included Catholics, Protestants, Muhammadans, Jews, Buddhists, Animists, Hindus, and various others, Cardinal Oddi said:

“On that day ... I walked through Assisi ... And I saw real profanations in some places of prayer. I saw Buddhists dancing around the altar upon which they placed Buddha in the place of Christ and then incensed it and showed it reverence. A Benedictine protested and the police took him away ... There was obvious confusion in the faces of the Catholics who were assisting at the ceremony.” (“Confissões de um Cardeal,” Interview granted by Cardinal Oddi to Tommasco Ricci, 30 Dias, Nov., 1990, p. 64.)

Of Fatima’s Third Secret, Cardinal Oddi remarked, “It has nothing to do with Gorbachev. The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against the apostasy in the Church.”

He explained more about the Secret in a March 17, 1990, interview published in Il Sabato magazine in Rome.

“I believe I knew John XXIII quite well” he said, “since I spent a number of years at his side when he was at the nunciature in Paris. If the Secret had concerned realities consoling the Church, like the conversion of Russia or the religious rebirth of eastern Europe, I believe that he would have brought pressure to bear to make the Secret public.

“By temperament he did not hesitate to communicate joyful things ... But when I asked him during an audience why in 1960, when the obligation to keep the Secret secret had come to an end, he had not made public the last part of the message of Fatima, he responded with a weary sigh. He then said: ‘Don’t bring that subject up with me, please’.”

The Cardinal expressed his belief that John XXIII was not receptive to the Third Secret because its message probably conflicted with the dream of a “new Pentecost” that the Pontiff hoped Vatican II would produce.

“What happened in 1960 that might have been seen in connection with the Secret of Fatima?” asked the Cardinal. “The most important event is without a doubt the launching of the preparatory phase of the Second Vatican Council. Therefore I would not be surprised if the Secret had something to do with the convocation of Vatican II... I would not be surprised if the Third Secret alluded to dark times for the Church; grave confusions and troubling apostasies within Catholicism itself ... If we consider the grave crisis we have lived through since the Council, the signs that this prophecy has been fulfilled do not seem to be lacking ...”

Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: PG on January 10, 2015, 02:31:00 PM
Ladislaus - The point of my post was to provide the correct +Lefebvre saying, which I don't think was made in humor.  It just had that effect on american ears.  And, I am not denying that +Lefebre doubted their legitimacy.  I think that he did.  
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe on January 10, 2015, 05:30:01 PM

Quote
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.
[/quote]

Sorry but this is not true. The veto privlidge(sp) was abolished by Pius IX( and all in the conclave knew it). Pius X adds the penalty of ex-communication to anyone attempting it in the future.  :reading:
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on January 10, 2015, 05:45:40 PM
Quote from: roscoe
Quote

Quote
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.


Sorry but this is not true. The veto privlidge(sp) was abolished by Pius IX( and all in the conclave knew it). Pius X adds the penalty of ex-communication to anyone attempting it in the future.  :reading:


Then why did all in the conclave honor the veto?

I've never read this anywhere:

Quote
While some prelates formally protested this intrusion after voting had been in progress, the Ultra Cardinals readily recognized the existing legal right of the emperor. Support for Rampolla dissipated, leading to the election of Giuseppe Sarto as Pope Pius X. Abolition of the veto right was one of the new Pope's first official acts.


Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Cantarella on January 10, 2015, 06:38:39 PM
Quote from: Nado

As for simony, Pope Julius II who legislated simony invalidating an election, came after Alexander VI died.

 
That is not true. That law about simony was made long before Alexander VI died. It was Pope Callistus II at the Lateran Council I, held about 500 hundred years before Alexander VI who stated:

Quote
Canon I on Simony, Celibacy, Investitures and Incest:

“‘Following the examples of the Holy Fathers’ and renewing the duty of our office ‘we forbid in every way by the authority of the Apostolic See that anyone by means of money be ordained or promoted in the Church of God. But if anyone shall have acquired ordination or promotion in the Church in this way, let him be entirely deprived of his office.'” (Denz. 359)


Yet Cardinal Borgia was elected pope! And he became the Pontiff as Alexander VI. There have been other simoniacal popes throughout history. This demonstrates that, no matter what canons exist about heretics or ecclesiastic censures, the same rule applies throughout the Church's history: “The peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope by the whole Church is a sign and effect of a valid election.”
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe on January 10, 2015, 08:28:58 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: roscoe
Quote

Quote
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.


Sorry but this is not true. The veto privlidge(sp) was abolished by Pius IX( and all in the conclave knew it). Pius X adds the penalty of ex-communication to anyone attempting it in the future.  :reading:


Then why did all in the conclave honor the veto?

I've never read this anywhere:

Quote
While some prelates formally protested this intrusion after voting had been in progress, the Ultra Cardinals readily recognized the existing legal right of the emperor. Support for Rampolla dissipated, leading to the election of Giuseppe Sarto as Pope Pius X. Abolition of the veto right was one of the new Pope's first official acts.




I am not sure that the conclave did honor the veto. C Rampolla didn't quite have the votes when the calamity took place. He then took the floor & urged his 30 or so votes onto C Sarto. It doesn't matter because the Barque of St Peter went the same direction as it would have under a pope Rampolla.

Acc to MacNutt, C Rampolla decried certain liberal influences that were hanging around the Pope. He may be referring to Fr Sturzo or Della Chiesa or both. In spite of his prior association with the latter he did at some point( in agreement with C Del Val & the Pope) suspect him strongly of Modernism.

I have never heard the term Ultra Cardinals & the veto was never a right...


 :cool:
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe on January 10, 2015, 08:42:04 PM
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Nado

As for simony, Pope Julius II who legislated simony invalidating an election, came after Alexander VI died.

 
That is not true. That law about simony was made long before Alexander VI died. It was Pope Callistus II at the Lateran Council I, held about 500 hundred years before Alexander VI who stated:

Quote
Canon I on Simony, Celibacy, Investitures and Incest:

“‘Following the examples of the Holy Fathers’ and renewing the duty of our office ‘we forbid in every way by the authority of the Apostolic See that anyone by means of money be ordained or promoted in the Church of God. But if anyone shall have acquired ordination or promotion in the Church in this way, let him be entirely deprived of his office.'” (Denz. 359)


Yet Cardinal Borgia was elected pope! And he became the Pontiff as Alexander VI. There have been other simoniacal popes throughout history. This demonstrates that, no matter what canons exist about heretics or ecclesiastic censures, the same rule applies throughout the Church's history: “The peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope by the whole Church is a sign and effect of a valid election.”


Not necessarily because a past pope can be declared an anti-pope hundreds of yrs later as is the case with Pius X and the anti-popes Boniface 6 & 7. It could be that the same fate awaits Boniface VIII(8?) whose election is indeed simoniacal(sp)  :reporter:  MO is that the election of Alex is not.

It should be noted that Cantarella has not replied to a prev post asking who the last anti-pope is... or if it is even understood that there is such a thing. ?????

Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe on January 10, 2015, 09:01:04 PM
Pius IX took the action( abolishing the 'veto')  when the freemason Franz- Joseph( who later attempts the 'veto') permitted civil marriage in Austrian Empire. For various, byzantine like political reasons the Pope couldn't ex-communicate him..

I have posted the sources for this info b4 but having just moved, my library is still in boxes. :cheers:
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Cantarella on January 11, 2015, 01:41:30 AM
Quote from: roscoe
Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: Nado

As for simony, Pope Julius II who legislated simony invalidating an election, came after Alexander VI died.

 
That is not true. That law about simony was made long before Alexander VI died. It was Pope Callistus II at the Lateran Council I, held about 500 hundred years before Alexander VI who stated:

Quote
Canon I on Simony, Celibacy, Investitures and Incest:

“‘Following the examples of the Holy Fathers’ and renewing the duty of our office ‘we forbid in every way by the authority of the Apostolic See that anyone by means of money be ordained or promoted in the Church of God. But if anyone shall have acquired ordination or promotion in the Church in this way, let him be entirely deprived of his office.'” (Denz. 359)


Yet Cardinal Borgia was elected pope! And he became the Pontiff as Alexander VI. There have been other simoniacal popes throughout history. This demonstrates that, no matter what canons exist about heretics or ecclesiastic censures, the same rule applies throughout the Church's history: “The peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope by the whole Church is a sign and effect of a valid election.”


Not necessarily because a past pope can be declared an anti-pope hundreds of yrs later as is the case with Pius X and the anti-popes Boniface 6 & 7. It could be that the same fate awaits Boniface VIII(8?) whose election is indeed simoniacal(sp)  :reporter:  MO is that the election of Alex is not.

It should be noted that Cantarella has not replied to a prev post asking who the last anti-pope is... or if it is even understood that there is such a thing. ?????



There have been about 40 known anti - Popes throughout the Church history. These are men that, while claiming to be the Pope, were not validly canonically elected as Roman Pontiff. The last declared anti - Pope was Duke Amadeus VIII of Savoy (Felix V) back in XV century.

What is important to remember is that when it comes to identifying and judging an anti -Pope is simply NOT the responsibility of the laity, but the Catholic bishops. In Catholicism, there is a hierarchy for everything.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on January 13, 2015, 11:52:32 AM
Quote from: roscoe
I am not sure that the conclave did honor the veto. C Rampolla didn't quite have the votes when the calamity took place. He then took the floor & urged his 30 or so votes onto C Sarto.


Interesting.  Thank you.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on January 13, 2015, 12:13:59 PM
Trying to bring this thread back on topic.

Nishant, how do you address this from Monsignor Fenton?

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.



Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on January 13, 2015, 12:21:07 PM
Also from Monsignor Fenton in “The Virtue of Prudence and the Success of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council” (1962)

Quote from: Monsignor Fenton
Thus there need be no anxiety about the possibility of any doctrinal error emanating from the ecumenical council. It is absolutely beyond the bounds of possibility that the ecumenical council should proclaim, and that the Roman Pontiff should confirm and promulgate as the teaching of an ecumenical council, any doctrine at variance with the teaching of God which has been given to us through Jesus Christ our Lord. There never will be a time when the doctrinal decrees of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican will have to be corrected, either negatively or positively.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe on January 13, 2015, 08:19:33 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: roscoe
I am not sure that the conclave did honor the veto. C Rampolla didn't quite have the votes when the calamity took place. He then took the floor & urged his 30 or so votes onto C Sarto.


Interesting.  Thank you.


There are 2 or 3 sources for this-- one of them is MacNutt.

Actually the number of sources for the 1903 conclave far outnumber anything I can find about 1914. MacNutt's remark that a Card sitting next to Card Del Val heard him refer to the election of Della Chiesa as a 'calamity' is the only thing so far.  :reading:
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Nishant on January 18, 2015, 12:03:29 AM
Ladislaus, thanks for your questions and thoughts, I do not know if I can address all of them here. 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.

After we have seen that we must recognize the Pope, it is only a matter of consistently gauging what indefectibility does and does not entail. In other words, it is no longer between SVism and "R&R", but rather between the SSPX position and a more FSSP-like position. The SSPX is accused of denying the indefectibility of the Church, but once the appropriate distinctions are made, it will be seen that it does not. 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.

We insist only on two rights, that have often been acknowledged privately, and sometimes publicly by Rome, (1) The right of all priests to offer exclusively the traditional Mass, as also the right of all the Catholic faithful (including those affiliated with indultarian societies) to assist exclusively at the same (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. If you are having doubts or scruples about whether the Society and traditional Catholics who support it are in "full communion" with Rome, please read this, which Bishop Fellay mentioned some years ago, "Then there are painful cases that concern sins so severe they are penalized by excommunication reserved only to the Pope. SSPX priests who confront these cases in the confessional absolve the penitent from the sin, and from the excommunication. According to Church policy, the priest must then send the case to Rome to be examined, and the excommunication formally lifted. Bishop Fellay says, “Every time – absolutely every time – we have received an answer from Rome that the priest who took care of this confession did well, that it was perfectly in order, and it was both licit and valid.” Rome would then comment on the penance, whether it was sufficient or not enough."

For the sake of brevity in the matter of universal acceptance, we can limit ourselves to examining whether the Pope was universally accepted by the ecclesia docens or episcopate (1) in 1965 and (2) in 2015 and if so, what are the implications of this vis-a-vis sedevacantism. The ecclesia docens is indefectible.

The first question all Catholics must ask themselves is "Where is the ecclesia docens today?" It is taught by Vatican I, and unanimously by all theologians, including those present there, that a visible hierarchy of bishops sent or appointed to episcopal office by a Pope must always exist. Most of those who hold to 57 year sedevacantism even hold there is no hierarchy anymore, since almost all the bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII have died or left office, but that theory (which is more "ecclesia vacantism" than sede vacantism) is heretical, and good Catholics should not hold it. The second question, "Does the ecclesia docens recognize the Pope?" If yes, then these two considerations taken together make 57 year sedevacantism untenable. Can I ask your answer to these two questions, my friend? If you agree the bishops with ordinary jurisdiction who constitute the visible hierarchy today, with moral unanimity, recognize the Pope, then what Fr. Hunter says applies, "the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope ...This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts ... it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined."

Please don't stop posting, Ladislaus. I think you know that your informative contributions are much valued here, by me and other posters.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Cantarella on January 18, 2015, 01:27:12 AM
Quote from: Nishant

 Fr. Hunter says "the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope ...This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts ...


The legitimacy of the election of the Roman Pontiff through Universal Acceptance is a definitive doctrine of the Church and is considered infallible. Catholics must believe this with de fide tenenda, which demands supernatural Faith in the Holy Ghost’s assistance to the Magisterium for discerning such matters. It must be firmly accepted and held by all faithful.

Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus 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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Cantarella 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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: awkwardcustomer 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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: awkwardcustomer 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.

 
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Clemens Maria 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 documents 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
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: conclavist 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
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: conclavist 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 Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/cumexapo.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.

Cum 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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus 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".

Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe 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:
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: conclavist 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 documents 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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe 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:
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe 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:
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: PerEvangelicaDicta 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".
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: poche 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."
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: conclavist 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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe on February 26, 2015, 08:29:27 PM
MO is that you are some kind of lunatic... :confused1:
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Nishant on February 28, 2015, 11:25:20 AM
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.

Quote
“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.

Quote from: Fr. Ballerini
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 Pontificum, and that last document also states all other traditional Sacramental rites may also freely be used.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Cantarella on February 28, 2015, 07:46:12 PM
Quote from: Nishant

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."


That is a perfect example to demonstrate the dogmatic fact that indeed "the peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope by the whole Church is a sign and effect of a valid election” Cardinal Borgia was elected pope despite the crime of simony, (which had been already condemned by Pope Callistus II about 500 hundred years before)

Quote from: Council of Lateran

Canon I on Simony, Celibacy, Investitures and Incest:

“‘Following the examples of the Holy Fathers’ and renewing the duty of our office ‘we forbid in every way by the authority of the Apostolic See that anyone by means of money be ordained or promoted in the Church of God. But if anyone shall have acquired ordination or promotion in the Church in this way, let him be entirely deprived of his office.'” (Denz. 359)



Yet Cardinal Borgia became Pontiff as Alexander VI and this is not the only case. There have been other simoniacal popes throughout history.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: roscoe on February 28, 2015, 08:22:07 PM
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:
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: songbird on March 01, 2015, 06:49:54 PM
Perfect sign that this pope is not, is the Sacrifice of Mass, has no victim.  Has no Precious Blood.  Consecration is not valid.  Majority does not rule the Church that Christ founded.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Amakusa on May 04, 2015, 08:58:24 AM
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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on May 04, 2015, 09:03:46 AM
Quote from: Amakusa
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.


Or because the Holy See was "impeded" due to the election of Cardinal Siri.

Your theories solve absolutely nothing, since according to you the REAL Paul VI was the one who promulgated Vatican II and the New Mass.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Amakusa on May 04, 2015, 10:04:19 AM
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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on May 04, 2015, 11:54:54 AM
Quote from: Amakusa
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.


So a stupid mixture of R&R with Imposter Paul VI and, to top it off with a big red cherry, the real Paul VI is still alive at 120+ years old.

 :facepalm:
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Malleus on May 04, 2015, 11:35:12 PM
"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:

 :facepalm:!
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 17, 2015, 10:46:50 AM
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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on July 17, 2015, 10:57:30 AM
Quote from: Clemens Maria
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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 17, 2015, 11:02:35 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Clemens Maria
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.


Well, I think the other thing to keep in mind is that he rejects the idea that heretics can represent the universal Church.  So the fact that he is universally accepted by heretics is of no consequence.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 17, 2015, 11:11:29 AM
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.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Arvinger on July 17, 2015, 12:06:32 PM
Quote from: Clemens Maria
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Clemens Maria
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.


Well, I think the other thing to keep in mind is that he rejects the idea that heretics can represent the universal Church.  So the fact that he is universally accepted by heretics is of no consequence.


I am in a sede-doubtist camp and I do see serious problems with sedevacantism, especially a dogmatic one, but I find the argument about universal acceptance of the Vatican II Popes as evidence for their validity really weak. Yes, majority of people baptized in the Catholic Church recognize Francis as Pope, but only about 20% of baptized Catholics actually practice their faith. Out of these 20% great many reject Church's teaching on different subjects, most notoriously the teaching on sexual morality, or have Protestantized view of the Church and the Mass (no wonder we see massive defections to Protestantism, especially in South America). So in reality we are left with few % of Catholics who actually keep their faith and can be representative for the Church in regard to universal acceptance of the Pope. And within such a small percentage the sedevacantists and followers of the SSPX (often you can hear that there are many crypto-sedevacantists in the SSPX chapels, and even - as Bishop Sanborn claims - among the priests) suddenly become a serious number which puts into doubt the universal acceptance of V2 Popes. Lets not forget that +Lefebvre himself was a sede-doubtist and in his day there were many sedevacantists even in the SSPX and its seminaries whom the Archbishop had to remove.  
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on July 17, 2015, 02:58:37 PM
Quote from: Clemens Maria
I wish Fr. Cekada had spent a little more time on this topic.


Yes, he really did gloss over it too quickly.  It's a CRUCIAL argument and can get pretty complicated ... and not solvable in quick soundbites.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on July 17, 2015, 03:01:51 PM
Quote from: Arvinger
And within such a small percentage the sedevacantists and followers of the SSPX (often you can hear that there are many crypto-sedevacantists in the SSPX chapels, and even - as Bishop Sanborn claims - among the priests) suddenly become a serious number which puts into doubt the universal acceptance of V2 Popes. Lets not forget that +Lefebvre himself was a sede-doubtist and in his day there were many sedevacantists even in the SSPX and its seminaries whom the Archbishop had to remove.  


Also, what does "recognition" mean?  Just to acknowledge him as legitimately elected (from the material standpoint)?  No, the theological rationale for WHY universal acceptance is infallible derives from the principle that the Church could not universally adhere to a FALSE RULE OF FAITH.  But the SSPX do NOT adhere to the V2 Popes are rules of faith, despite paying lip-service to their material possession of the See.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Nishant on July 18, 2015, 11:14:58 AM
Dear Clemens Maria, remember Rev. Connell, a personal friend of Msgr. Fenton and editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review after him, clearly considered the legitimacy of Pope Paul VI to be a dogmatic fact in Dec. 1965. In 1965, we don't need to talk about Ordinaries or anything else (that only applies today, 50 years of an alleged sede vacante later), as Fr. Connell says "the whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact and from this it follows that it is infallibly true" in the year 1965 that the Pope was the Pope.

Actually, now that you mention it, Fr. Cekada did express publicly some thoughts precisely about universal acceptance etc, but it was in a conversation on Ignis Ardens which is now down. I think there's an excerpt of it on the Bellarmine forums somewhere, I may post it here later if I find it. It contains some interesting thoughts from Father, he also seemed to qualify somewhat his earlier position expressed in a discussion with Mr. Lane on the same forum that all bishops with ordinary jurisdiction could cease to exist, among other things.

Anyway, for purposes of this thread, suffice to say with Fr. Hunter "it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined." The reason for this is because, "The Church is infallible when She declares what person holds the office of Pope". This is a dogmatic fact, infallibly proved by the authority of the Church no less than the canonization of a Saint, or the declaration that some specific book contains errors opposed to the deposit of revelation, or the like. As Van Noort puts it, "the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession".

The only way 60 odd year sedevacantism can be saved is by positing that bishops appointed by the non-Pope/false Pope/material Pope/antiPope can become Ordinaries by said appointment. I don't agree with that theory, as it dispenses with the need for the Papacy altogether and reduces the Pope to a delegate of the Church, an error condemned in Vatican I. But that is a matter for another thread. Catholics should simply ask themselves, is a prelate like, say, Cardinal Burke or a Bishop Athanasius Catholic? Yes, clearly they are, even if like most Catholics today, they may hold a few errors in good faith. If they are Catholic, they are the legitimate authorities of the Church, which means we cannot separate from communion with them. Would someone really argue they don't recognize Pope Francis? If they recognize him and remain in communion with him, so must we, for we must remain in communion with them. The doctrine of universal acceptance is, therefore, simple Catholic common sense, which says we must remain in communion with the Sovereign Pontiff and the college of Bishops appointed by him if we wish to remain Roman Catholic. We can separate from individual Bishops whom we consider clearly heretical, on condition that they are declared as such later by the Pope, but not from the entire Apostolic hierarchy, nor from the Roman Church.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 18, 2015, 03:18:16 PM
I don't accuse the conservative NO folks of being non-Catholic but I do doubt the validity of their orders and the legitimacy of their appointments.  If I were to adopt your position I would also be compelled to accept the doctrine of V2.  It is as universally accepted as the Conciliar popes.  How could they be right about the pope but wrong about the Council?  But if they are wrong about some things, they could be wrong about many things.  Besides I don't count heretics as representatives of the Church.  ++Thuc, ++Lefebvre, +de Castro Mayer as well as others expressed doubt about P6.  So from where I stand I don't see universal acceptance.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on July 18, 2015, 03:54:44 PM
Quote from: Clemens Maria
If I were to adopt your position I would also be compelled to accept the doctrine of V2.


THIS ^^^, Nishant.

Msgr. Fenton, whom you're fond of quoting otherwise, also declares that such doctrine as Vatican II would be infallibly safe and that consequently no Catholic has a right to reject it.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Amakusa on July 23, 2015, 01:26:47 AM
Nishant, you should distinguish the case of John XXIII and Paul VI in one hand, and that of "John Paul II" and his successors in another hand. While it is true that John XXIII and Paul VI were peacefully accepted, many Catholics did not obey Karol Wojtyla, and thus did not acknowledge him.

The key issue is the new mass... Vatican II was not meant to be infallible, but a new liturgy is necessarily infallible; now, we can notice that the new mass has been harmful to the faith, which would be impossible if this liturgy had been approved by the Church. Therefore, it means that the new mass was not approved by Pope Paul VI; and indeed several books and private revelations have said it. The Novus Ordo, in its public version, is a forgery. The true version was okay. All the Vatican congregations were infiltrated by Freemasonry, and Cardinal Villot and his followers falsified many documents of the Pope.

Cardinal Wojtyla was elected in a context of turmoil. Thousands of faithful, and hundreds of priests, did not obey him and built or bought their own chapels. These priests refused to celebrate the new mass. Wojtyla was not peacefully accepted, right from the beginning.

I insist on the fact that peaceful acceptance is fulfilled once and for all: since it occured in the beginning of Paul VI's pontificate, it never vanished later on.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Gregory I on July 23, 2015, 01:30:12 AM
Who and what were these significant numbers of faithful Catholics who had reason to suspect the election of Pope St. John Paul II? Did they voice their dissent publicly, and did their voice constitute a significant minority?

Disobedience is not a sign of non-acceptance, but a sign of spiritual delusion.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Amakusa on July 23, 2015, 01:35:37 AM
All those Catholics who noticed that the new mass was harmful to the faith, since a very great number of faithful did not attend Mass any longer, and since they felt that their own faith was becoming weaker when attending the new mass.

In France, many priests refused to say the new mass. The association "Noël Pinot" counted at least five hundred priests.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Gregory I on July 23, 2015, 02:08:21 AM
Quote from: Amakusa
All those Catholics who noticed that the new mass was harmful to the faith, since a very great number of faithful did not attend Mass any longer, and since they felt that their own faith was becoming weaker when attending the new mass.

In France, many priests refused to say the new mass. The association "Noël Pinot" counted at least five hundred priests.


That shows they dissented from the New Mass, not that they were sedevacantists. Where were the great multitudes declaring he was not the pope?
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Amakusa on July 23, 2015, 03:55:44 AM
Peaceful acceptance implies that the Catholics must acknowledge the Pope both theoretically and practically.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Nishant on July 23, 2015, 06:51:12 AM
Quote from: Clemens Maria
Besides I don't count heretics as representatives of the Church. ++Thuc, ++Lefebvre, +de Castro Mayer as well as others expressed doubt about P6.


But not in 1965. In trying to prove Vatican II is infallible, John Daly documents these facts for us, "almost all the world’s bishops were gathered together and at the moment of promulgation of the decrees by the man recognised as pope, not a dissenting voice was heard ... This proportion already surpasses the pro-infallibility consensus at Vatican I, which has always been regarded as morally unanimous ... and if any bishop continued to reject [Vatican II's promulgation] ... after its promulgation and despite his signature to it, the world’s Catholics remained entirely unaware of this fact for at least the next ten years." So, how do you explain that "the man recognised as pope", in Daly's own words, did this in 1965? If even in Dec 1965, he was accepted by the Church, clearly he could not have lost his office by then, so the sedevacantist explanation of Vatican II must be incorrect.

Now, as for the other point you and Ladislaus bring up, I know some sedevacantists won't agree, but Vatican II isn't infallible, otherwise it would require the irrevocable assent of divine and Catholic Faith, but Pope Paul VI clearly said it required only the same religious obedience normally given to a Papal Encyclical, as we have discussed elsewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum Religious submission is mentioned in Vatican II itself and Donum Veritatis and other Magisterial documents clearly explain, in exceptional cases, witholding or reserving assent is allowed for theologians who are discussing the matter with the Holy See, as the Society is doing. "withholding assent is allowed for a theologian "who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching." ... the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions," and is to "refrain from giving untimely public expression to them," and "avoid turning to the mass media," but with a humble and teachable spirit it is his duty "to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented," with "an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him." prayerfully trusting "that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum Do you disagree with this? If so I can prove it from pre-Vatican II theological sources/

Amakusa, with regard to later Popes, as we've discussed before, it is sufficient to show they are accepted by all the Bishops, or Ordinaries, of the Church. The faithful are not infallible in teaching or declaring, but only in believing and adhering. The Bishops infallibly declare the Pope is really the Pope and the faithful adhere to and believe this infallibly. Thus, to show the acceptance of the Ordinaries of the Church is in itself a sufficient proof, as Fr. Hunter clearly says. Besides, your theory simply does away with the dogma of the Church's visibility, and takes refuge in an alleged hidden hierarchy whom nobody can see or know, Dom Gueranger explains, following Vatican I, why the Church by necessity must be visible, "We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them ... for they have not been sent, they are not pastors. Thus it is that the divine Founder of the Church, who willed that she should be a city seated on a mountain/ gave her visibility; it was an essential requisite ; for since all were called to enter her pale, all must be able to see her." Theologians also say it is a "sign and infallible effect of a valid election" (Wernz-Vidal), because universal acceptance is a sign, it must be externally discernible and so is closely tied to the doctrine of the Church's visibility, which the living-Paul VI-double-in-hiding thesis denies.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Amakusa on July 23, 2015, 10:28:57 AM
I agree with the first two paragraphs of your message:

-the way the sedevacantists attempt to explain the crisis is incorrect
-Vatican II was not meant to be infallible
-we are not forced to assent to the liberal theories of the council, because of the circumstances

Regarding peaceful acceptance, it seems that you can quote only one theologian who said that the acceptance of the bishops in enough; well, his opinion is not true since it would not be a universal acceptance anymore.

Regarding the visibility of the Church, I have mentioned this point in my French book, which sadly I have not the time to translate into English. First I explained that the faithful bishops, priests and lay men were the visible Church, even when they do not acknowledge Paul VI, for the traditionalist clergy holds its jurisdiction from him. The Catholic doctrine does not require that the Pope himself be always visible, since he has already been hidden or has went into exile. Then, while it is true that the visibility of the Church is more or less perceptible, nevertheless it would be an error to have a mere material definition of the visibility. Bossuet, when he argued against the Protestants (who deny the visibility of the Church), said that during the Catacombs, the Church remained visible...

Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on July 23, 2015, 11:15:02 AM
Quote from: Nishant
Quote from: Clemens Maria
Besides I don't count heretics as representatives of the Church. ++Thuc, ++Lefebvre, +de Castro Mayer as well as others expressed doubt about P6.


But not in 1965. In trying to prove Vatican II is infallible, John Daly documents these facts for us, "almost all the world’s bishops were gathered together and at the moment of promulgation of the decrees by the man recognised as pope, not a dissenting voice was heard ... This proportion already surpasses the pro-infallibility consensus at Vatican I, which has always been regarded as morally unanimous ... and if any bishop continued to reject [Vatican II's promulgation] ... after its promulgation and despite his signature to it, the world’s Catholics remained entirely unaware of this fact for at least the next ten years." So, how do you explain that "the man recognised as pope", in Daly's own words, did this in 1965? If even in Dec 1965, he was accepted by the Church, clearly he could not have lost his office by then, so the sedevacantist explanation of Vatican II must be incorrect.


Because I don't believe that an invalid election can be convalidated by "universal acceptance".  Several theological manuals cite legitimate election + universal acceptance (two criteria) as determining the dogmatic fact of papacy.

We'll find that the answer lies in Cardinal Sir's election in 1958.

This WILL come out in the wash.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on July 23, 2015, 11:22:18 AM
Quote from: Nishant
I know some sedevacantists won't agree, but Vatican II isn't infallible, otherwise it would require the irrevocable assent of divine and Catholic Faith, but Pope Paul VI clearly said it required only the same religious obedience normally given to a Papal Encyclical, ...


And yet you continue to ignore what Msgr. Fenton has to say about the authority of Papal Encyclicals.

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.


That's the typical R&R sleight of hand.  You argue that nothing in V2 has the notes of infallibility strictly speaking.

Yet you posit a complete defection of the Magisterium, where the Magsiterium has gone SO BADLY OFF THE RAILS that it REQUIRES of Catholics the REFUSAL of submission to the Magisterium.  That would entail the defection of the Magisterium and therefore of the Church herself.

You keep talking about how the Church would defect in the case of an extended sedevacante, but that's not necessarily the case (cf. the material-formal sedeprivationist thesis).  What's the point of the material continuity, Nishant, if the Magisterium itself can defect?  Well, for that matter, hierarchy would be BETTER OFF DEFECTING entirely if in fact their Magisterium does nothing more than lead people away from the faith.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 23, 2015, 11:23:52 AM
Quote from: Nishant
Quote from: Clemens Maria
Besides I don't count heretics as representatives of the Church. ++Thuc, ++Lefebvre, +de Castro Mayer as well as others expressed doubt about P6.


But not in 1965. In trying to prove Vatican II is infallible, John Daly documents these facts for us, "almost all the world’s bishops were gathered together and at the moment of promulgation of the decrees by the man recognised as pope, not a dissenting voice was heard ... This proportion already surpasses the pro-infallibility consensus at Vatican I, which has always been regarded as morally unanimous ... and if any bishop continued to reject [Vatican II's promulgation] ... after its promulgation and despite his signature to it, the world’s Catholics remained entirely unaware of this fact for at least the next ten years." So, how do you explain that "the man recognised as pope", in Daly's own words, did this in 1965? If even in Dec 1965, he was accepted by the Church, clearly he could not have lost his office by then, so the sedevacantist explanation of Vatican II must be incorrect.

Now, as for the other point you and Ladislaus bring up, I know some sedevacantists won't agree, but Vatican II isn't infallible, ...


You are arguing in circles again.  It is the documents of V2 which are problematic.  On this point ++Lefebvre is in agreement with the sedevacantists.  There are heresies in the documents.  Can a true pope teach heresies and bind the faithful to them?  No.  We are in agreement on that.  So how do we explain it?  You claim that an ecumenical council of the Church approved by the Pope is not an infallible exercise of the Magisterium.  That is novel.  It is unheard of in the history of the Church.  SVs claim that the heresies in the documents prove that Paul VI was not a true Pope.  The SVs have a lot of traditional documentation backing up their position.  But your position requires the acceptance of a novelty.  Maybe you will be proven correct in the future.  I don't know.  But at the moment the safest thing to do is to accept the traditional views on the legitimacy of papal claims especially with regard to manifest heretics.

Also, John Lane has pointed out that even in 1965 there was great turmoil in the Church.  He even points out that the American Ecclesiastical Review published (in 1965) a response to a question apparently coming from readers on how we can be sure that P6 is a true pope.  That is an indication of the unrest at the time.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on July 23, 2015, 11:27:56 AM
There's an additional component, Nishant, which adds a little more weight to V2 than a Papal Encyclical.  It's that V2 was taught by all the bishops of the world in union with the pope, therefore making it part of the OUM.

While you claim that the Church could not defect by having all the bishops of the world recognize as legitimate an illegitimate pope, what's the difference between that and if all the bishops of the world accept and teach DOCTRINAL ERRORS?  Both these are based on the SAME principle, but in one case you accept it while in the other you do not ... selectively, based on your R&R brainwashing.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on July 23, 2015, 11:34:39 AM
Let me reiterate, Nishant.  If I were to come around to your position on universal acceptance, I would cease to be a Traditional Catholic, abjure my schism, and submit to the teaching of Vatican II with religious submission, trying with my last dying breath to apply the hermeneutic of continuity to its teaching.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Gregory I on July 23, 2015, 02:06:05 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Let me reiterate, Nishant.  If I were to come around to your position on universal acceptance, I would cease to be a Traditional Catholic, abjure my schism, and submit to the teaching of Vatican II with religious submission, trying with my last dying breath to apply the hermeneutic of continuity to its teaching.


Do you admit it to be a teaching of the Church that you are bound to believe the teachings of her theologians?
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on July 23, 2015, 02:21:18 PM
Quote from: Gregory I
Quote from: Ladislaus
Let me reiterate, Nishant.  If I were to come around to your position on universal acceptance, I would cease to be a Traditional Catholic, abjure my schism, and submit to the teaching of Vatican II with religious submission, trying with my last dying breath to apply the hermeneutic of continuity to its teaching.


Do you admit it to be a teaching of the Church that you are bound to believe the teachings of her theologians?


No.  Theologians do not exercise any kind of Magisterium.  Father Cekada made that one up.  Typically theologians can be seen as passively reflecting the faith of the Church but not as an active part of the Magisterium.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Gregory I on July 23, 2015, 02:42:49 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Gregory I
Quote from: Ladislaus
Let me reiterate, Nishant.  If I were to come around to your position on universal acceptance, I would cease to be a Traditional Catholic, abjure my schism, and submit to the teaching of Vatican II with religious submission, trying with my last dying breath to apply the hermeneutic of continuity to its teaching.


Do you admit it to be a teaching of the Church that you are bound to believe the teachings of her theologians?


No.  Theologians do not exercise any kind of Magisterium.  Father Cekada made that one up.  Typically theologians can be seen as passively reflecting the faith of the Church but not as an active part of the Magisterium.


You may disagree with him, but he certainly didn'take it up. It is in Dezinger 1683 and 1684:

"1683 While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.

1684 But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure."
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Gregory I on July 23, 2015, 03:03:56 PM
What does this mean and why is it in Denzigers sources of Dogma then:

"For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith."

The act of subjecting the will to a doctrine is not limited to ONLY those things defined by the Popes and councils, but also to the ordinary magisterium, and consequently the theologians whose common consensus teaches what BELONGS to the Ordinary magisterium. And these are to be believed with Divine Faith, which things it is a mortal sin to deny.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Gregory I on July 23, 2015, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Bellator Dei
Quote from: Gregory I
What does this mean and why is it in Denzigers sources of Dogma then:

"For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith."

The act of subjecting the will to a doctrine is not limited to ONLY those things defined by the Popes and councils, but also to the ordinary magisterium, and consequently the theologians whose common consensus teaches what BELONGS to the Ordinary magisterium. And these are to be believed with Divine Faith, which things it is a mortal sin to deny.


Probably best to start a new thread on the Magisterium...


Do you accept the above as authentic Catholic teaching?
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Cantarella on July 23, 2015, 05:17:48 PM
Quote from: Gregory I
What does this mean and why is it in Denzigers sources of Dogma then:

 "For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith."

 The act of subjecting the will to a doctrine is not limited to ONLY those things defined by the Popes and councils, but also to the ordinary magisterium, and consequently the theologians whose common consensus teaches what BELONGS to the Ordinary magisterium. And these are to be believed with Divine Faith, which things it is a mortal sin to deny.


This quote regards matters that are handed down as "divinely revealed". We know that Divine Revelation ended after the last apostle died, so apart from the infallible dogmas that contain the Deposit of Faith, this quote also refers to those definitive doctrines (secondary truths) proposed by the Magisterium in a "definitive way" which are strictly, intimately, and historically connected with what has been " divinely revealed", and that must be firmly accepted and held with Divine Faith. Theologians works have merit as long as they do not contradict these dogmas and doctrines. However, not every single teaching the Magisterium proposes has the same level of expected assent from the faithful. There are ordinary magisterial teachings the faithful owe religious assent, which is different from assent of Faith (Assensus Fidei).


Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Gregory I on July 23, 2015, 05:22:29 PM
Yes and we owe an act of divine faith to what theologians teach is the ordinary magisterium.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on July 23, 2015, 07:55:37 PM
Quote from: Gregory I
Yes and we owe an act of divine faith to what theologians teach is the ordinary magisterium.


Here you've completely got it jumbled up.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Ladislaus on July 23, 2015, 07:56:41 PM
Quote from: Gregory I
Yes and we owe an act of divine faith to what theologians teach is the ordinary magisterium.


Well, I guess, then, that you owe an act of divine faith to the doctrine of Religious Liberty.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Amakusa on July 24, 2015, 02:48:57 AM
Quote
You are arguing in circles again.  It is the documents of V2 which are problematic.  On this point ++Lefebvre is in agreement with the sedevacantists.  There are heresies in the documents.  Can a true pope teach heresies and bind the faithful to them?


-> We have already explained that it is impossible to claim that V2 includes heresies properly speaking, since the bishops of the whole world, when gathered (even without the Pope), cannot teach any heresy with moral unanimity. There are errors in V2, but not heresies.

Quote
No.  We are in agreement on that.  So how do we explain it?  You claim that an ecumenical council of the Church approved by the Pope is not an infallible exercise of the Magisterium.  That is novel.  It is unheard of in the history of the Church.  SVs claim that the heresies in the documents prove that Paul VI was not a true Pope.


-> Many sedevacantists make this error: they do not understand papal infallibility. I have been a law student for five years and when I try to explain them their error, I always tell them that they must make a distinction between the legal form of the act and its content: the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium are infallible, but not in their whole content. For instance, the arguments of the Pope when he defined the Immaculate Conception are not considered to be infallible: only his conclusion is. In V2, there was no definition properly speaking: Paul VI did not define any doctrine definitely and irrevocably, as would be the case if the teachings were infallible. Pope Paul VI has declared himself that it was the "authentic magisterium", and theologians use this phrase to refer to the non-infaillible teachings (non-infallible content) of the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium. If the Pope himself has declared that Vatican II was not infallible, it is not infallible. Period!

Ladislaus, peaceful acceptance does not only concern the valid elections, for two reasons: firstly the purpose of peaceful acceptance is precisely to inform the Catholic people that the Pope has been lawfully elected and thus that he is legitimate; secondly, in the case of simoniac or other illegal elections, it has already happened that the election become valid by means of peaceful acceptance (we have already spoken about it on this forum). Therefore, peaceful acceptance allows either to inform the people that the election is lawful, or to render it lawful when it was not.

Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Clemens Maria on July 24, 2015, 10:02:16 AM
Quote from: Amakusa
We have already explained that it is impossible to claim that V2 includes heresies properly speaking, since the bishops of the whole world, when gathered (even without the Pope), cannot teach any heresy with moral unanimity. There are errors in V2, but not heresies.


There is ample evidence (cf. The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, etc) that not only was there no moral unanimity but there was even underhanded tactics on the part of modernists to manipulate the results of the Council.  ++Lefebvre himself testified that he only signed the documents because he felt morally compelled to be united with the Pope and the other bishops.  But it was my impression that he regretted it and he even claimed to have not signed some of the documents, although that was later proved to be incorrect.  For someone who knows the history of the Council well to say that there was moral unanimity on the Council is dishonest.  There have been false councils in the past.  So claiming that V2 is a false council is not a novel approach.  But to say that all the bishops of the world along with the Pope could exercise the extraordinary magisterium in a way that produced errors is certainly a novel idea.  That has never happened.  Ever.

Quote from: Amakusa
I always tell them that they must make a distinction between the legal form of the act and its content: the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium are infallible, but not in their whole content. For instance, the arguments of the Pope when he defined the Immaculate Conception are not considered to be infallible: only his conclusion is. In V2, there was no definition properly speaking: Paul VI did not define any doctrine definitely and irrevocably, as would be the case if the teachings were infallible. Pope Paul VI has declared himself that it was the "authentic magisterium", and theologians use this phrase to refer to the non-infaillible teachings (non-infallible content) of the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium. If the Pope himself has declared that Vatican II was not infallible, it is not infallible. Period!


Do you accept novelties then?  Can you give another historic example (not V2) where the extraordinary magisterium either declined to teach infallibly or taught infallibly but also included errors which lead the faithful into sin and destruction?
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Gregory I on July 24, 2015, 05:22:01 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Gregory I
Yes and we owe an act of divine faith to what theologians teach is the ordinary magisterium.


Here you've completely got it jumbled up.


"A Commentary on Canon Law" (Augustine, 1918, Canon 1323, pg 327) states: "The universal and ordinary magisterium consists of the entire episcopate, according to the constitution and order defined by Christ, i.e., all the bishops of the universal Church, dependently on the Roman Pontiff". It also states, "What the universal and approved practice and discipline proposes as connected with faith and morals must be believed. And what the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide."
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Histrionics on July 24, 2015, 05:24:06 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus
Quote from: Nishant
I know some sedevacantists won't agree, but Vatican II isn't infallible, otherwise it would require the irrevocable assent of divine and Catholic Faith, but Pope Paul VI clearly said it required only the same religious obedience normally given to a Papal Encyclical, ...


And yet you continue to ignore what Msgr. Fenton has to say about the authority of Papal Encyclicals.

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.


That's the typical R&R sleight of hand.  You argue that nothing in V2 has the notes of infallibility strictly speaking.

Yet you posit a complete defection of the Magisterium, where the Magsiterium has gone SO BADLY OFF THE RAILS that it REQUIRES of Catholics the REFUSAL of submission to the Magisterium.  That would entail the defection of the Magisterium and therefore of the Church herself.

You keep talking about how the Church would defect in the case of an extended sedevacante, but that's not necessarily the case (cf. the material-formal sedeprivationist thesis).  What's the point of the material continuity, Nishant, if the Magisterium itself can defect?  Well, for that matter, hierarchy would be BETTER OFF DEFECTING entirely if in fact their Magisterium does nothing more than lead people away from the faith.


Yes, and in fact literally every single time he's confronted with the fact that by his own (as well as Msgr. Fenton's) criteria that the documents of Vatican II MUST be at least infallibly safe if Paul VI was the Vicar of Christ, it's always crickets.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Gregory I on July 24, 2015, 05:44:46 PM
My understanding was that basically Vatican II enjoys infallibility not by virtue of being an act of the Extraordinary Magisterium, but rather a solemn occasion of the Authentic and Ordinary Magisterium.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Arvinger on July 25, 2015, 08:57:51 AM
Quote from: Nishant

Anyway, for purposes of this thread, suffice to say with Fr. Hunter "it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined." The reason for this is because, "The Church is infallible when She declares what person holds the office of Pope". This is a dogmatic fact, infallibly proved by the authority of the Church no less than the canonization of a Saint, or the declaration that some specific book contains errors opposed to the deposit of revelation, or the like. As Van Noort puts it, "the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession".


But the problem remains similar as in case of laity - great many bishops have practically apostatized, thus they are not representative for the Church in regard of universal acceptance of the Pope. If you narrow down the number of bishops to those who keep faith, Traditionalit bishops who rejected V2 Popes or their Magisterium become significant enough to deny the universal acceptance of the Pope.

Quote from: Nishant

But not in 1965. In trying to prove Vatican II is infallible, John Daly documents these facts for us, "almost all the world’s bishops were gathered together and at the moment of promulgation of the decrees by the man recognised as pope, not a dissenting voice was heard ... This proportion already surpasses the pro-infallibility consensus at Vatican I, which has always been regarded as morally unanimous ... and if any bishop continued to reject [Vatican II's promulgation] ... after its promulgation and despite his signature to it, the world’s Catholics remained entirely unaware of this fact for at least the next ten years." So, how do you explain that "the man recognised as pope", in Daly's own words, did this in 1965? If even in Dec 1965, he was accepted by the Church, clearly he could not have lost his office by then, so the sedevacantist explanation of Vatican II must be incorrect.


First of all, as Ladislaus pointed out, recognizing the Pope as validly elected is not enough - to speak about universal acceptance of the Pope his Magisterium must be also accepted by the bishops and the faithful. In case of Vatican II, while voting on the documents many bishops did not even know what they are really voting on, the documents were presented to them without sufficient time to properly read them. Afterwards many bishops said they would never sign Vatican II documents had they known their content, among them Archbishop Lefebvre rejected Vatican II after realizing what the documents really teach. Thus, Paul VI's Magisterium was not universally accepted by the bishops, let alone the Magisterium of John Paul II who showed himself as a modernist from his very first encyclical Redemptor Hominis. The universal acceptance argument remains very shaky at best.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Amakusa on July 25, 2015, 10:05:13 AM
Arvinger,

No, universal acceptance is related to the election and occurs in the first months, especially in modern times since we have television and very broad communication means; it is not related to the magisterium! Therefore, it is clear that John XXIII and Paul VI have been accepted by the whole Church.

However, what you say about the circumstances of the council may be a good point, if you are able to provide clear information about it.


Clemens Maria,

During Vatican II, the Church was made sin just like Our Lord in the Garden of olives. This is the reason why, for the first time, a solemn council did not include infallible teachings, but included errors: therefore it seemed that the Church defected, but actually it did not, because the teachings were not infallible in their content.

One cannot understand the situation of the Church by a mere dogmatic reasoning. You say that this situation is unprecedented, but it is easy to answer you that the sedevacantist thesis is also unprecedented, since it never happened that the Church be vacant for fifty years and more: it is utterly false to claim, for instance, that the Church has been vacant during the Great Schism (the true Pope was the Roman Pope). Above all, if you say that a pope who has been accepted by the whole Church has defected with all the Catholic hierarchy, it is also unprecedented. There was well and truly moral unanimity when the text on religious freedom was voted, with only 3% of dissent!

Regarding the circumstances of Vatican II, we are free to reject it. Your point concerning infallible safety is not relevant...
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: songbird on July 29, 2015, 07:19:23 PM
Pope Pius XII:  Made it clear to the world in the 1940's, Russia take over,that anyone one who supports the State/Gov't before God, is excommunicated.  When Russia took out true priests/bishops, put them in camps or death, were replaces with only clergy that would support the agenda of Communism.

Therefore, know them by their fruits: if a pope says the adulterated mass, that is heretical, he is excommunicated.  Therefore, for me, knowing this, I do not follow the examples of the excommunicated.

Now, does that label me a sedevacantist?  I am following Church Laws.
Title: Universal acceptance of a Pope
Post by: Clemens Maria on August 11, 2015, 02:35:02 PM
Thanks Lover of Truth!  cf. http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php//The-Siri-Thesis-2

Quote from: Lover of Truth
http://www.novusordowatch.org/sspx_dossier_sede.pdf

18.  Next Fr. Boulet treats of the Siri thesis, a most interesting explanation of the origin of the crisis.

Quote
4.3.  The Case of Cardinal Siri: It is being argued by some Sedevacantists that some very
serious defects affected the Conclaves that elected Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, then, consequently John- Paul I and John-Paul II.  It is being claimed that Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, the former Archbishop of Genoa, Italy was elected Pope in the 1958, 1963 conclaves, and possibly also in 1978.  Cardinal Siri was extremely popular in Italy, mostly for his strong social accomplishments in Genoa.  He was also considered as a strong conservative, even though he did not publicly stand in defence of Tradition during the Vatican II council.  So, apparently, Cardinal Siri had been ‘elected’ Pope at the conclave that followed the death of Pope Pius XII.  Some are going as far as telling us that he had accepted the election of his fellow cardinals, and had taken the name of Gregory XVII.  Shortly before such ‘election’ was to be made public to the world, a group of cardinals would have revolted against him, and forced him to renounce to the supreme pontificate.  Then, Cardinal Roncalli was chosen and appeared to the world as Pope John XXIII.  Some Sedevacantist pulled out a recent report from the FBI to prove such thesis.  They added on that ‘Pope Siri’ secretly appointed cardinals to succeed to him in the future.  Frankly, such theory doesn’t make sense, for a number of reasons.  First of all there is a Church law that binds under secrecy all the proceedings of a conclave, under the penalty of excommunication for whoever would break such seal. Even if Cardinal Siri was properly elected as a Pope, it is a matter of fact that he never showed it in public. He was among the cardinals that paid allegiance to both Popes John XXIII and Paul VI. After the 1958 and 1963 conclaves, he went back to his diocese of Genoa.  In 1969, though reluctantly, he adopted the Novus Ordo Missae. Meanwhile, a French priest, Father Guérin, had established a ‘conservative’ community of priests in Genoa. Back in the seventies, Father Guérin was living in Paris, France, where he used to say a weekly Novus Ordo Mass all in Latin, with biretta and incense, which I attended a couple of times. I know personally two members of Fr. Guérin’s community that have been ordained priests by Cardinal Siri. They have now an apostolate in France, and say the Novus Ordo Mass. Their ordination was held with the New Mass, though in a more conservative way. Finally, Cardinal Siri died in 1989. But, the most important reason why we must discard the “Pope Siri” theory is the fundamental principle that a peaceful acceptance of a Pope by the Universal Church is the infallible sign and effect of a valid election. All theologians agree on that point.
Cardinal Billot says: “God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for a while. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully. Thus, as long as a Pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election...For the universal acceptance of the Church heals in the root any vitiated election.


a)  It is certainly granted that the acceptance by Cardinal Siri of the “reforms” of Vatican II is evidence that he was not a true Pope, even if he was somehow still a Catholic, which possibility I think we must grant.  But in any case, a doubtful Pope is no Pope.  

b)  With respect to the alleged peaceful acceptance of the whole Church of Paul VI, however, let us
review the comments and questions of Fr. Boulet’s master in these questions, Xavier da Silveira.

Quote
A more attentive examination of the question would reveal, nevertheless, that even on purely theoretical grounds, an important difficulty arises, which would consist in determining precisely what is the concept of pacific and universal acceptation by the Church.  For such acceptation to have been pacific and universal would it be enough that no Cardinal had contested the election?  Would it be enough that in a Council, for example, almost the totality of the Bishops had signed the acts, recognizing in this way, at least implicitly, that the Pope be the true one?  Would it be enough that no voice, or practically no voice had publicly given the cry of alert?  Or, on the contrary, would a certain very generalized, though not always well defined, distrust be sufficient to destroy the apparently pacific and universal character of the acceptance of the Pope?  And if this distrust became a suspicion in numerous spirits, a positive doubt in many, a certainty in some, would the aforementioned pacific and universal acceptance subsist?  And if such distrusts, suspicions, doubts and certainties cropped out with some frequency in conversations or private papers, or now and
again in published writings, could one still classify as pacific and universal the acceptance of a Pope who was already a heretic on the occasion of his election by the Sacred College? [Da Silveira, op. cit]


In the Church as in society generally, the following wisdom applies to the present situation.  “We
must recognize the chief characteristic of the modern era – a permanent state of what I call violent
peace .”  Admiral James D. Watkins, USN (Ret.), former Chief of Naval Operations.