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.
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,
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. 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.
Topic: Universal acceptance of a Pope (Read 40273 times)