Author Topic: Universal acceptance of a Pope (Read 40103 times)

Nishant · « **Reply #115 on:** July 23, 2015, 06:51:12 AM »

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, 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.

Amakusa · « **Reply #116 on:** July 23, 2015, 10:28:57 AM »

I agree with the first two paragraphs of your message:

-the way the sedevacantists attempt to explain the crisis is incorrect
-Vatican II was not meant to be infallible
-we are not forced to assent to the liberal theories of the council, because of the circuмstances

Regarding peaceful acceptance, it seems that you can quote only one theologian who said that the acceptance of the bishops in enough; well, his opinion is not true since it would not be a universal acceptance anymore.

Regarding the visibility of the Church, I have mentioned this point in my French book, which sadly I have not the time to translate into English. First I explained that the faithful bishops, priests and lay men were the visible Church, even when they do not acknowledge Paul VI, for the traditionalist clergy holds its jurisdiction from him. The Catholic doctrine does not require that the Pope himself be always visible, since he has already been hidden or has went into exile. Then, while it is true that the visibility of the Church is more or less perceptible, nevertheless it would be an error to have a mere material definition of the visibility. Bossuet, when he argued against the Protestants (who deny the visibility of the Church), said that during the Catacombs, the Church remained visible...

Ladislaus · « **Reply #117 on:** July 23, 2015, 11:15:02 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #118 on:** July 23, 2015, 11:22:18 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

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, ...

And yet you continue to ignore what Msgr. Fenton has to say about the authority of Papal Encyclicals.

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.

That's the typical R&R sleight of hand. You argue that nothing in V2 has the notes of infallibility strictly speaking.

Yet you posit a complete defection of the Magisterium, where the Magsiterium has gone SO BADLY OFF THE RAILS that it REQUIRES of Catholics the REFUSAL of submission to the Magisterium. That would entail the defection of the Magisterium and therefore of the Church herself.

You keep talking about how the Church would defect in the case of an extended sedevacante, but that's not necessarily the case (cf. the material-formal sedeprivationist thesis). What's the point of the material continuity, Nishant, if the Magisterium itself can defect? Well, for that matter, hierarchy would be BETTER OFF DEFECTING entirely if in fact their Magisterium does nothing more than lead people away from the faith.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #119 on:** July 23, 2015, 11:23:52 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

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.