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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 docuмents 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 docuмents 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.

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 docuмents 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.

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 docuмents 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 docuмents of V2 which are problematic.  On this point ++Lefebvre is in agreement with the sedevacantists.  There are heresies in the docuмents.  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 ecuмenical 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 docuмents prove that Paul VI was not a true Pope.  The SVs have a lot of traditional docuмentation 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.