Author Topic: Universal acceptance of a Pope (Read 40171 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #10 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".

brotherfrancis75 · « **Reply #11 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 Jєωιѕн 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.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #12 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.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #13 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.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #14 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.