Author Topic: Universal acceptance of a Pope (Read 24511 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #60 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, Jєωs, 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 ...”

PG · « **Reply #61 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.

roscoe · « **Reply #62 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:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #63 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.

Cantarella · « **Reply #64 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.”

roscoe · « **Reply #65 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:

roscoe · « **Reply #66 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. ?????

roscoe · « **Reply #67 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:

Cantarella · « **Reply #68 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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #69 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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #70 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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #71 on:** January 13, 2015, 12:21:07 PM »

Also from Monsignor Fenton in “The Virtue of Prudence and the Success of the Second Ecuмenical Vatican Council” (1962)

Quote from: Monsignor Fenton

Thus there need be no anxiety about the possibility of any doctrinal error emanating from the ecuмenical council. It is absolutely beyond the bounds of possibility that the ecuмenical council should proclaim, and that the Roman Pontiff should confirm and promulgate as the teaching of an ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical Council of the Vatican will have to be corrected, either negatively or positively.

roscoe · « **Reply #72 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:

Nishant · « **Reply #73 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.

Cantarella · « **Reply #74 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.