Author Topic: Universal acceptance of a Pope (Read 40267 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #35 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.

Nishant · « **Reply #36 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.

Thursday · « **Reply #37 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.

roscoe · « **Reply #38 on:** November 26, 2012, 11:14:48 AM »

John XXIII(23)-- Benedict XVI(16) anti-popes

Nishant · « **Reply #39 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 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 and here 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.