Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: ByzCat3000 on October 10, 2019, 07:26:11 PM

Title: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on October 10, 2019, 07:26:11 PM
Ladislaus said the following on another thread:


Quote
Indeed, the dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy must be known a priori from some external criterion.  Theologians all agree that this criterion is the universal peaceful acceptance of the Church.  Question is whether such universal peaceful acceptance exists or existed in the case of the V2 papal claimants.  Now, the other thing is that there are OTHER possible explanations for what happened with Vatican II and the New Mass.  Could Paul VI have been blackmailed (on account of, say, his alleged homosexual activities)?  That too would have rendered any forced acts of his null and void.  We just don't know.

With regard to Universal Acceptance, what happens in situations where the vast majority of the "Church" have succumbed to the same errors as the papal claimant?  When 90%+ of the Conciliar establishment are heretics (as demonstrated by their own polls), then how they heck can that count for anything?

I still have questions about this.  How much dissent do you need to have before its really not universal anymore?  Why do only trads matter, and what exactly counts as a trad? (I could see only counting those who hold to all the dogmas, but the majority of those would still be Novus Ordo, even though the majority of Novus Ordos would not be included, if that makes sense.)  On the flip side, how do we *know* that the ordinary magisterium is as airtight as Novus Ordites and Sedevacantists think it is?  Usually sites like Novus Ordo Watch cite recent theology manuals, but what if most of the Church has been wrong about even this since Vatican *I* and it really takes centuries of consensus to really know for sure?

I welcome any other thoughts anyone (who actually wants a discussion) has.  I'm not sure this is a completed thought.  I just wanted to basically pick this up somewhere besides a thread where the OP has asked to be closed.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Clemens Maria on October 10, 2019, 08:35:03 PM
If you have love for ecclesiastical authority/jurisdiction, you have only 2 choices.  Either Frank is the pope and you obey him and don’t worry about your salvation.  Or Frank isn’t the pope and you don’t worry about recognizing him or his minions. Anything else is lukewarm/straddling the fence/worthless hedging.  You don’t systematically resist the Vicar of Christ unless you have a death wish.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Clemens Maria on October 10, 2019, 08:39:34 PM
These same people who want you to resist the Vicar of Christ* have no authority whatsoever.  It’s not rocket science.

* in their minds
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Stubborn on October 11, 2019, 07:43:11 AM
Ladislaus said the following on another thread:


I still have questions about this.  How much dissent do you need to have before its really not universal anymore?  Why do only trads matter, and what exactly counts as a trad? (I could see only counting those who hold to all the dogmas, but the majority of those would still be Novus Ordo, even though the majority of Novus Ordos would not be included, if that makes sense.)  On the flip side, how do we *know* that the ordinary magisterium is as airtight as Novus Ordites and Sedevacantists think it is?  Usually sites like Novus Ordo Watch cite recent theology manuals, but what if most of the Church has been wrong about even this since Vatican *I* and it really takes centuries of consensus to really know for sure?

I welcome any other thoughts anyone (who actually wants a discussion) has.  I'm not sure this is a completed thought.  I just wanted to basically pick this up somewhere besides a thread where the OP has asked to be closed.
I just want to say that you have good questions, and also this actually is not at all complicated, but the way the term is used makes it so.

Whenever the Church speak of "Universal", She is referring to all those things which applies and has applied always (since the time of the Apostles) and everywhere to everyone. So in this sense, "Universal" cannot be applied to what Lad is talking about as it is not possible for the Universal Church to have a Universal Acceptance of the election of the pope, much less use it as a criterion for infallible proof that the pope is indeed the pope.

That being said, there is the Universal Church. Sin is a Universal transgression against God. The Universal Mission of the Church is to save souls. The Universal Magisterium are those teachings which the Church has always (since the time of the Apostles) taught. And so on. Then there is the Universal body of the Church Militant - note that in this instance, it applies only to all of the living. So if Lad's idea were to said in an understandable manner, it would have to say something along the lines of: "The universal body of cardinals or perhaps the universal body of bishops or ? must peacefully accept..."         

Then there is this, as Pope Pius IX states: we owe our religious assent to certain points of doctrine that have "The common and constant consent of theologians as being of the faith" - which means simply that certain points of doctrine enjoy the nearly unanimous approval or consent of the Fathers since the time of the Apostles.

So saying that "the dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy must be known a priori from some external criterion. Theologians all agree that this criterion is the universal peaceful acceptance of the Church" is not only terribly confusing, it's terribly misleading and at least inadequate.
 
The external criterion he looks for, is right in the Conclave's Legislation where it plainly states that "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world". Nothing complicated here.


Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: SeanJohnson on October 11, 2019, 07:56:28 AM
“Universal” pertains to the moral unanimity of bishops accepting the legitimacy and authority of a papal claimant.

“Universality” is a different concept pertaining to teachings of the ordinary magisterium extending over time and geographic space (Sedes dispute that universality of time constitutes a criteria of true magisterial teaching, because they say all teachings of popes are magisterial, whereas R&R distinguish between UOM and the merely “authentic” magisterium, in which are contained all magisterial teachings lacking universality of time, like V2; tge UOM being binding; the authentic magisterium not being binding).

Just want to be sure we don’t mix the two concepts in order to steer clear of confusion.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 11, 2019, 08:16:05 AM
Quote
the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world.

This quote taken as you read it, Stubborn, would be entirely redundant. The man who's elected pope is pope - duh! It doesn't address the issue of whether or not the election was actually valid. So it's an entirely pointless statement if you interpret it as some test to tell if the man claiming to be pope actually is.

The quote is actually about when the pope gets his authority - it's a correction of people who believed the pope only gains his authority upon coronation rather than election.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Stubborn on October 11, 2019, 08:57:58 AM
This quote taken as you read it, Stubborn, would be entirely redundant. The man who's elected pope is pope - duh! It doesn't address the issue of whether or not the election was actually valid. So it's an entirely pointless statement if you interpret it as some test to tell if the man claiming to be pope actually is.

The quote is actually about when the pope gets his authority - it's a correction of people who believed the pope only gains his authority upon coronation rather than election.
No, it is about the election, just exactly as it says. It's about the coronation? Seriously? He gets his authority when he accepts the election, which is before his coronation.

Being as how we don't even know what goes on behind closed doors, we certainly don't know what went on or goes on in the conclave, the presumption is that they adhered to the legislation therefore the election is valid, unless you can prove otherwise - which you can't do. Because you can't prove otherwise, "the man elected in instantly the true pope", as Pope St. Pius X said.
 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on October 11, 2019, 09:41:53 AM
I did forget, but I understand that some posters here, like Stubborn, do not accept the universal peaceful acceptance criteria at all.  That’s fine and maybe they’re right.  But I was asking particularly because of a discussion between two people who did accept it, but interpreted it differently
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 11, 2019, 10:24:39 AM
No, it is about the election, just exactly as it says. It's about the coronation? Seriously? He gets his authority when he accepts the election, which is before his coronation.

Being as how we don't even know what goes on behind closed doors, we certainly don't know what went on or goes on in the conclave, the presumption is that they adhered to the legislation therefore the election is valid, unless you can prove otherwise - which you can't do. Because you can't prove otherwise, "the man elected in instantly the true pope", as Pope St. Pius X said.
 
Thank you for repeating my own words back to me???
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Stubborn on October 11, 2019, 10:43:40 AM
Thank you for repeating my own words back to me???
You will *never* solve your problem.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Stubborn on October 11, 2019, 11:17:26 AM
I did forget, but I understand that some posters here, like Stubborn, do not accept the universal peaceful acceptance criteria at all.  That’s fine and maybe they’re right.  But I was asking particularly because of a discussion between two people who did accept it, but interpreted it differently
It's not that I don't accept it, it's that the term "universal peaceful acceptance" is in itself unacceptable because it does not exist. If it does, then what is it?

At the same time, why doesn't the pope's words saying that the man elected "is instantly the true pope" do what they are intended to do, namely, settle the matter?
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on October 11, 2019, 12:30:08 PM
It's not that I don't accept it, it's that the term "universal peaceful acceptance" is in itself unacceptable because it does not exist. If it does, then what is it?

At the same time, why doesn't the pope's words saying that the man elected "is instantly the true pope" do what they are intended to do, namely, settle the matter?
The first bit is exactly what I’m trying
To figure out.  Like even if we exclude the Professing Catholics who knowingly deny dogmas, we are still looking at 50 million or so novus ordo Catholics who at least never doubted the pre Francis conciliar popes, vs maybe a couple million trads, tops, some of which have probably never doubted them but most of whom probably have.  Is that really not universal acceptance?  Idk.

The second part is easy.  How is that order from Pius XII infallible?  Also it doesn’t answer certain ridiculous possibilities.  What if the conclave literally elected Osama bin laden instead of Benedict XVI?  Would he really be eligible to take the office because of Pius X words? 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: SimpleMan on October 11, 2019, 12:42:40 PM
Indeed, the dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy must be known a priori from some external criterion.  Theologians all agree that this criterion is the universal peaceful acceptance of the Church.

Never heard this before.  I thought that the criterion was that the College of Cardinals (or whatever other mechanism the Church might use to select a pope) elects a male Catholic, he accepts, and he becomes pope.  No assent of the faithful required.  Nice, but not necessary.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Stubborn on October 11, 2019, 12:56:53 PM
The first bit is exactly what I’m trying
To figure out.  Like even if we exclude the Professing Catholics who knowingly deny dogmas, we are still looking at 50 million or so novus ordo Catholics who at least never doubted the pre Francis conciliar popes, vs maybe a couple million trads, tops, some of which have probably never doubted them but most of whom probably have.  Is that really not universal acceptance?  Idk.

The second part is easy.  How is that order from Pius XII infallible?  Also it doesn’t answer certain ridiculous possibilities.  What if the conclave literally elected Osama bin laden instead of Benedict XVI?  Would he really be eligible to take the office because of Pius X words?
The first bit is a theological opinion which in all likelihood, is termed incorrectly on this forum, the only thing that is certain about it, is that it is not a teaching of the Church.

We presume the election is valid and carried out in accordance per the legislation mandated by the pope unless proven otherwise. Full stop. As such, the man elected is the true pope.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: SeanJohnson on October 11, 2019, 01:13:44 PM
The part I don’t get is why there is any confusion about universal acceptance.

The theologians who used the term explained what it was (moral unanimity among the bishops), yet some still declare their mystification?

I’m also confused by Stubborn’s position that a papacy is a dogmatic fact, but contrary to the unanimous opinion of approved theologians who opine that it is this consent which imparts to the papacy the quality of being a dogmatic fact, he says they are wrong.  I doubt he can cite a theologian saying otherwise (since they are unanimous against him), but he offers no other explanation in its place, such that to be at least consistent, he should be arguing that either there is something about the conciliar papacies which is fundamentally different from all other papacies which robs them of the quality of being dogmatic facts, or that no papacies are dogmatic facts (a position he seems to comes close to several times when he notes the term has only been around 150 years).
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Stubborn on October 11, 2019, 01:58:47 PM
The part I don’t get is why there is any confusion about universal acceptance.

The theologians who used the term explained what it was (moral unanimity among the bishops), yet some still declare their mystification?
Well, you yourself posted a theologian who said it meant acceptance of the whole Church, I have seen it where means all of the cardinals, I have never seen it to mean all the bishops except by you. If it means the unanimity of the living bishops, then why doesn't it say that?



Quote
I’m also confused by Stubborn’s position that a papacy is a dogmatic fact, but contrary to the unanimous opinion of approved theologians who opine that it is this consent which imparts to the papacy the quality of being a dogmatic fact, he says they are wrong.  I doubt he can cite a theologian saying otherwise (since they are unanimous against him), but he offers no other explanation in its place, such that to be at least consistent, he should be arguing that either there is something about the conciliar papacies which is fundamentally different from all other papacies which robs them of the quality of being dogmatic facts, or that no papacies are dogmatic facts (a position he seems to comes close to several times when he notes the term has only been around 150 years).

I gave one example of how "universal peaceful acceptance" is false by imagining that a good, orthodox pope got elected and intended to wholly restore the Church. For me, this example all by itself exposes the opinion of validity via "universal peaceful acceptance" as being false. To me, if it works, it works always. In the example I gave, clearly no one disputes it would not work.

I use 150 years as an approximation of the origin of this opinion, that is, starting around the time just *after* V1, that's the time frame that some theologians opinions started being accepted as actual teachings of the Church. The origin of the idea of universal acceptance might be traced back further to one or a few theologians, but it certainly does not enjoy the common and constant consent of theologians. If I'm wrong and it does, then where are any of the popes, Fathers or saints saying it was the opinion of all theologians, particularly prior to V1.  
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: SeanJohnson on October 11, 2019, 02:24:58 PM
Well, you yourself posted a theologian who said it meant acceptance of the whole Church, I have seen it where means all of the cardinals, I have never seen it to mean all the bishops except by you. If it means the unanimity of the living bishops, then why doesn't it say that?



I gave one example of how "universal peaceful acceptance" is false by imagining that a good, orthodox pope got elected and intended to wholly restore the Church. For me, this example all by itself exposes the opinion of validity via "universal peaceful acceptance" as being false. To me, if it works, it works always. In the example I gave, clearly no one disputes it would not work.

I use 150 years as an approximation of the origin of this opinion, that is, starting around the time just *after* V1, that's the time frame that some theologians opinions started being accepted as actual teachings of the Church. The origin of the idea of universal acceptance might be traced back further to one or a few theologians, but it certainly does not enjoy the common and constant consent of theologians. If I'm wrong and it does, then where are any of the popes, Fathers or saints saying it was the opinion of all theologians, particularly prior to V1.  

1) When some theologians reference "the whole Church," they are referencing the bishops (i.e., the bishops lead particular churches, and when they are morally unanimous in recognizing the pope, we say the the pope has universal recognition, since the moral unanimity of the bishops/particular churches recognize him):

Hunter:
Quote
Quote
... if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208) ; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible. ... 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. (Hunter, 1894) (ref1 (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/08/everything-you-wanted-to-know_23.html), ref2 (http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2013/08/everything-you-wanted-to-know_23.html),

Billot and St. Alphonsus (and all others) say the same: The unanimity of the church/bishops means the pope is a dogmatic fact, since the Church (i.e., bishops as a body) is infallible in believing as well as teaching.

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. But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff”.

Obviously, by "Church" is not meant the universal consent of all the individual faithful (since then there would never be universal consent; there have always been schismatics, dissenters, heretics, etc).

You could even look at it backwards: There are no bishops at the heads of ANY particular churches opposing the legitimacy of Francis.

You can deduce from this that, whatever universal consent means, Francis possesses it (since none at the heads of the particular churches oppose him).


2) The example you give is an interesting hypothetical, but it does not discredit universal consent as imparting the quality of dogmatic facts to popes: Your hypothetical orthodox pope would simply not attain the status of dogmatic fact, and his papacy by that very fact would unfortunately be questionable (just as several orthodox claimants during the GWS were doubtful claimants for the same reason.  Moreover, I am pretty sure that theologians of the caliber of St. Alphonsus, Billot, and all others would have had the GWS in mind when writing, and it did not deter them.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Stubborn on October 11, 2019, 03:32:16 PM
1) When some theologians reference "the whole Church," they are referencing the bishops (i.e., the bishops lead particular churches, and when they are morally unanimous in recognizing the pope, we say the the pope has universal recognition, since the moral unanimity of the bishops/particular churches recognize him):

Hunter:

Billot and St. Alphonsus (and all others) say the same: The unanimity of the church/bishops means the pope is a dogmatic fact, since the Church (i.e., bishops as a body) is infallible in believing as well as teaching.

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. But if during a certain time he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church, during that time the Pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is vacant on the death of a Pontiff”.

Obviously, by "Church" is not meant the universal consent of all the individual faithful (since then there would never be universal consent; there have always been schismatics, dissenters, heretics, etc).

You could even look at it backwards: There are no bishops at the heads of ANY particular churches opposing the legitimacy of Francis.

You can deduce from this that, whatever universal consent means, Francis possesses it (since none at the heads of the particular churches oppose him).


2) The example you give is an interesting hypothetical, but it does not discredit universal consent as imparting the quality of dogmatic facts to popes: Your hypothetical orthodox pope would simply not attain the status of dogmatic fact, and his papacy by that very fact would unfortunately be questionable (just as several orthodox claimants during the GWS were doubtful claimants for the same reason.  Moreover, I am pretty sure that theologians of the caliber of St. Alphonsus, Billot, and all others would have had the GWS in mind when writing, and it did not deter them.
I do understand all of this, and although I could argue the point further, I do not disagree with their opinion wholly, it's simply that for me, I simply accept the words of pope Pius X and XII as I am sure they wanted to let us know how to identify the pope with certainty, I definitely don't think they were talking just to hear themselves speak.

And yes, it seems plain that Billot et al would have had the GWS in mind, as such, they are referencing a totally different set of circumstances then the current situation. That being the case, who is to say that their opinions apply in this case? We may presume to apply their opinion, but having only one duly elected pope, we really don't have any reason to apply it. 
 
And just fwiw, Hunter's opinion is from 1894, Billot was made cardinal in 1911. These are among the theologians within the last 150 years or so I was talking about whose opinions are often and incorrectly taken to be teachings of the Church among the masses.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 11, 2019, 04:02:01 PM
You will *never* solve your problem.
You will *never* stop abusing a quote you don't know the meaning of to use in your circular arguments. "The man who is elected pope is pope" is completely and utterly redundant, and not what the quote is about at all. Obviously the man who is elected pope is pope, but not every purported election is valid. There have been very many elections with all the pomp and circumstance and the involvement of cardinals that were invalid. So just saying "an election took place, therefore it was valid, therefore the man is pope" is nonsense.

The quote you're citing is, once again, referring to WHEN the pope gains his authority. At the time many in the Church were postulating that the pope only gained it when he was coronated. As the quote explains, he in fact gains it upon the moment of his election. The quote does not tell you how you know who the pope is or if the election was valid, that's not what it's about at all. It just tells you that when a valid election takes place, the man elected pope is instantly pope - he does not have to wait for his coronation. That's it.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: RomanTheo on October 11, 2019, 04:27:09 PM
How much dissent do you need to have before its really not universal anymore?  

The peaceful and universal acceptance is a one time event that occurs the moment the entire Church accepts the man as Pope; or, more precisely, when the news of his election has spread throughout the Church and his legitimacy is not at once contested.  

It should also be noted that the peaceful and universal acceptance does not make him the Pope, nor is it necessary for someone to become the Pope, as the Great Western Schism proves.  But when it exists, which is most of the time, it serves as an infallible sign that the man elected is truly the Pope and hence removes any possible doubts concerning the validity of his election.

As Stubborn has pointed out, what (legally) makes a man Pope is the election and his acceptance.  As soon as he accepts, he becomes the Pope  But, as recent events prove, the election and acceptance is not always enough to remove all possible doubts that he became the pope.   That's what the peaceful and universal acceptance does.  

Here is a list of useful quotations I received today via e-mail.


Fr. E. Sylvester Berry - The Church of Christ (1927)


"The extent of infallibility refers to the truths that may be defined by the Church with infallible authority. Some truths are directly subject to the infallible authority of the Church by their very nature; others only indirectly because of their connection with the former. The one set of truths constitutes the primary, the other secondary extent of infallibility. (…)

"This secondary or indirect extent of infallibility includes especially (a) theological conclusions, (b) truths of the natural order, (c) dogmatic facts (…)

"DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact." Berry, The Church of Christ, (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009, previously published by Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary, 1955, pp. 288, 289, 290, originally published in 1927)  


Cardinal Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate (1955)


"[T]he peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect, as to a head to whom it submits, is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled.)
 
"Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest. The Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to certain knowledge as to who is elected." (Cardinal Journet, Church of the Word Incarnate (London and New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955, pp. 481-482.)

Sylvester Hunter, S.J., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, (1894)

“Dogmatic Facts: - But besides these speculative truths, there are certain matters of fact concerning which the Church can judge with infallibly certainty. These are called by many writers dogmatic facts [.]

“First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 20 ; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

“This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts.  Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant since that time.  A volume might be occupied if we attempt to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but 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.” (Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Volume I (New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benzinger Brothers, 1894) ch. VI, N. 211.

Wilmers, A Handbook of the Christian Religion (1891):

“The difficulty is sometimes raised that it is impossible at times to know whether a pope is lawfully elected or not, and, consequently, whether he has the power to rule the Church or not. The answer is simple. If the whole Church once acknowledges any one as its lawful head, though the election may have been for some cause invalid, he thereby receives the sanction of the Church, which is equivalent to a second and valid election; whereupon he succeeds to all that power vested in the head of the Church. Hence no secret flaw can practically invalidate a papal election, and every defect in the election is removed by the ratification of the Church, so that any pope, universally acknowledged by the Church, is necessarily the true successor of St. Peter (W. Wilmers, ‘A Handbook of the Christian Religion,’ 3rd ed., Benziger Bros., New York, New York. 1891, page 95.)

Van Noort – Christ’s Church (1957)

"Assertion 2: The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic facts. This proposition is theologically certain. A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, [but] on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: ‘Was the [First] Vatican Council a legitimate ecumenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible? Was Pius XII legitimately elected Bishop of Rome? One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the [First] Vatican Council are infallible, whether the Vulgate is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Pius XII is to be recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church." (Van Noort, Christ’s Church, (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957, p. 153.)  


Van Noort – Sources of Revelation (1957)


“Meantime, notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matters 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 (tenendas). So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter’; similarly … one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.’ For  —  skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place  —  when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession.” (Van Noort, Sources of Revelation (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957, p. 265.)


Cardinal Billot - De Ecclesia Christ (1909)


"Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope falling into heresy], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ (...) God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

"Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.” (De Ecclesia Christi, Quaestio XIV - De Romano Pontifice, Thesis XXIX, §3, 1909.)


Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (1952)

Herve: What good would it be to profess the infallible authority of Ecumenical Councils  or Roman  Pontiffs in the abstract  if it were permitted to entertain  doubts  about  the  legitimacy of any given Council  or Pontiff? (Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, (Berche et Pagis, Editores, Parisiis, 1952.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri - 'Verita Della Fede' (1767)

'It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff. But if for a certain time, he was not accepted universally and truly by the Church, during that time then, the pontifical see would be vacant, as it is vacant at the death of a Pope.” (Verita Della Fede', Part III, Ch. VIII, p. 720.)


Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year - (1875)

“The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while [i.e., “for a certain time”] render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of her liberty, acknowledges in the person a certain Pope, until then doubtful, as the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself.” (Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, 1875, pg. 188.)


Tanquerey - Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology (1959)

“The Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts.  A dogmatic fact is one which is so much connected with a doctrine of the Church that knowledge of it is necessary in order to understand the doctrine and to preserve it safely.

“Dogmatic facts can be threefold: historical, doctrinal and hagiographical.  Thus, dogmatic facts are the legitimacy of the Holy Pontiff, the ecumenical (universal) nature of a Council.

“That the Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts in certain.  For if the Church could make  mistake concerning the authority of the Holy Pontiff or of a Council, then there would always be grounds for doubting whether their decisions were infallible and accordingly for rejecting these decisions.” Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, vol I, (New York; Tournai; Paris; Rome: Desclee Company, 1959), p. 146.

Salaverri Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B (1955)

“Dogmatic facts can be ether formally revealed, like the divine institution of the Church, the resurrection of Christ, etc., or necessarily connected with revealed truths, that is, truths which if they are not held, revelation itself cannot be protected or proposed. We are speaking only about these or about facts connected with revelation.  But these are of two kinds: a) some are simply such, like the legitimacy of the Council of Trent [or of a Roman Pontiff], without which certitude about the dogmas defined by it would be called into doubt; b) but others are doctrinal like the orthodox or heterodox meaning of a human text.” (...)

“In the decree of Vatican I, which had been prepared, the doctrine of the thesis was directly and explicitly defined; hence the thesis is proximate to a definition:

"Vatican I draft, Canon IX: “If any one says that the infallibility of the Church I restricted only to those things which are contained in divine revelation, and does not also extend to other truths which are required necessarily in order to safeguard the whole deposit of revelation [i.e., dogmatic facts], let him be anathema.” (Mansi 51,543,552).

"Canon IX. Si quis dixerit, Ecclesiae infallibilitatem ad ea tantum restringi, quae divina revelatione continentur, nec ad alias etiam veritates extendi, quae necessario requiruntur, ut revelationis depositum integrum custodiatur; anathema sit.

"Vatican I, c. 9 approved, draft: “If anyone say that the Church of Christ can fail in the true faith, or certainly is not immune from error in no other matters except in those which per se are contained in the word of God, let him be anathema.” (Mansi 53,313,316.   (Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B, On The Church of Christ, On Holy Scripture, 3rd ed., translated by Kenneth Bakker S.J., Keep the Faith, Inc. 2015.)

Hurter, S.J. Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium (1885)

“[Dogmatic  facts] include  things of this sort:  that  the  Sacred  Scriptures  we use are  genuine;  that  the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, Trent, etc. were legitimate;  that  Pius IX, Leo  XIII,  etc.  were elected legitimately  and  consequently were  legitimate successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome.  Just see what would result if you would let any of these things be called into doubt.  Definitions issued during Councils would not have certainty. There  would be no  sure  way  of  determining  the center  of Catholic  unity.  In  short, what would result is the uprooting of faith itself and the destruction of Revelation.

[Facta  dogmatica]   “ejus modi sunt, e.g., Scripturam s., qua utimur, esse   genuinam; concilia nicaenum, ephesinum, tridentinum  etc., fuisse legitima; Pius IX,  Leonem XIII  etc. Iegitime fuisse electos ac  proinde legitimos Petri in  episcopatu  romano successores.  Sane fac quidpiam horum in dubium vocetur,  illico consequetur, editas definitiones in conciliis incertas, incertum  esse    centrum  unitatis catholicae, scil. consequetur ipsius fidei excidium revelationisque  pernicies. Hurter, S.J. Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium (1885) I.338 (Thesis LV).

John of St. Thomas – Theological Courses, (1640)

“The Church accepts the election and the elect as a matter of faith, because as she receives him as the infallible rule of faith, and as the supreme head to whom she is united—for the unity of the Church depends upon her union with him.

"TO THE OBJECTION that there must be someone to propose this truth to the Church as de fide, I respond that the election and the one elected are proposed by the cardinals, not in their own person, but in the person of the Church and by her power—for she it is who committed to them the power of electing the pope and of declaring him to have been elected.  Wherefore they, in this respect and for this task, are the Church herself representatively. Thus the cardinals, or whoever else the Church (that is, the Pope) has legitimately designated to do the electing, represent the Church in all that concerns the election of her head, the successor of Peter.

“Just as the pope gathers the bishops together in a Council, and yet its confirmation and the ultimate sentence in matters of faith depend upon him, so the congregation of cardinals elects the pope, and declares that he has been elected, and yet it is the Church, whose ministers they are, that by its acceptance ultimately confirms as a truth of faith the fact that this man is truly the highest rule of faith and the supreme pontiff.  Wherefore, if the cardinals elect him in a questionable manner, the Church can correct their election, as the Council of Constance determined in its 41st session.  Hence, the proposition [i.e., that he is the legitimate Pope] is rendered de fide, as already has been explained, by the acceptance of the Church, and that alone, even before the pope himself defines anything.”  (…)

"All that remains to be determined, then, is the exact moment when the acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient to render the proposition [i.e., that this man is Pope] de fide. Is it as soon as the cardinals propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate locality, or only when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread through the whole world, wherever the Church is to be found?

"I REPLY that (as we have said above) the unanimous election of the cardinals and their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops at a Council legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like a confirmation of this declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world.  As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him."

Fr. Francis Connell – American Ecclesiastical Review - (1965)


"Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church — that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?

"Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly elected in conclave and accepted the office of Bishop of Rome, thus becoming head of the universal Church. The unanimous consensus of a large group of Cardinals composing the electoral body gave us this assurance. And we also have human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly baptized, since there is a record to that effect in the baptismal register of the church in which the sacrament was administered. We have the same type of certainty that any bishop is the true spiritual head of the particular See over which he presides. This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.

"But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty — a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty that the present Sovereign Pontiff has been incorporated into the Church by a valid baptism and has been validly elected head of the universal Church. For if we did not have infallible assurance that the ruling Pontiff is truly in the eyes of God the chief teacher of the Church of Christ, how could we accept as infallibly true his solemn pronouncements? This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church’s magisterial authority to declare it infallibly. The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church. (American Ecclesiastical Review, vol. 153, Dec. 1965, p. 422.)

Rev. Louis Farris, Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica. – (1764)

“It is of faith that Benedict XIV [currently reigning Pope], for instance, legitimately elected and accepted as such by the Church, is the true Pope—(common doctrine among Catholics). This is proved from the Council of Constance, sess. ult. where Martin V. Const. Inter Cunctus, decrees that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points, ‘Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.’ For thereby he supposes it to be an article of faith, since those who abjure heresy are ‘interrogated only as to truths of faith.’ (…)

“Through the mere fact that the Church receives him as legitimately elected, God reveals to us the legitimacy of his election, since Christ has promised that His Church shall never err in a matter of faith, . . . whereas she would err in such matter of faith if the conclusion did not hold.” Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca canonica., article Papa, p. 949; quoted in “Dr. Littledale’s Theory of the Disappearance of the Papacy,” Catholic Truth Society, Vol. XXVI, ( London, 1895) p. 7

Rev. Kavanagh D.D. ., A Reply to Mr. Gladstone’s Vaticanism, (1895)

“Mr. Gladstone need not be alarmed about the papal succession.  Independently of all previous proceedings, the acceptance of Martin V by the Universal Church as lawful Pope proves that his election was canonical and legitimate; for the recognition of the true Pope is a dogmatic fact in which the Universal Church cannot err.” (Rev. James Kavanagh, D.D., A Reply to Mr. Gladstone’s Vaticanism, Dublin, James Guffy, 1895, p. 54)


Definition of Martin V – Council of Constance

The following question was defined by the Council to be proposed to those suspected of heresy:

“Also, whether he believes that the Pope canonically elected, who is reigning at the time (his proper name being given), is the successor of Blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God? (Inter Cunctus, Council of Florence)

Explanation of the Definition of Martin V by Fr. Smith, S.J. (1895)

Fr. Sydney Smith, S.J., quotes the renowned Italian canonist, Lucius Ferraris (Bibliotheca – 1764), who explains why this definition renders the legitimacy of a Pope, who has been peacefully and universally accepted, de fide:

“[The doctrine stating that a Pope who has been peacefully and universally accepted is infallibly the true Pope] is no mere theory, but the common doctrine of Catholic theologians, as will appear sufficiently from the following passage in Ferraris’ Bibliotheca [1764], a work of the highest authority. In his article on the Pope, Ferraris says, ‘It is of faith (de fide) that Benedict XIV, for instance, legitimately elected and accepted as such by the Church, is the true Pope — (common doctrine among Catholics). This is proved from the Council of Constance (sess. Ult.) where Martin V’s Constitution, Inter Cunctos, decrees that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points, ‘Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.’ For thereby he [Fr. Ferraris] supposes it to be an article of faith, since those who abjure heresy are ‘interrogated only as to truths of faith’.”

Fr. Smith continues by quoting Farris’ explanation of what is required for one to be “canonically elected”:

“It will be said, ‘Yes, but he speaks only of a Pontiff canonically elected and as such accepted by the Church, so his authority cannot therefore be quoted for the case of one whose canonical election is called in question.’ This, however, is an objection which Ferraris himself anticipates, and he meets it thus:

‘Through the mere fact that the Church receives him as legitimately elected, God reveals to us the legitimacy of his election, since Christ has promised that His Church shall never err in a matter of faith. … Through the mere fact that the Church receives him as legitimately elected, God reveals to us the legitimacy of his election, since Christ has promised that His Church shall never err in a matter of faith … whereas she would err in such matter of faith if the conclusion did not hold[.]’” (Fr. Sydney Smith, S.J., “ Dr. Littledale’s Theory of the Disappearance of the Papacy,” Catholic Truth Society, Vol. XXVI, London, 1895.


Definition of Martin V Explained by John of St. Thomas  (1640)


The following is John of St. Thomas’ explanation of why this definition renders the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope de fide:


“Martin V, in the Council of Constance, in the condemnation of the errors of Wyclif, which is to be found after the fourth, fifth, and last sessions of the Council, in the interrogations that are to be made of those whose faith is suspect, to see whether they rightly believe, puts this question.  Also, whether he believes that the Pope canonically elected, who is reigning at the time (his proper name being given), is the successor of Blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God?  These words do not speak of the truth of that proposition understood in a general sense—namely, that whoever is lawfully elected is the Supreme Pontiff—but in the particular, concerning whoever is pope at the time, giving his proper name, for instance, Innocent X.  It is of this man, whose proper name is given, that the pope is bidding the person suspect in faith to be asked, whether he believes that such a person is the successor of Peter and the Supreme Pontiff: therefore this pertains to the act of faith—not to an inference or a moral certitude; for neither of the latter two is a matter of faith.” (…)

“whoever is elected by the persons that the Church designates to choose a pope in her name, by the very fact that he is accepted by the Church as legitimately elected, is in fact pope.  This latter is what the definition of Martin V, related above,  as well as the acceptance of the Church, is really about.”

“Therefore, we have the certainty of faith, by a revelation implicitly contained in the Creed and in the promise made to Peter, and made more explicit in the definition of Martin V, and applied and declared in act (in exercitio) by the acceptance of the Church, that this man in particular, canonically elected according to the acceptance of the Church, is pope.  The certainty of faith touches this alone; and whatever is prerequisite to, or else follows upon, the fact of the election, is inferred as a theological conclusion drawn from the proposition that is de fide, and is believed mediately.”

Arnaldo De Salveira - (1980)

Silveira: In respect to a doubtful Pope, it is necessary to make it very clear here that the peaceful acceptance of a Pope by the whole Church is ‘a sign and an infallible effect of a valid election’. This is the common teaching of the authors.” (L’Ordo Missae de Paul VI: Qu’en penser?, Paris, 1980, p. 72).


Dr. Boni, Professor of Canon Law - "Beyond a Resignation. The Decision of Pope Benedict XVI and The Law" (2015)


Finally, Antonio Socci argues: ‘Even if the validity of the procedures followed that March 13, 2013 was expressed only a doubtful judgment, it can be assumed that the conclave must be redone because the doctrine teaches that" dubius pope habetur pro non papa "(a doubtful pope he considers himself as not a Pope), as the great doctor of the Church and Jesuit cardinal San Roberto Bellarmino writes in the treatise "De conciliis et ecclesia militante’ (pp. 7, 122).

“On the contrary, even if what has been reported had happened, the procedure followed, as demonstrated, would have been entirely "ad normam iuris" (as provided by law): the election of Pope Francis, having reached the expected majority in the fifth ballot (the first, I remember, occurred on May 12), it would be valid, there would be nothing to heal, there would be no doubt, much less "positive" and "insoluble" (as the law postulates), on its validity.

“Given the total legal groundlessness of these suppositions, even to want to give credit to the information on which it claims to take root, the bogeyman - rashly agitated - of the current assidarsi on Peter’s chair of a doubtful Pope also vanishes. However, the canonist have constantly and generally chorus that the peaceful "universalis ecclesiae adhaesio" is a sign and infallible effect of a valid election and a legitimate papacy ([1] (http://file:///C:/Users/Rob/Desktop/Peaceful%20and%20Universal%20Acceptance%20Quotes.docx#_ftn1)): and the adhesion to Pope Francis of the people of God cannot be put in any way in doubt.” (Dr. Boni, Professor of Canon Law at the University of Bologna, and Advisor of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. “Beyond a Resignation. The Decision of Pope Benedict XVI and The Law,” Bologna, 2015.)




[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/Rob/Desktop/Peaceful%20and%20Universal%20Acceptance%20Quotes.docx#_ftnref1) See, for all, Franciscus Xav. Wernz, Petrus Vidal, "Ius canonicum", II, "De personis", apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, Romae, 1943, pp. 520-521. On this point Ludwig Billot, "Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi", I, Editio quinta, apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, Romae, 1927, p. 623 ss.


Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: SeanJohnson on October 11, 2019, 05:04:05 PM
The peaceful and universal acceptance is a one time event that occurs the moment the entire Church accepts the man as Pope; or, more precisely, when the news of his election has spread throughout the Church and his legitimacy is not at once contested.  

It should also be noted that the peaceful and universal acceptance does not make him the Pope, nor is it necessary for someone to become the Pope, as the Great Western Schism proves.  But when it exists, which is most of the time, it serves as an infallible sign that the man elected is truly the Pope and hence removes any possible doubts concerning the validity of his election.

As Stubborn has pointed out, what (legally) makes a man Pope is the election and his acceptance.  As soon as he accepts, he becomes the Pope  But, as recent events prove, the election and acceptance is not always enough to remove all possible doubts that he became the pope.   That's what the peaceful and universal acceptance does.  

Here is a list of useful quotations I received today via e-mail.


Fr. E. Sylvester Berry - The Church of Christ (1927)


"The extent of infallibility refers to the truths that may be defined by the Church with infallible authority. Some truths are directly subject to the infallible authority of the Church by their very nature; others only indirectly because of their connection with the former. The one set of truths constitutes the primary, the other secondary extent of infallibility. (…)

"This secondary or indirect extent of infallibility includes especially (a) theological conclusions, (b) truths of the natural order, (c) dogmatic facts (…)

"DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact." Berry, The Church of Christ, (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009, previously published by Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary, 1955, pp. 288, 289, 290, originally published in 1927)  


Cardinal Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate (1955)


"[T]he peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to an elect, as to a head to whom it submits, is an act in which the Church engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently, and mediately, it will appear that all conditions prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled.)

"Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest. The Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to certain knowledge as to who is elected." (Cardinal Journet, Church of the Word Incarnate (London and New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955, pp. 481-482.)

Sylvester Hunter, S.J., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, (1894)

“Dogmatic Facts: - But besides these speculative truths, there are certain matters of fact concerning which the Church can judge with infallibly certainty. These are called by many writers dogmatic facts [.]

“First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 20 ; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible.

“This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts.  Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant since that time.  A volume might be occupied if we attempt to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this startling conclusion; but 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.” (Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Volume I (New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benzinger Brothers, 1894) ch. VI, N. 211.

Wilmers, A Handbook of the Christian Religion (1891):

“The difficulty is sometimes raised that it is impossible at times to know whether a pope is lawfully elected or not, and, consequently, whether he has the power to rule the Church or not. The answer is simple. If the whole Church once acknowledges any one as its lawful head, though the election may have been for some cause invalid, he thereby receives the sanction of the Church, which is equivalent to a second and valid election; whereupon he succeeds to all that power vested in the head of the Church. Hence no secret flaw can practically invalidate a papal election, and every defect in the election is removed by the ratification of the Church, so that any pope, universally acknowledged by the Church, is necessarily the true successor of St. Peter (W. Wilmers, ‘A Handbook of the Christian Religion,’ 3rd ed., Benziger Bros., New York, New York. 1891, page 95.)

Van Noort – Christ’s Church (1957)

"Assertion 2: The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic facts. This proposition is theologically certain. A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, [but] on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: ‘Was the [First] Vatican Council a legitimate ecumenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible? Was Pius XII legitimately elected Bishop of Rome? One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the [First] Vatican Council are infallible, whether the Vulgate is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Pius XII is to be recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church." (Van Noort, Christ’s Church, (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957, p. 153.)  


Van Noort – Sources of Revelation (1957)


“Meantime, notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matters 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 (tenendas). So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter’; similarly … one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.’ For  —  skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place  —  when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession.” (Van Noort, Sources of Revelation (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957, p. 265.)


Cardinal Billot - De Ecclesia Christ (1909)


"Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope falling into heresy], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ (...) God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

"Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.” (De Ecclesia Christi, Quaestio XIV - De Romano Pontifice, Thesis XXIX, §3, 1909.)


Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (1952)

Herve: What good would it be to profess the infallible authority of Ecumenical Councils  or Roman  Pontiffs in the abstract  if it were permitted to entertain  doubts  about  the  legitimacy of any given Council  or Pontiff? (Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, (Berche et Pagis, Editores, Parisiis, 1952.

St. Alphonsus Ligouri - 'Verita Della Fede' (1767)

'It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff. But if for a certain time, he was not accepted universally and truly by the Church, during that time then, the pontifical see would be vacant, as it is vacant at the death of a Pope.” (Verita Della Fede', Part III, Ch. VIII, p. 720.)


Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year - (1875)

“The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while [i.e., “for a certain time”] render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of her liberty, acknowledges in the person a certain Pope, until then doubtful, as the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself.” (Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, 1875, pg. 188.)


Tanquerey - Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology (1959)

“The Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts.  A dogmatic fact is one which is so much connected with a doctrine of the Church that knowledge of it is necessary in order to understand the doctrine and to preserve it safely.

“Dogmatic facts can be threefold: historical, doctrinal and hagiographical.  Thus, dogmatic facts are the legitimacy of the Holy Pontiff, the ecumenical (universal) nature of a Council.

“That the Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts in certain.  For if the Church could make  mistake concerning the authority of the Holy Pontiff or of a Council, then there would always be grounds for doubting whether their decisions were infallible and accordingly for rejecting these decisions.” Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, vol I, (New York; Tournai; Paris; Rome: Desclee Company, 1959), p. 146.

Salaverri Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B (1955)

“Dogmatic facts can be ether formally revealed, like the divine institution of the Church, the resurrection of Christ, etc., or necessarily connected with revealed truths, that is, truths which if they are not held, revelation itself cannot be protected or proposed. We are speaking only about these or about facts connected with revelation.  But these are of two kinds: a) some are simply such, like the legitimacy of the Council of Trent [or of a Roman Pontiff], without which certitude about the dogmas defined by it would be called into doubt; b) but others are doctrinal like the orthodox or heterodox meaning of a human text.” (...)

“In the decree of Vatican I, which had been prepared, the doctrine of the thesis was directly and explicitly defined; hence the thesis is proximate to a definition:

"Vatican I draft, Canon IX: “If any one says that the infallibility of the Church I restricted only to those things which are contained in divine revelation, and does not also extend to other truths which are required necessarily in order to safeguard the whole deposit of revelation [i.e., dogmatic facts], let him be anathema.” (Mansi 51,543,552).

"Canon IX. Si quis dixerit, Ecclesiae infallibilitatem ad ea tantum restringi, quae divina revelatione continentur, nec ad alias etiam veritates extendi, quae necessario requiruntur, ut revelationis depositum integrum custodiatur; anathema sit.

"Vatican I, c. 9 approved, draft: “If anyone say that the Church of Christ can fail in the true faith, or certainly is not immune from error in no other matters except in those which per se are contained in the word of God, let him be anathema.” (Mansi 53,313,316.   (Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B, On The Church of Christ, On Holy Scripture, 3rd ed., translated by Kenneth Bakker S.J., Keep the Faith, Inc. 2015.)

Hurter, S.J. Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium (1885)

“[Dogmatic  facts] include  things of this sort:  that  the  Sacred  Scriptures  we use are  genuine;  that  the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, Trent, etc. were legitimate;  that  Pius IX, Leo  XIII,  etc.  were elected legitimately  and  consequently were  legitimate successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome.  Just see what would result if you would let any of these things be called into doubt.  Definitions issued during Councils would not have certainty. There  would be no  sure  way  of  determining  the center  of Catholic  unity.  In  short, what would result is the uprooting of faith itself and the destruction of Revelation.

[Facta  dogmatica]   “ejus modi sunt, e.g., Scripturam s., qua utimur, esse   genuinam; concilia nicaenum, ephesinum, tridentinum  etc., fuisse legitima; Pius IX,  Leonem XIII  etc. Iegitime fuisse electos ac  proinde legitimos Petri in  episcopatu  romano successores.  Sane fac quidpiam horum in dubium vocetur,  illico consequetur, editas definitiones in conciliis incertas, incertum  esse    centrum  unitatis catholicae, scil. consequetur ipsius fidei excidium revelationisque  pernicies. Hurter, S.J. Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium (1885) I.338 (Thesis LV).

John of St. Thomas – Theological Courses, (1640)

“The Church accepts the election and the elect as a matter of faith, because as she receives him as the infallible rule of faith, and as the supreme head to whom she is united—for the unity of the Church depends upon her union with him.

"TO THE OBJECTION that there must be someone to propose this truth to the Church as de fide, I respond that the election and the one elected are proposed by the cardinals, not in their own person, but in the person of the Church and by her power—for she it is who committed to them the power of electing the pope and of declaring him to have been elected.  Wherefore they, in this respect and for this task, are the Church herself representatively. Thus the cardinals, or whoever else the Church (that is, the Pope) has legitimately designated to do the electing, represent the Church in all that concerns the election of her head, the successor of Peter.

“Just as the pope gathers the bishops together in a Council, and yet its confirmation and the ultimate sentence in matters of faith depend upon him, so the congregation of cardinals elects the pope, and declares that he has been elected, and yet it is the Church, whose ministers they are, that by its acceptance ultimately confirms as a truth of faith the fact that this man is truly the highest rule of faith and the supreme pontiff.  Wherefore, if the cardinals elect him in a questionable manner, the Church can correct their election, as the Council of Constance determined in its 41st session.  Hence, the proposition [i.e., that he is the legitimate Pope] is rendered de fide, as already has been explained, by the acceptance of the Church, and that alone, even before the pope himself defines anything.”  (…)

"All that remains to be determined, then, is the exact moment when the acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient to render the proposition [i.e., that this man is Pope] de fide. Is it as soon as the cardinals propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate locality, or only when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread through the whole world, wherever the Church is to be found?

"I REPLY that (as we have said above) the unanimous election of the cardinals and their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops at a Council legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like a confirmation of this declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world.  As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him."

Fr. Francis Connell – American Ecclesiastical Review - (1965)


"Question: What certainty have we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church — that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that he was validly elected Pope?

"Answer: Of course, we have human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly elected in conclave and accepted the office of Bishop of Rome, thus becoming head of the universal Church. The unanimous consensus of a large group of Cardinals composing the electoral body gave us this assurance. And we also have human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly baptized, since there is a record to that effect in the baptismal register of the church in which the sacrament was administered. We have the same type of certainty that any bishop is the true spiritual head of the particular See over which he presides. This type of certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.

"But in the case of the Pope we have a higher grade of certainty — a certainty that excludes not merely the prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In other words, we have infallible certainty that the present Sovereign Pontiff has been incorporated into the Church by a valid baptism and has been validly elected head of the universal Church. For if we did not have infallible assurance that the ruling Pontiff is truly in the eyes of God the chief teacher of the Church of Christ, how could we accept as infallibly true his solemn pronouncements? This is an example of a fact that is not contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church’s magisterial authority to declare it infallibly. The whole Church, teaching and believing, declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based on the authority of the infallible Church. (American Ecclesiastical Review, vol. 153, Dec. 1965, p. 422.)

Rev. Louis Farris, Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica. – (1764)

“It is of faith that Benedict XIV [currently reigning Pope], for instance, legitimately elected and accepted as such by the Church, is the true Pope—(common doctrine among Catholics). This is proved from the Council of Constance, sess. ult. where Martin V. Const. Inter Cunctus, decrees that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points, ‘Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.’ For thereby he supposes it to be an article of faith, since those who abjure heresy are ‘interrogated only as to truths of faith.’ (…)

“Through the mere fact that the Church receives him as legitimately elected, God reveals to us the legitimacy of his election, since Christ has promised that His Church shall never err in a matter of faith, . . . whereas she would err in such matter of faith if the conclusion did not hold.” Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca canonica., article Papa, p. 949; quoted in “Dr. Littledale’s Theory of the Disappearance of the Papacy,” Catholic Truth Society, Vol. XXVI, ( London, 1895) p. 7

Rev. Kavanagh D.D. ., A Reply to Mr. Gladstone’s Vaticanism, (1895)

“Mr. Gladstone need not be alarmed about the papal succession.  Independently of all previous proceedings, the acceptance of Martin V by the Universal Church as lawful Pope proves that his election was canonical and legitimate; for the recognition of the true Pope is a dogmatic fact in which the Universal Church cannot err.” (Rev. James Kavanagh, D.D., A Reply to Mr. Gladstone’s Vaticanism, Dublin, James Guffy, 1895, p. 54)


Definition of Martin V – Council of Constance

The following question was defined by the Council to be proposed to those suspected of heresy:

“Also, whether he believes that the Pope canonically elected, who is reigning at the time (his proper name being given), is the successor of Blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God? (Inter Cunctus, Council of Florence)

Explanation of the Definition of Martin V by Fr. Smith, S.J. (1895)

Fr. Sydney Smith, S.J., quotes the renowned Italian canonist, Lucius Ferraris (Bibliotheca – 1764), who explains why this definition renders the legitimacy of a Pope, who has been peacefully and universally accepted, de fide:

“[The doctrine stating that a Pope who has been peacefully and universally accepted is infallibly the true Pope] is no mere theory, but the common doctrine of Catholic theologians, as will appear sufficiently from the following passage in Ferraris’ Bibliotheca [1764], a work of the highest authority. In his article on the Pope, Ferraris says, ‘It is of faith (de fide) that Benedict XIV, for instance, legitimately elected and accepted as such by the Church, is the true Pope — (common doctrine among Catholics). This is proved from the Council of Constance (sess. Ult.) where Martin V’s Constitution, Inter Cunctos, decrees that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points, ‘Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.’ For thereby he [Fr. Ferraris] supposes it to be an article of faith, since those who abjure heresy are ‘interrogated only as to truths of faith’.”

Fr. Smith continues by quoting Farris’ explanation of what is required for one to be “canonically elected”:

“It will be said, ‘Yes, but he speaks only of a Pontiff canonically elected and as such accepted by the Church, so his authority cannot therefore be quoted for the case of one whose canonical election is called in question.’ This, however, is an objection which Ferraris himself anticipates, and he meets it thus:

‘Through the mere fact that the Church receives him as legitimately elected, God reveals to us the legitimacy of his election, since Christ has promised that His Church shall never err in a matter of faith. … Through the mere fact that the Church receives him as legitimately elected, God reveals to us the legitimacy of his election, since Christ has promised that His Church shall never err in a matter of faith … whereas she would err in such matter of faith if the conclusion did not hold[.]’” (Fr. Sydney Smith, S.J., “ Dr. Littledale’s Theory of the Disappearance of the Papacy,” Catholic Truth Society, Vol. XXVI, London, 1895.


Definition of Martin V Explained by John of St. Thomas  (1640)


The following is John of St. Thomas’ explanation of why this definition renders the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope de fide:


“Martin V, in the Council of Constance, in the condemnation of the errors of Wyclif, which is to be found after the fourth, fifth, and last sessions of the Council, in the interrogations that are to be made of those whose faith is suspect, to see whether they rightly believe, puts this question.  Also, whether he believes that the Pope canonically elected, who is reigning at the time (his proper name being given), is the successor of Blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God?  These words do not speak of the truth of that proposition understood in a general sense—namely, that whoever is lawfully elected is the Supreme Pontiff—but in the particular, concerning whoever is pope at the time, giving his proper name, for instance, Innocent X.  It is of this man, whose proper name is given, that the pope is bidding the person suspect in faith to be asked, whether he believes that such a person is the successor of Peter and the Supreme Pontiff: therefore this pertains to the act of faith—not to an inference or a moral certitude; for neither of the latter two is a matter of faith.” (…)

“whoever is elected by the persons that the Church designates to choose a pope in her name, by the very fact that he is accepted by the Church as legitimately elected, is in fact pope.  This latter is what the definition of Martin V, related above,  as well as the acceptance of the Church, is really about.”

“Therefore, we have the certainty of faith, by a revelation implicitly contained in the Creed and in the promise made to Peter, and made more explicit in the definition of Martin V, and applied and declared in act (in exercitio) by the acceptance of the Church, that this man in particular, canonically elected according to the acceptance of the Church, is pope.  The certainty of faith touches this alone; and whatever is prerequisite to, or else follows upon, the fact of the election, is inferred as a theological conclusion drawn from the proposition that is de fide, and is believed mediately.”

Arnaldo De Salveira - (1980)

Silveira: In respect to a doubtful Pope, it is necessary to make it very clear here that the peaceful acceptance of a Pope by the whole Church is ‘a sign and an infallible effect of a valid election’. This is the common teaching of the authors.” (L’Ordo Missae de Paul VI: Qu’en penser?, Paris, 1980, p. 72).


Dr. Boni, Professor of Canon Law - "Beyond a Resignation. The Decision of Pope Benedict XVI and The Law" (2015)


Finally, Antonio Socci argues: ‘Even if the validity of the procedures followed that March 13, 2013 was expressed only a doubtful judgment, it can be assumed that the conclave must be redone because the doctrine teaches that" dubius pope habetur pro non papa "(a doubtful pope he considers himself as not a Pope), as the great doctor of the Church and Jesuit cardinal San Roberto Bellarmino writes in the treatise "De conciliis et ecclesia militante’ (pp. 7, 122).

“On the contrary, even if what has been reported had happened, the procedure followed, as demonstrated, would have been entirely "ad normam iuris" (as provided by law): the election of Pope Francis, having reached the expected majority in the fifth ballot (the first, I remember, occurred on May 12), it would be valid, there would be nothing to heal, there would be no doubt, much less "positive" and "insoluble" (as the law postulates), on its validity.

“Given the total legal groundlessness of these suppositions, even to want to give credit to the information on which it claims to take root, the bogeyman - rashly agitated - of the current assidarsi on Peter’s chair of a doubtful Pope also vanishes. However, the canonist have constantly and generally chorus that the peaceful "universalis ecclesiae adhaesio" is a sign and infallible effect of a valid election and a legitimate papacy ([1] (http://file:///C:/Users/Rob/Desktop/Peaceful%20and%20Universal%20Acceptance%20Quotes.docx#_ftn1)): and the adhesion to Pope Francis of the people of God cannot be put in any way in doubt.” (Dr. Boni, Professor of Canon Law at the University of Bologna, and Advisor of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. “Beyond a Resignation. The Decision of Pope Benedict XVI and The Law,” Bologna, 2015.)




[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/Rob/Desktop/Peaceful%20and%20Universal%20Acceptance%20Quotes.docx#_ftnref1) See, for all, Franciscus Xav. Wernz, Petrus Vidal, "Ius canonicum", II, "De personis", apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, Romae, 1943, pp. 520-521. On this point Ludwig Billot, "Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi", I, Editio quinta, apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, Romae, 1927, p. 623 ss.


Isn’t your contention that universal acceptance is a one-time consent upon news of the election being accepted by the Church/bishops is contradicted in the quotation you provided by St. Alphonsus?

I had initially thought St. Alphonsus was merely referring to a delay in the acceptance after election, but then it occurred to me:

Would not papal deposition be a theological impossibility (eg., in the case of an heretical pope), if said acceptance could never be lost, and the status of the pope perpetually remain a dogmatic fact (ie., to depose, the consent of the Church/bishops would have to have been revoked).  
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: RomanTheo on October 11, 2019, 05:16:35 PM
Your contention that universal acceptance is a one-time consent upon news of the election being accepted by the bishops is contradicted in the quotation you provided by St. Alphonsus.

The one-time consent does not always happen immediately.  There have been times when an election was initially contested, but then later accepted by the entire Church.  In that case, the one-time acceptance occurs when the entire Church accepts him as Pope.   That's what St. Alphonsus was referring to.  

The following teaching of Guaranger also addresses this scenario:

“The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of her liberty, acknowledges in the person a certain Pope, until then doubtful, as the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself.” (Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, 1875, pg. 188.)
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: SeanJohnson on October 11, 2019, 05:23:46 PM
The one-time consent does not always happen immediately.  There have been times when an election was initially contested, but then later accepted by the entire Church.  In that case, the one-time acceptance occurs when the entire Church accepts him as Pope.   That's what St. Alphonsus was referring to.  

The following teaching of Guaranger also addresses this scenario:

“The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of her liberty, acknowledges in the person a certain Pope, until then doubtful, as the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself.” (Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, 1875, pg. 188.)

I do not contest what you quote here.

My question is whether that consent is immutable once having been given.

In other words, whether a pope, having been given universal consent by the bishops, could later lose that universal consent (eg., for heresy), and consequently have his legitimacy become uncertain.

If not, why quibble about the means and mechanics of how deposition works, when it would seem to be an impossibility by any method?
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: RomanTheo on October 11, 2019, 05:29:44 PM
I had initially thought St. Alphonsus was merely referring to a delay in the acceptance after election, but then it occurred to me:

Would not papal deposition be a theological impossibility (eg., in the case of an heretical pope), if said acceptance could never be lost, and the status of the pope perpetually remain a dogmatic fact (ie., to depose, the consent of the Church/bishops would have to have been revoked).  

No, that wouldn't be an obstacle to him being deposed, since the universal acceptance would cease as soon as the council deposed him, or declared him deposed.

But in light of the point you raised, I would add that, in addition to his legitimacy as Pope being infallibly certain the moment the entire Church recognized him as pope (thereby removing any doubts about his election), his legitimacy will remain infallibly certain as long as the ecclesia docens continues to publicly acknowledge him as pope.  
 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: SeanJohnson on October 11, 2019, 05:52:54 PM
No, that wouldn't be an obstacle to him being deposed, since the universal acceptance would cease as soon as the council deposed him, or declared him deposed.

But in light of the point you raised, I would add that, in addition to his legitimacy as Pope being infallibly certain the moment the entire Church recognized him as pope (thereby removing any doubts about his election), his legitimacy will remain infallibly certain as long as the ecclesia docens continues to publicly acknowledge him as pope.  
 

Thank you, RT.

I agree with all of this (and wish you would post here more often).
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: SeanJohnson on October 11, 2019, 06:03:05 PM
RT-

In light of the foregoing doctrine, what is your take on the papacy of Francis?

Dogmatic fact?  Mortal sin to question (Cartechini)?  Permissible to doubt its legitimacy??
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: songbird on October 11, 2019, 08:31:40 PM
Universal Peaceful Acceptance.   Easy!  It is You in the UN.  How many times have we heard this?  When we accept the UN, UN claims it has the answer to Peace.  HA!

Our Lady promised us Peace many times "IF" we had Consecration of Russia (Jews) and that didn't happen  and so we get the promise of Error throughout the world.

Anyone using the word "Peace" on this earth, I certainly do not listen to them.  Our Lady and Her Son must be the solution!
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 11, 2019, 08:54:08 PM
https://onepeterfive.com/its-past-time-for-theologians-canonists-bishops-and-cardinals-to-weigh-in-on-the-status-of-the-papacy/ (https://onepeterfive.com/its-past-time-for-theologians-canonists-bishops-and-cardinals-to-weigh-in-on-the-status-of-the-papacy/)
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: SeanJohnson on October 11, 2019, 09:21:25 PM
Universal Peaceful Acceptance.   Easy!  It is You in the UN.  How many times have we heard this?  When we accept the UN, UN claims it has the answer to Peace.  HA!

Our Lady promised us Peace many times "IF" we had Consecration of Russia (Jews) and that didn't happen  and so we get the promise of Error throughout the world.

Anyone using the word "Peace" on this earth, I certainly do not listen to them.  Our Lady and Her Son must be the solution!

UN = Jewish globalism.

Side story:

I had this friend in high school who was Jewish.  Years later, I became educated on the Jewish Question, and wanting to test some of the things I had read in Fahey, Pinay, and the rest, I told him, all these international movements are nothing more than means for the Jew to enslave the Goyim.

He started laughing hysterically, and asked me where I had heard the word Goyim.
That was enough to tell me there was some truth in the matter.

I began to explain the instinctive Jewish solidarity, and other such issues, and he conceded there was some truth in all of it.
And do far as I know, this guy was just a regular Jew.

Switching gears:

As the Williamson affair was in full bloom, I happened to make a business call on a home-based Company, where I met an old German man named Pilsner.

As I waited for him to come downstairs, I noticed pics of German Catholic Churches on his wall, and then -I swear this is true- a copy of Der Spiegel on the table.

I mentioned I was a trad, and that I knew Bishop Williamson, and his eyes got wide as silver dollars, and he invited me to sit down.

He said he had read about him in Det Spiegel, and told me the following story (which I recount as accurately as I can):

He said his father owned a kiln (where they made clay pots), and their foreman was a Jew whom they liked very much.

One day the German army showed up asking for him and they took him away to a concentration camp nearby.

The family was connected, and was able to learn he was not far off, and they were able to visit him regularly and supply him with food and other necessities, until one day he was transferred to another camp, and they lost all trace of him.

Later, in the immediate aftermath of the war, it happened that the part of Germany was controlled by the Russians, and this man’s family was assigned to a cleanup crew loading wheelbarrows of concrete debris from bombings.  

One day while working, the boy (the man I met) and his father heard a familiar voice yell “Pilsner!”  To their dismay, it was their former Jewish foreman, wearing a Russian army uniform.

It turns out this Jew had been liberated by the Russians, and subsequently joined the army as an intelligence officer to fight against the Germans.  He remembered the good turn the Pilsner had done him, and through his own connections smuggled him across the border into what had become allied controlled Germany.

While they were getting reacquainted, the young Pilsner (ie., the man I chanced upon on a business call, who told me this story) said he heard his father ask the Jew about rumors that were spreading about gas chambers, and with a grave vocal inflection, he said to me, “the Jew told my father that he had never seen a gas chamber in any of the camps.”

I tell this story, and you should take it with a grain of salt, but these interesting interactions have contributed to form my opinions and worldview, because they are real world corroboration of what I have read in the books.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Stubborn on October 12, 2019, 05:44:32 AM
You will *never* stop abusing a quote you don't know the meaning of to use in your circular arguments. "The man who is elected pope is pope" is completely and utterly redundant, and not what the quote is about at all. Obviously the man who is elected pope is pope, but not every purported election is valid. There have been very many elections with all the pomp and circumstance and the involvement of cardinals that were invalid. So just saying "an election took place, therefore it was valid, therefore the man is pope" is nonsense.

The quote you're citing is, once again, referring to WHEN the pope gains his authority. At the time many in the Church were postulating that the pope only gained it when he was coronated. As the quote explains, he in fact gains it upon the moment of his election. The quote does not tell you how you know who the pope is or if the election was valid, that's not what it's about at all. It just tells you that when a valid election takes place, the man elected pope is instantly pope - he does not have to wait for his coronation. That's it.
Unfortunately for you, the pope did not say "the man elected in instantly the true pope, but if you don't believe me, or if you need further verification, then you can confirm or reject my directive by using the idea of universal peaceful acceptance so as to give everyone the ability to decide for themself".

Fortunately for me, I accept the directive of the pope as written as being entirely sufficient to give certainty of who the pope is and have no need for other verification.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 12, 2019, 07:39:41 AM
Unfortunately for you, the pope did not say "the man elected in instantly the true pope, but if you don't believe me, or if you need further verification, then you can confirm or reject my directive by using the idea of universal peaceful acceptance so as to give everyone the ability to decide for themself".

Fortunately for me, I accept the directive of the pope as written as being entirely sufficient to give certainty of who the pope is and have no need for other verification.
The man elected is instantly the true pope, yes, but just because the news tells you an election took place doesn't mean that election was actually valid. Anti-pope Clement VII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_Clement_VII) was elected by real cardinals with much pomp and circumstance, and half of Europe would've told you that he was the validly elected true pope. Was he? Clearly not. You need to determine if an election was actually valid, which is not something your quote will help you with because that's not what it's even about. You just throw that quote out in every single thread without a single clue as to what it's actually referring to, and then act as if "the pope is the pope" is actually a useful or meaningful statement at all.

The full quote, including the part that you ALWAYS cut out because it doesn't suit your agenda is:
Quote
After this agreement has been furnished within a time limit to be determined by the prudent judgment of the Cardinals by a majority of votes (to the extent it is necessary), the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world . Hence, if anyone dares to challenge the documents prepared in regard to any business whatsoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation, We bind him with the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto
Earlier in this thread you had the audacity to call me a liar because the quotes "doesn't mention coronation" at all, when it was you who cut that part out. The quote in full context is clearly addressing the issue of "when does the pope gain his jurisdiction - upon election or coronation?" and not "how do you know who the pope is?". 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Stubborn on October 12, 2019, 08:44:41 AM
The man elected is instantly the true pope, yes, but just because the news tells you an election took place doesn't mean that election was actually valid. Anti-pope Clement VII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_Clement_VII) was elected by real cardinals with much pomp and circumstance, and half of Europe would've told you that he was the validly elected true pope. Was he? Clearly not. You need to determine if an election was actually valid, which is not something your quote will help you with because that's not what it's even about. You just throw that quote out in every single thread without a single clue as to what it's actually referring to, and then act as if "the pope is the pope" is actually a useful or meaningful statement at all.
First off, the presumption is the conclave voted according to the law. That is the presumption. If you wish to continue to accuse the conclave, then you need to produce proof the election is illegal and submit to the hierarchy. Whether or not it did any good does not matter because you did your part.

But you cannot do that, but that doesn't matter to you, but it matters to me. What you have to do is for the Church to determine if the conclave was invalid, until then, it was valid and Francis is the true pope. You do not like this, all I can say is too bad for you.

Clement VII is ambiguous to our situation. He was elected by French cardinals only, not all of the cardinals, and there were other men claiming to be popes at that time. Either way, it was the Church that sorted the mess out, not sedevacantists. You also make a good case against the universal acceptance idea with your "half of Europe would've told you that he was the validly elected true pope".



Quote
The full quote, including the part that you ALWAYS cut out because it doesn't suit your agenda is:
Quote
Quote
After this agreement has been furnished within a time limit to be determined by the prudent judgment of the Cardinals by a majority of votes (to the extent it is necessary), the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world . Hence, if anyone dares to challenge the documents prepared in regard to any business whatsoever that comes from the Roman Pontiff before the coronation, We bind him with the censure of excommunication to be incurred ipso facto
It fits "my agenda" perfectly. I am not the one challenging the documents, you are.When it comes to this subject, you are crazy.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 12, 2019, 08:56:42 AM
First off, the presumption is the conclave voted according to the law. That is the presumption. If you wish to continue to accuse the conclave, then you need to produce proof the election is illegal and submit to the hierarchy. Whether or not it did any good does not matter because you did your part.

But you cannot do that, but that doesn't matter to you, but it matters to me. What you have to do is for the Church to determine if the conclave was invalid, until then, it was valid and Francis is the true pope. You do not like this, all I can say is too bad for you.


And who does this? Right, the pope. And Clement would've told you that Urban's election was invalid due to the Roman riots putting the cardinals under duress. Urban would likewise tell you that Clement's election was invalid because he himself had already been validly elected. How was a Catholic meant to know who was right based off that? They couldn't. Just telling people "whoever is elected pope is pope" doesn't tell you who the pope is, because it doesn't tell you if the election was actually valid in the first place.

It fits "my agenda" perfectly. I am not the one challenging the documents, you are.When it comes to this subject, you are crazy.

You were the one cutting off half the quote and then saying it had nothing to do with coronation, so yes clearly you are challenging the documents. As the part you cut off clearly shows, the quote is about when the pope obtains his jurisdiction, not how you determine who the pope is as you claimed.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2019, 09:05:09 AM
Here's how I answer the question posted by the OP.

I pretend that I'm living during the reign of Pope Pius XII, say, in 1950.  Is there a Catholic anywhere in the world who thinks that Pius XII is not Pope?  There's no dispute, no disagreement, no doubt, just peace of mind and calm regarding this identity.

Is this really what we have with Jorge Bergoglio ... when some even in the Novus Ordo are wondering if he's Catholic?

Examples of there NOT being universal peaceful acceptance?  We have that of the so-called "Western" Schism.

Are we closer to the Pius XII scenario or to the Schism?

Clearly to the latter.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Clemens Maria on October 12, 2019, 09:08:29 AM
The case of Pope Leo V:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09159b.htm

https://archive.org/details/thelivesofthepop01platuoft/page/n269

It is supposed that Leo was universally and peacefully accepted, otherwise why would the Roman Pontifical list him as the 118th pope?  Is that a dogmatic fact?  But if it was a dogmatic fact, how did Christopher get possession of the Roman See after he put Leo in prison?  Prior to 1961 (John XXIII), Christopher was listed in the Roman Pontifical as a true pope.  So what does dogmatic fact mean?  If the history of the papacy doesn't support the definition of dogmatic fact as proposed by the R&R folks, how do the R&R folks handle that?  Do they just dismiss out of hand any contrary evidence?

And it gets worse, Sergius III was elected in opposition to Christopher (and presumably Leo too since he was still alive in prison) and according to some, Sergius put both Leo and Christopher to death.  The Roman Pontifical (prior to 1961) listed all three of them as true popes.  Leo -> Christopher -> Sergius.  I'm not sure how the dogmatic fact theory can fit with this evidence.  I guess you could deny that there was universal peaceful acceptance of Leo.  But I could deny that there is universal peaceful acceptance of Frank.  Not even the entire Novus Ordo hierarchy accepts him as a true pope.  Is your opinion that there is universal peaceful acceptance of Frank also a dogmatic fact?  Also, is it a dogmatic fact that the Novus Ordo hierarchy is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church?  If it is, then Religious Liberty and Ecumenism and "for many" are also universally peacefully accepted.  And if there isn't universal peaceful acceptance, Frank can remedy that by excommunicating those who don't peacefully accept him.  Problem solved?

Or how about this case?:

John XII -> Antipope Leo VIII (Leone) -> John XII (same J12) -> Benedict V -> (now true pope but same guy as antipope) Leo VIII

Figure that one out.

Or how about the case of Pope St. Eugene I?:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05598a.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Eugene_I

https://archive.org/details/thelivesofthepop01platuoft/page/n181

He was universally peacefully accepted by the entire hierarchy of the Church.  Except there was one problem.  His predecessor, Pope Martin I was still alive and in prison and had not abdicated!  The Roman Pontifical has Pope SAINT Eugene I ascending to the papacy a full year after he had been universally and peacefully accepted by the hierarchy.  Not until after Pope Martin I died in prison did he officially become the pope.  So when did it become a dogmatic fact that Pope Eugene was the true pope?

So you dogmatic facters have some explaining to do.  How can you in good conscience call traditionalists heretics for not believing that it is a dogmatic fact that Frank the Clown is the pope?  I'm a heretic for not believing that a manifest heretic is a pope?  That's rich!
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 12, 2019, 09:10:35 AM
Here's how I answer the question posted by the OP.

I pretend that I'm living during the reign of Pope Pius XII, say, in 1950.  Is there a Catholic anywhere in the world who thinks that Pius XII is not Pope?  There's no dispute, no disagreement, no doubt, just peace of mind and calm regarding this identity.

Is this really what we have with Jorge Bergoglio ... when some even in the Novus Ordo are wondering if he's Catholic?
To play devil's advocate, the Old Catholics would assert there certainly was dispute and disagreement.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2019, 09:10:59 AM
Let's take the current case of one Jorge Bergoglio.

We have a small group of Novus Ordo Cardinals who called him out for heresy regarding communion for those living in sin.  What was it, about 6 of them?  Now, clearly these men are objectively correct, that Jorge's teaching is in fact heretical.

Where are the other hundreds of Cardinals and thousands of bishops.  Silent.  Why?  It's either because they themselves are heretics who agree with Bergoglio or they are too pusillanimous so speak up or they just don't care about things like doctrine.

Let's say that Bergoglio IS in fact a heretic, and these Cardinals are correct.  How do you get rid of him ever if 99% of the putative hierarchy are either in lock step with him or worthless cowards?
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2019, 09:12:37 AM
To play devil's advocate, the Old Catholics would assert there certainly was dispute and disagreement.

Well, that was a different era.  Which is why I used Pius XII.  Now, I'm not sure the Old Catholics ever questioned that he was the Pope.  They just didn't accept his teaching.  I'm not sure that's the same thing.

Now, let's say that the Old Catholics had gone all sedevacante, and argued that Pius IX was no longer pope due to being guilty of heresy on the infallibility question.  Their opinion would not matter, since they would have been heretics.  That's similar to how I feel about the vast majority of the Novus Ordo hierarchy who refuse to reject Bergoglio as a non-Catholic.  Why should their opinion be taken into any more account than that of, say, these hypothetical sedevacantist Old Catholics?
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Stubborn on October 12, 2019, 09:14:13 AM
So you dogmatic facters have some explaining to do.  How can you in good conscience call traditionalists heretics for not believing that it is a dogmatic fact that Frank the Clown is the pope?  I'm a heretic for not believing that a manifest heretic is a pope?  That's rich!
I agree with this.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 12, 2019, 09:19:53 AM
Well, that was a different era.  Which is why I used Pius XII.  Now, I'm not sure the Old Catholics ever questioned that he was the Pope.  They just didn't accept his teaching.  I'm not sure that's the same thing.

Now, let's say that the Old Catholics had gone all sedevacante, and argued that Pius IX was no longer pope due to being guilty of heresy on the infallibility question.  Their opinion would not matter, since they would have been heretics.  That's similar to how I feel about the vast majority of the Novus Ordo hierarchy who refuse to reject Bergoglio as a non-Catholic.  Why should their opinion be taken into any more account than that of, say, these hypothetical sedevacantist Old Catholics?
Well I mean, they were still around during Pius XII's reign - and even today, for that matter(although their beliefs and practices have changed wildly since - they're a good example of "know a tree by its fruits", with their female priests and unity with Protestants).

But anyway, Old Catholics as they were in the wake of the First Vatican Council believed every dogma the Church taught UNTIL V1. So a sedevacantist Old Catholic back then would've been in the exact same boat as a modern sedevacantist who calls V2 a false council.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2019, 09:22:08 AM
Well, those are interesting case studies, Clemens.

Now, I am in fact a dogmatic facter, in the sense that it's logically (theologically) certain that the legitimacy of a pope must be dogmatically certain, or else nothing they define as dogma can be dogmatically certain.

What's at issue is what criterion determines whether the legitimacy of any given pope is dogmatic fact.  It has always been held to be universal peaceful acceptance, but I will read up on and consider the case studies you posted.

But even while upholding universal peaceful acceptance, I do not consider rejecting Bergoglio to be heresy, since he decidedly lacks such universal peaceful acceptance by Catholics.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Clemens Maria on October 12, 2019, 09:24:36 AM
Well, those are interesting case studies, Clemens.

Now, I am in fact a dogmatic facter, in the sense that it's logically (theologically) certain that the legitimacy of a pope must be dogmatically certain, or else nothing they define as dogma can be dogmatically certain.

What's at issue is what criterion determines whether the legitimacy of any given pope is dogmatic fact.  It has always been held to be universal peaceful acceptance, but I will read up on and consider the case studies you posted.

But even while upholding universal peaceful acceptance, I do not consider rejecting Bergoglio to be heresy, since he decidedly lacks such universal peaceful acceptance by Catholics.
And who decides that the criteria are met and is that decision also a dogmatic fact?
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2019, 09:29:19 AM
Perhaps the answer is that John of St. Thomas did not correctly think through the quoad se vs. quoad nos distinction.

If a Pope were elected and universally accepted, then he's Pope by dogmatic fact.  When a subsequent man comes along, deposes him, puts him in jail, assumes the See with new "universal acceptance", the universal acceptance means nothing, for the quoad nos cannot override the quoad se.  No subsequent universal acceptance of another man can cause the deposition of the original pope, for that would be a flavor of Conciliarism, where the Church can effectively depose popes.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Clemens Maria on October 12, 2019, 09:33:05 AM
Perhaps the answer is that John of St. Thomas did not correctly think through the quoad se vs. quoad nos distinction.

If a Pope were elected and universally accepted, then he's Pope by dogmatic fact.  When a subsequent man comes along, deposes him, puts him in jail, assumes the See with new "universal acceptance", the universal acceptance means nothing, for the quoad nos cannot override the quoad se.  No subsequent universal acceptance of another man can cause the deposition of the original pope, for that would be a flavor of Conciliarism, where the Church can effectively depose popes.
That effectively nullifies the whole purpose of asserting universal peaceful acceptance.  The underlying premise is that if the hierarchy couldn't be assured of being attached to the true pope, they could become separated from him.  But history shows that this has in fact happened.  I can't remember which pope during the GWS (maybe Pope Martin V?) was almost universally not accepted as the true pope.  And yet he was the true pope!
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Clemens Maria on October 12, 2019, 09:34:11 AM
Could be the Pope Siri theory is true, right?
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2019, 09:34:26 AM
And who decides that the criteria are met and is that decision also a dogmatic fact?

Well, if there's dispute whether or not the criterion has been met, then the criterion has NOT been met.

I believe that the principle cannot be Universal Acceptance alone, but must rather be:

LEGITIMATE ELECTION + Universal Acceptance.

So, in other words, if there's universal acceptance that the election being held is legitimate, then the results of that election make the man Pope.  If five minutes later, the Cardinals inside the conclave tried to depose the man and haul out another one, that man would not be pope.  Sound familiar?  One Cardinal Siri scenario immediately leaps to mind.

Now, the counter argument is that the universal acceptance of a false pope compromises the infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens, but I would answer that the infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens is not compromised by material error.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2019, 09:35:26 AM
Could be the Pope Siri theory is true, right?

Well, I've always thought that it was plausible, but couldn't explain it by way of the universal acceptance hypothesis, but your case studies demonstrate that it is in fact possible for a non-pope to be universally accepted.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2019, 09:38:41 AM
I've always detected a slight hint of "convalidation" theory in the Universal Acceptance reasoning.  I think that Bishop Sanborn came out nearly explicitly with this notion when he treated of it one time.

If there's UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE of the election and the election happens in the manner pre-determined by the Pope, i.e. those usual pre-Conclave instructions laid out by the Pope, then the man is pope at the moment of his election (+acceptance of it) ... even if he's immediately deposed or jailed or whatever.  Those Cardinals could in fact engage in a conspiracy where they would hide the conclave results from the Universal Church, and the Church would not be any wiser to it.  Is that what happened with Siri?
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2019, 09:43:03 AM
What would happen if the 1958 Conclave completely violated the terms prescribed by Pius XII and did not legitimately hold the election?  Then they trotted out the man that was produced by this uncanonical election and proposed him to the Church?  And the Church, being none the wiser to the true facts, just accepted this guy?  Can acceptance by the Church con-validate the election?  I don't feel like it should be able to.

Maybe it's time for the Church to change the secrecy rules regarding conclaves, and force the entire thing to be conducted like a reality TV show where cameras and microphones are present ... but then of course the conspirators could go so far as to produce deepfake videos.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2019, 09:45:26 AM
I mean, naturally speaking, there's nothing to stop all manner of fakery from being perpetrated on the Church.

Let's say the Masons and Communists and Jews have been infiltrating the hierarchy for centuries, to the point that 90% of them were covert agents.

They decide before the election that they would install a designated candidate regardless of election rules.

They trot this guy out as the pope, and the Church as a whole is none the wiser.

This is very likely what happened in 1958.

Of course, God could blow up the entire conspiracy anytime He chose to.  But this was God's chastisement, not to impede the conspiracy.  Recall Pope Leo XIII's vision where Our Lord granted leave for Satan to have more power over those who wish to serve him, and the subsequent prayer to St. Michael referring to the enemies of the Church replacing the Holy See with their own throne.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 12, 2019, 09:46:39 AM
That effectively nullifies the whole purpose of asserting universal peaceful acceptance.  The underlying premise is that if the hierarchy couldn't be assured of being attached to the true pope, they could become separated from him.  But history shows that this has in fact happened.  I can't remember which pope during the GWS (maybe Pope Martin V?) was almost universally not accepted as the true pope.  And yet he was the true pope!
A lack of acceptance doesn't make you not the pope, but universal acceptance makes it heresy to not accept the pope. Like a Catholic who mistakenly followed an anti-pope in the GWS wasn't committing heresy or schism by that fact, but if they rejected a pope who enjoys universal acceptance they would.
What exactly qualifies as universal acceptance is the big issue however.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2019, 09:50:11 AM
A lack of acceptance doesn't make you not the pope, but universal acceptance makes it heresy to not accept the pope. Like a Catholic who mistakenly followed an anti-pope in the GWS wasn't committing heresy or schism by that fact, but if they rejected a pope who enjoys universal acceptance they would.
What exactly qualifies as universal acceptance is the big issue however.

But this doesn't adequately address the case studies put forward by Clemens.  If I knew that the true Pope was in jail and refused to accept the guy who was at the time universally accepted, that would make me a heretic for rejecting him?

I would have to say that legitimate election must be in the mix.  If I reject a man I know to have been legitimately elected with universal acceptance by the Church, then I'd be a heretic.  If I know or find out that the guy was not legitimately elected, then no amount of universal acceptance after the fact can change that.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Clemens Maria on October 12, 2019, 09:55:18 AM
But this doesn't adequately address the case studies put forward by Clemens.  If I knew that the true Pope was in jail and refused to accept the guy who was at the time universally accepted, that would make me a heretic for rejecting him?

I would have to say that legitimate election must be in the mix.  If I reject a man I know to have been legitimately elected with universal acceptance by the Church, then I'd be a heretic.  If I know or find out that the guy was not legitimately elected, then no amount of universal acceptance after the fact can change that.
Right, and remember it is Pope SAINT Eugene I.  They were materially in error but they were of good will.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2019, 09:58:03 AM
Universal Acceptance is also a bit problematic before the last hundred years or so.  I would bet that during most of the Church's history, a good percentage of the Church had no idea who the Pope even was, and would have no actual way to confirm that the man was properly elected.  All they knew was that there was some guy sitting there in Rome claiming to be Pope, and they trusted God's providence that this was the guy.  90% of the Church would not have been the wiser had the emperor merely installed one of his cronies in the position.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2019, 10:01:01 AM
Right, and remember it is Pope SAINT Eugene I.  They were materially in error but they were of good will.

And SAINT Martin appears to have acquiesced to the election of Eugene.  Is that similar to what happened with Siri?  But did this acquiescence mean anything?  I would say that he too was materially mistaken.  Now, if he had formally resigned, that would be one thing ... but even that one might consider invalid since it was done under duress.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 12, 2019, 10:10:34 AM
And SAINT Martin appears to have acquiesced to the election of Eugene.  Is that similar to what happened with Siri?  But did this acquiescence mean anything?  I would say that he too was materially mistaken.  Now, if he had formally resigned, that would be one thing ... but even that one might consider invalid since it was done under duress.
Actually, thinking back on it, there were a number of cases in the early Church where a pope was exiled and another was elected before he died, with the new pope never being regarded(at the time or retroactively) as an anti-pope. There's also the other bizarre case where, until Pope John XXIII, the Pisan line of the GWS were not regarded as anti-popes. That's 2 lines of popes regarded as valid, until finally the Pope of the Robber Council unofficially declared the Pisan line invalid by ignoring Pisan John XXIII in his regnal numbering. However, Pope Alexander VI took VI instead of V, recognising Pisan Alexander V as pope. Despite the fact that Alexander V was elected in opposition to a Roman pope. So that also shows a lot for how the status of someone as pope can remain uncertain even for centuries after they're dead. From the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

Quote
Whether or not Alexander was a true pope is a question which canonists and historians of the Schism still discuss. The Church has not pronounced a definite opinion nor is it at all likely that she will. The Roman "Gerarchia Cattolica", not an authoritative work, which prior to 1906 contained a chronological list of the popes, designated Alexander V as the 211th pope, succeeding Gregory XII, resigned. (See PAPACY.) His remains are interred in the church of St. Francis at Bologna in a tomb magnificently restored in 1889 under the direction of Leo XIII.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2019, 10:21:47 AM
At the end of the day, it is only God's Providence that prevents the Church from being befuddled and even materially mistaken regarding the identity of the Pope.  There was the one pre-Vatican II theologian, writing about the so-called "Western" schism, who wrote that we have to be careful not to presume on what God would allow to befall the Church.  We know that He will provide a solution, but short of that, he took that crisis as a lesson.  He even said that there's nothing to prevent God from allowing a vacancy to go on for a very long time.  Before it happened, I'm sure that many Catholics would swear that something like that Schism could never happen.

Even with the Siri scenario, God allowed details of the conspiracy to leak out.  And God made sure that the V2 orientations were so over-the-top that even simple Catholics with little education could simply apply their Catholic sensibilities to discern, "uhm, I don't recognize whatever this is as being consistent with my faith."  Had God allowed this to go on for centuries, with little subtle changes every decade or so, everyone could have been fooled.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 12, 2019, 10:31:08 AM
At the end of the day, it is only God's Providence that prevents the Church from being befuddled and even materially mistaken regarding the identity of the Pope.  There was the one pre-Vatican II theologian, writing about the so-called "Western" schism, who wrote that we have to be careful not to presume on what God would allow to befall the Church.  We know that He will provide a solution, but short of that, he took that crisis as a lesson.  He even said that there's nothing to prevent God from allowing a vacancy to go on for a very long time.  Before it happened, I'm sure that many Catholics would swear that something like that Schism could never happen.

Even with the Siri scenario, God allowed details of the conspiracy to leak out.  And God made sure that the V2 orientations were so over-the-top that even simple Catholics with little education could simply apply their Catholic sensibilities to discern, "uhm, I don't recognize whatever this is as being consistent with my faith."  Had God allowed this to go on for centuries, with little subtle changes every decade or so, everyone could have been fooled.
At least the Great Western Schism had no theological disagreements, no side taught heresy or promulgated false rites, etc. So it was easier for a Catholic to just ignore the whole pope issue and go to his local parish church as before. This crisis is more serious in that respect, one "side" has basically apostasised, and it's already having lasted longer with no end in sight. I think the current crisis could only be possible on the eve of the End Times or at least the Great Chastisement. People may have taught the same about a GWS-esque scenario before it actually happened, but I think there were more serious crises than the GWS before it, like the Arian Crisis, etc. I think this current crisis is the only one that tops the Arian Crisis in severity. 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2019, 10:36:25 AM
At least the Great Western Schism had no theological disagreements, no side taught heresy or promulgated false rites, etc. So it was easier for a Catholic to just ignore the whole pope issue and go to his local parish church as before. This crisis is more serious in that respect, one "side" has basically apostasised, and it's already having lasted longer with no end in sight. I think the current crisis could only be possible on the eve of the End Times or at least the Great Chastisement. People may have taught the same about a GWS-esque scenario before it actually happened, but I think there were more serious crises than the GWS before it, like the Arian Crisis, etc. I think this current crisis is the only one that tops the Arian Crisis in severity.

Agreed.  This is THE MOTHER of all crises.  With Arianism, at least the Arians had not taken control of the papacy.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on October 13, 2019, 11:34:35 AM
Popes come and go but ...
Jesus Christ is yesterday, today and forever!

Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on October 13, 2019, 02:08:58 PM
[font=-apple-system, .SFNSText-Regular, San Francisco, Roboto, Segoe UI, Helvetica Neue, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]136. What is the Church?[/font][/color]
[font=-apple-system, .SFNSText-Regular, San Francisco, Roboto, Segoe UI, Helvetica Neue, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]The Church is the congregation of all baptized persons united in the same true faith, the same sacrifice, and the same sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.[/font][/color]
[font=-apple-system, .SFNSText-Regular, San Francisco, Roboto, Segoe UI, Helvetica Neue, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. (Matthew 13:24)[/font][/color]
[font=-apple-system, .SFNSText-Regular, San Francisco, Roboto, Segoe UI, Helvetica Neue, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]137. Who founded the Church?[/font][/color]
[font=-apple-system, .SFNSText-Regular, San Francisco, Roboto, Segoe UI, Helvetica Neue, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]Jesus Christ founded the Church.[/font][/color]
[font=-apple-system, .SFNSText-Regular, San Francisco, Roboto, Segoe UI, Helvetica Neue, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)[/font][/color]
[font=-apple-system, .SFNSText-Regular, San Francisco, Roboto, Segoe UI, Helvetica Neue, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]138. Why did Jesus Christ found the Church?[/font][/color]
[font=-apple-system, .SFNSText-Regular, San Francisco, Roboto, Segoe UI, Helvetica Neue, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]Jesus Christ founded the Church to bring all men to eternal salvation.[/font][/color]
[font=-apple-system, .SFNSText-Regular, San Francisco, Roboto, Segoe UI, Helvetica Neue, Lucida Grande, sans-serif]My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me. And I give them everlasting life; and they shall never perish, neither shall anyone snatch them out of my hand. (John 10:27-28)[/font][/color]
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 13, 2019, 05:53:43 PM
Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey (https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?topic=53624.msg671488#msg671488)
136. What is the Church?
The Church is the congregation of all baptized persons united in the same true faith, the same sacrifice, and the same sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.
The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. (Matthew 13:24)
137. Who founded the Church?
Jesus Christ founded the Church.
And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)
138. Why did Jesus Christ found the Church?
Jesus Christ founded the Church to bring all men to eternal salvation.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me. And I give them everlasting life; and they shall never perish, neither shall anyone snatch them out of my hand. (John 10:27-28)
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2019, 11:11:06 AM
Quote
but universal acceptance makes it heresy to not accept the pope.
In my opinion, the idea of "universal acceptance" has to do with the conclave and the election of a pope.  If the pope is accepted then he's the pope.  But...this idea of acceptance doesn't give the pope a lifetime of immunity or a papacy free of critique.  If a pope was elected and accepted (let's say, +Benedict) but then a few years later, he starts visiting jewish synagogues and praying with infidels, or speaking heresy, then the doubts which arise have nothing to do with acceptance of his election but with acceptance of his orthodoxy.  Universal acceptance as a pope elect is different from universal acceptance as being a member of the church, if there is doubt as to heresy or whatever.  Most theologians couldn't wrap their heads around the circumstances we live through, (how many of them thought a pope could never be a heretic...obviously there were very wrong) so for them, if a pope were elected, then that's that.  They never considered the possibility of a lack of universal acceptance due to a lack of orthodoxy.  But I think such a distinction is necessary.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 21, 2019, 11:14:09 AM
In my opinion, the idea of "universal acceptance" has to do with the conclave and the election of a pope.  If the pope is accepted then he's the pope.  But...this idea of acceptance doesn't give the pope a lifetime of immunity or a papacy free of critique.  If a pope was elected and accepted (let's say, +Benedict) but then a few years later, he starts visiting jewish synagogues and praying with infidels, or speaking heresy, then the doubts which arise have nothing to do with acceptance of his election but with acceptance of his orthodoxy.  Universal acceptance as a pope elect is different from universal acceptance as being a member of the church, if there is doubt as to heresy or whatever.  Most theologians couldn't wrap their heads around the circumstances we live through, (how many of them thought a pope could never be a heretic...obviously there were very wrong) so for them, if a pope were elected, then that's that.  They never considered the possibility of a lack of universal acceptance due to a lack of orthodoxy.  But I think such a distinction is necessary.

I think that there is something to this.  Based on how Universal Acceptance theory is typically applied, no one can ever even begin questioning the orthodoxy of some legitimately accepted Pope, right?
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Stubborn on October 21, 2019, 11:49:00 AM
I think that there is something to this.  Based on how Universal Acceptance theory is typically applied, no one can ever even begin questioning the orthodoxy of some legitimately accepted Pope, right?
That's right.

Which is why "Universal acceptance" can be nothing more than an opinion, a theory accepted by some theologians.

Aside from the current situation and the example I presented earlier in the thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/what-is-universal-peaceful-acceptance/msg671166/#msg671166), there are other examples one might use to wholly dispel the theory.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: SeanJohnson on October 21, 2019, 12:02:00 PM
That's right.

Which is why "Universal acceptance" can be nothing more than an opinion, a theory accepted by some theologians.

Aside from the current situation and the example I presented earlier in the thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/what-is-universal-peaceful-acceptance/msg671166/#msg671166), there are other examples one might use to wholly dispel the theory.
Why couldn’t one question the orthodoxy of a universally accepted pope (which is a different matter than questioning his legitimacy)?
It seems to me that UA assures the latter, but is not intended to address the former.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2019, 12:12:11 PM
Quote
The peaceful and universal acceptance is a one time event that occurs the moment the entire Church accepts the man as Pope; or, more precisely, when the news of his election has spread throughout the Church and his legitimacy is not at once contested.  

It should also be noted that the peaceful and universal acceptance does not make him the Pope, nor is it necessary for someone to become the Pope, as the Great Western Schism proves.  But when it exists, which is most of the time, it serves as an infallible sign that the man elected is truly the Pope and hence removes any possible doubts concerning the validity of his election.
RomanTheo's post agrees with my thinking that UA concerns the legitimacy of the election.  It has nothing to do with orthodoxy/heresy.
.
Quote
Why couldn’t one question the orthodoxy of a universally accepted pope (which is a different matter than questioning his legitimacy)?
It seems to me that UA protects the latter, but is not intended to address the former.
Agree totally, Sean.
.
Quote
Which is why "Universal acceptance" can be nothing more than an opinion, a theory accepted by some theologians.

Aside from the current situation and the example I presented earlier in the thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/what-is-universal-peaceful-acceptance/msg671166/#msg671166), there are other examples one might use to wholly dispel the theory.
Stubborn, I didn't find where you dispelled this "theory". 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2019, 12:14:13 PM
Quote
Based on how Universal Acceptance theory is typically applied, no one can ever even begin questioning the orthodoxy of some legitimately accepted Pope, right?

 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/what-is-universal-peaceful-acceptance/63/?action=reporttm;msg=672374)
Yes, that would be a black-n-white, either-or, sede interpretation of the UA theory.  But we all know theological theory is never that simple.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Stubborn on October 21, 2019, 12:24:33 PM
Why couldn’t one question the orthodoxy of a universally accepted pope (which is a different matter than questioning his legitimacy)?
It seems to me that UA assures the latter, but is not intended to address the former.
Orthodoxy is not what is at issue here, dogmatic certainty is. If UA means dogmatic certainty, then everything outside of being dogmaticaly certain is a sin. 

I dunno, to me, we're really talking about the unanimous acceptance - which definitely has the potential to negate the provisions already put in place using the legislation mandated by previous popes. This is what we are seeing right now - the questioning, ignoring or denying of those provisions by using the theory of UA.





   
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Mr G on October 21, 2019, 12:32:21 PM
Does anyone here studied the details of the case below that can confirm Ann's conclusion?

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/10/20/q-if-we-cant-trust-the-church-to-tell-us-who-the-pope-is-doesnt-that-mean-the-church-has-defected/


That time St. Bernard of Clairvaux exposed and corrected Antipopes “morally unanimously accepted” by the College of Cardinals. Q: If we can’t trust the Church to tell us who the Pope is, doesn’t that mean the Church has defected?

Q:  If we can’t trust the Church to tell us who the Pope is, doesn’t that mean the Church has defected?

A: Well, apparently not, because Antipope Anacletus II was backed by a majority of Cardinals and the entirety of Rome with the exception of the Corsi family and illegitimately ruled EIGHT YEARS until his death.



Here’s the short version.  You can read the long versions at NewAdvent.org and Wikipedia.



Pope Honorious II dies, and in rules established by a predecessor (Nicholas II) and Honorious II, the election of Honorious II’s successor is left to a special commission of eight Cardinals.  They validly and canonically, albeit hurriedly and insistently, elect Pope Innocent II Papareschi the next day.


Later that same day, other Cardinals, backed by all the Roman noble families declare Pope Innocent II’s election invalid, except it WAS valid, as we will see, and instead elect their very corrupt boy, Cardinal Pietro Pierleone and name him Anacletus II.

Both men are crowned Pope/Antipope on the same day – the Antipope Anacletus II in St. Peter’s Basilica, and the true Pope Innocent II in Santa Maria Nuova (now called Santa Francesca Romana).



Antipope Anacletus II Pierleone, having the backing of most of the Cardinals, all of the Roman noble families except one (the Corsi), and all of the Roman populace, drives the true Pope Innocent II out of Rome and he flees to France where he resides for three years, whereupon he is escorted back to Rome by King Lothair of Germany, albeit with an insufficient calvary force of only 2000, and upon Lothair’s departure, Pope Innocent II has to flee Rome again to nearby Pisa, where he remains for four more years.



During these eight years, Antipope Anacletus II enjoys essentially unanimous support in Rome as he plunders the Church’s wealth and spends it lavishly to maintain support and popularity.



When Antipope Anacletus II dies after EIGHT YEARS uncontested and peacefully accepted by the Cardinals and Rome in January of ARSH 1138, an invalid conclave is called (because the True Pope Innocent II is still very much alive), and Antipope Victor IV Conti is “elected”.



This mess was resolved not by arms, but by A SAINT.  Enter Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, who had discerned that despite the essentially unanimous and peaceful recognition of Anacletus II as Pope by the College of Cardinals and the populace of Rome, that this was wrong, and Pope Innocent II was the true Pope, and had been all along.  St. Bernard went to Rome and by only the force of his eloquence in preaching to the people of Rome convinced the Church and the people of Rome of Innocent II’s legitimacy, so that upon Anacletus II’s death and the faux-election of Antipope Victor IV, Victor IV soon PRESENTED HIMSELF AS A PENITENT to St. Bernard, who immediately escorted him to Pope Innocent II, to whom Antipope Victor IV Conti repented and submitted, thus proving that Anacletus II had been an Antipope all along.  Because if Pope Innocent II was the Pope, then that HAD to mean that Anacletus never was. Because LOGIC.



So, the answer is clearly, emphatically YES, the College of Cardinals and Rome HAS ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY dropped the ball on who the Pope is, and for EIGHT YEARS, and clearly this did not constitute defection. The Church fully admits that Anacletus II, who reigned peacefully accepted by the College of Cardinals and Church of Rome, was an Antipope, and that Bernard who discerned this, was not only a Saint, but a Doctor of the Church.



So, we have YET ANOTHER powerful Saint to enjoin in our prayers for resolving today’s mess.


Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, PRAY FOR US!
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Stubborn on October 21, 2019, 12:36:06 PM
RomanTheo's post agrees with my thinking that UA concerns the legitimacy of the election.  It has nothing to do with orthodoxy/heresy.
.Agree totally, Sean.
.Stubborn, I didn't find where you dispelled this "theory".
Sorry, I posted the wrong link earlier, I should have posted this one (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/lefebvre-and-sedevacantism/msg671092/#msg671092).
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: SeanJohnson on October 21, 2019, 12:54:04 PM
Does anyone here studied the details of the case below that can confirm Ann's conclusion?

https://www.barnhardt.biz/2019/10/20/q-if-we-cant-trust-the-church-to-tell-us-who-the-pope-is-doesnt-that-mean-the-church-has-defected/


That time St. Bernard of Clairvaux exposed and corrected Antipopes “morally unanimously accepted” by the College of Cardinals. Q: If we can’t trust the Church to tell us who the Pope is, doesn’t that mean the Church has defected?

Q:  If we can’t trust the Church to tell us who the Pope is, doesn’t that mean the Church has defected?

A: Well, apparently not, because Antipope Anacletus II was backed by a majority of Cardinals and the entirety of Rome with the exception of the Corsi family and illegitimately ruled EIGHT YEARS until his death.



Here’s the short version.  You can read the long versions at NewAdvent.org and Wikipedia.



Pope Honorious II dies, and in rules established by a predecessor (Nicholas II) and Honorious II, the election of Honorious II’s successor is left to a special commission of eight Cardinals.  They validly and canonically, albeit hurriedly and insistently, elect Pope Innocent II Papareschi the next day.


Later that same day, other Cardinals, backed by all the Roman noble families declare Pope Innocent II’s election invalid, except it WAS valid, as we will see, and instead elect their very corrupt boy, Cardinal Pietro Pierleone and name him Anacletus II.

Both men are crowned Pope/Antipope on the same day – the Antipope Anacletus II in St. Peter’s Basilica, and the true Pope Innocent II in Santa Maria Nuova (now called Santa Francesca Romana).



Antipope Anacletus II Pierleone, having the backing of most of the Cardinals, all of the Roman noble families except one (the Corsi), and all of the Roman populace, drives the true Pope Innocent II out of Rome and he flees to France where he resides for three years, whereupon he is escorted back to Rome by King Lothair of Germany, albeit with an insufficient calvary force of only 2000, and upon Lothair’s departure, Pope Innocent II has to flee Rome again to nearby Pisa, where he remains for four more years.



During these eight years, Antipope Anacletus II enjoys essentially unanimous support in Rome as he plunders the Church’s wealth and spends it lavishly to maintain support and popularity.



When Antipope Anacletus II dies after EIGHT YEARS uncontested and peacefully accepted by the Cardinals and Rome in January of ARSH 1138, an invalid conclave is called (because the True Pope Innocent II is still very much alive), and Antipope Victor IV Conti is “elected”.



This mess was resolved not by arms, but by A SAINT.  Enter Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, who had discerned that despite the essentially unanimous and peaceful recognition of Anacletus II as Pope by the College of Cardinals and the populace of Rome, that this was wrong, and Pope Innocent II was the true Pope, and had been all along.  St. Bernard went to Rome and by only the force of his eloquence in preaching to the people of Rome convinced the Church and the people of Rome of Innocent II’s legitimacy, so that upon Anacletus II’s death and the faux-election of Antipope Victor IV, Victor IV soon PRESENTED HIMSELF AS A PENITENT to St. Bernard, who immediately escorted him to Pope Innocent II, to whom Antipope Victor IV Conti repented and submitted, thus proving that Anacletus II had been an Antipope all along.  Because if Pope Innocent II was the Pope, then that HAD to mean that Anacletus never was. Because LOGIC.



So, the answer is clearly, emphatically YES, the College of Cardinals and Rome HAS ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY dropped the ball on who the Pope is, and for EIGHT YEARS, and clearly this did not constitute defection. The Church fully admits that Anacletus II, who reigned peacefully accepted by the College of Cardinals and Church of Rome, was an Antipope, and that Bernard who discerned this, was not only a Saint, but a Doctor of the Church.



So, we have YET ANOTHER powerful Saint to enjoin in our prayers for resolving today’s mess.


Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, PRAY FOR US!
It would be odd that this could be true, yet all subsequent approved and eminent theologians later declare universal acceptance an infallible guarantee of papal legitimacy.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 21, 2019, 01:15:36 PM
It would be odd that this could be true, yet all subsequent approved and eminent theologians later declare universal acceptance an infallible guarantee of papal legitimacy.

I think that there's SOMEthing to be said for Universal Acceptance, but it's on the front end, at the time of election, as Pax put it.  We have case studies where the Universal Church got it materially wrong down the road.

And, you know, it is possible for theologians to be in error.  They are not infallible.  For over 700 years, all theologians held the erroneous view of St. Augustine regarding the fate of unbaptized children ... and yet the Church subsequently overturned it.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2019, 01:47:43 PM
The case of Anacletus II vs Innocent II is not like what we have today.  In that example, there were 2 different elections, by 2 different groups of Cardinals.  I don't know how anyone can say that it is an example of "universal acceptance". 
.
Not a single Cardinal disputes the election of JPII or Benedict.  (John XXIII, with the white smoke, and Francis, with Benedict's abdication are a different story).
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2019, 01:52:33 PM
Quote
You're living in a dream world if you have any notion that a holy pope will be universally peacefully accepted by the whole Church - if anything, he'll be universally violently rejected.  ...So that's the problem with the opinion of "all theologians" (of the last 100 years or so who hold this opinion) who make the universal peaceful acceptance the criterion for papal validity.

Stubborn, you're looking at this the wrong way.  Universal Acceptance (UA) is not a NECESSARY criterion for a papal election.  If it was, then a papal conclave would have to have a unanimous vote.  But a conclave only requires 2/3rds at first, and then after a few days, the majority needed declines.
.
But, UA is a POSITIVE aspect which shows the pope is the pope.  If a pope does not have UA, he could still be the pope; it depends on what the opposing side is disputing.  If they simply just don't like him, that's not a valid dispute.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2019, 01:57:55 PM
Quote
We have case studies where the Universal Church got it materially wrong down the road.
Let's face it:  The major pushers of this exaggerated UA theory are the sedes, who in their rabid quest to destroy anyone who sees the world differently, view UA in an extreme way, and use it as a "gotcha" test.  They want to trap Trads into a false dichotomy where you either reject a V2 pope right off the bat, or you have to accept him for a lifetime...no ifs, ands, or buts (as is usual with their over-simplistic thinking).  No theologian worth his salt would define UA in such a rigid manner.  
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Clemens Maria on October 21, 2019, 02:08:57 PM
The case of Anacletus II vs Innocent II is not like what we have today.  In that example, there were 2 different elections, by 2 different groups of Cardinals.  I don't know how anyone can say that it is an example of "universal acceptance".
.
Not a single Cardinal disputes the election of JPII or Benedict.  (John XXIII, with the white smoke, and Francis, with Benedict's abdication are a different story).
And, by the way, Innocent, Anacletus, and Victor were all CATHOLIC as were the Cardinals who supported them.  But now we are supposed to believe that the support/acceptance of the hierarchy of the non-Catholic Conciliar sect is a dogmatic guarantee of the legitimacy of a non-Catholic's election to the papacy.  The Conciliar hierarchy has not consecrated a valid bishop in the Roman Rite since 1969 at the latest.  And, Sean, a doubtful sacrament must be treated as if it were certainly invalid.  You can't risk the salvation of souls when you have a well-reasoned positive doubt.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Clemens Maria on October 21, 2019, 02:12:18 PM
Let's face it:  The major pushers of this exaggerated UA theory are the sedes, who in their rabid quest to destroy anyone who sees the world differently, view UA in an extreme way, and use it as a "gotcha" test.  They want to trap Trads into a false dichotomy where you either reject a V2 pope right off the bat, or you have to accept him for a lifetime...no ifs, ands, or buts (as is usual with their over-simplistic thinking).  No theologian worth his salt would define UA in such a rigid manner.  
I can't believe how stupid you are.  No sede is pushing universal acceptance of Conciliar popes.  Who are the people pushing it here on CathInfo?  It's XavierSem, Praeter, Salsa and Disco.  All SSPX people.  Get your head out of your ass!
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Stubborn on October 21, 2019, 02:13:24 PM
Stubborn, you're looking at this the wrong way.  Universal Acceptance (UA) is not a NECESSARY criterion for a papal election.  If it was, then a papal conclave would have to have a unanimous vote.  But a conclave only requires 2/3rds at first, and then after a few days, the majority needed declines.
.
But, UA is a POSITIVE aspect which shows the pope is the pope.  If a pope does not have UA, he could still be the pope; it depends on what the opposing side is disputing.  If they simply just don't like him, that's not a valid dispute.
I personally can't see where UA can possibly be a criterion for anything since all it is, is everyone saying they agree that the pope is the pope. "He must be the pope, after all, everyone says so" makes no sense. Any more than "he might not be pope because we all cannot agree on it" makes any sense.  

Imaginative theories and far out conspiracy theories aside, the pope's death or resignation are the only universally accepted ways to know with dogmatic certainty when there is *not* a pope, otherwise, the default goes to whoever gets elected and accepts the election, that guy is the pope.

 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2019, 02:42:13 PM
1.  I don't think that UA is determined by the laity, or priests, since they have no business in electing him.
2.  It would be determined by the Cardinals, and if they accept him, then it's a sign he's the pope, since it's their job to elect him to begin with.
3.  The fact that many theologians, including +Bellarmine, say that the Cardinals would declare a pope a heretic, gives some credence to the fact that they have the highest priority in all of this.
4.  Regarding +Francis, we already know that 4-5 Cardinals signed the "dubia" letter, as a sign that there is not UA concerning his orthodoxy.  I do not know if there are any Cardinals who think that +Benedict's resignation is null.
5.  I don't think any Trads have to worry about proving any V2 popes were not elected (except for sedes).  I'm perfectly fine with the theory that they were validly elected, but immediately spiritually impaired due to heresy (either before or after the election, and most likely, both).
6.  UA is not really important, for our present situation.  What matters more is the litmus test of orthodoxy, which all V2 popes fail in miserably.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2019, 02:47:17 PM
Quote
I can't believe how stupid you are.  No sede is pushing universal acceptance of Conciliar popes.  Who are the people pushing it here on CathInfo?  It's XavierSem, Praeter, Salsa and Disco.  All SSPX people.  Get your head out of your ass!

Clemens Maria-
Here is your post below.  The 2nd post on this entire thread.  You spell out your false dichotomy beautifully. 
.
If you have love for ecclesiastical authority/jurisdiction, you have only 2 choices.  Either Frank is the pope and you obey him and don’t worry about your salvation.  Or Frank isn’t the pope and you don’t worry about recognizing him or his minions. Anything else is lukewarm/straddling the fence/worthless hedging.  You don’t systematically resist the Vicar of Christ unless you have a death wish.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 21, 2019, 02:55:45 PM
Let's face it:  The major pushers of this exaggerated UA theory are the sedes, who in their rabid quest to destroy anyone who sees the world differently, view UA in an extreme way, and use it as a "gotcha" test.  They want to trap Trads into a false dichotomy where you either reject a V2 pope right off the bat, or you have to accept him for a lifetime...no ifs, ands, or buts (as is usual with their over-simplistic thinking).  No theologian worth his salt would define UA in such a rigid manner.  
UA, if true, would DISPROVE sedevacantism entirely. You're literally accusing sedes of pushing a theory that would disprove their position. Just blindly accusing your pet boogeyman of believing everything you disagree with. 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2019, 03:10:23 PM
Quote
UA, if true, would DISPROVE sedevacantism entirely.
If you'd been reading the last few pages, then you'd know that's not necessarily true.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 21, 2019, 03:38:57 PM
Let's face it:  The major pushers of this exaggerated UA theory are the sedes, who in their rabid quest to destroy anyone who sees the world differently, view UA in an extreme way, and use it as a "gotcha" test.  They want to trap Trads into a false dichotomy where you either reject a V2 pope right off the bat, or you have to accept him for a lifetime...no ifs, ands, or buts (as is usual with their over-simplistic thinking).  No theologian worth his salt would define UA in such a rigid manner.  

I see this as the opposite.  UA is being pushed by R&R in an attempt to demonstrate that these men are legitimate popes.

UA is tangential to sedevacantism.  Whether or not and to what extent Catholics must obey a legitimate pope is the point of dispute between sedevacantists/privationists and R&R.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 21, 2019, 03:41:30 PM
This is what I was always taught...

Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911
Seems simple enough to me.    

Yes, this seems to back that the UA is to be understood with regard to the election itself.

So in those historical cases where the Church came to accept another, the Church was in fact materially mistaken regarding the true identity of the pope.

Some theologians took UA so far as to say that even a false Pope would be convalidated by UA.  We now see that as demonstrably false from cases like that of Anacletus.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Stubborn on October 21, 2019, 03:44:19 PM
This is what I was always taught...

Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911
Seems simple enough to me.    
I know we disagree on the sedevacantist issue , but I'm glad you're back and welcome!
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 21, 2019, 04:02:50 PM
If you'd been reading the last few pages, then you'd know that's not necessarily true.
The whole idea of Universal Peaceful Acceptance is that the identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact if he receives it. Well, maybe Francis *arguably* hasn't, but every other V2 pope certainly has. So if UPA is true then all those V2 popes were valid popes, utterly destroying the sedevacantist position. 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Ladislaus on October 21, 2019, 04:04:44 PM
The whole idea of Universal Peaceful Acceptance is that the identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact if he receives it. Well, maybe Francis *arguably* hasn't, but every other V2 pope certainly has. So if UPA is true then all those V2 popes were valid popes, utterly destroying the sedevacantist position.

You're begging the question.  You're falsely assuming that the other V2 papal claimants had UPA.  I disagree with that.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 21, 2019, 04:14:13 PM
You're begging the question.  You're falsely assuming that the other V2 papal claimants had UPA.  I disagree with that.
The only significant figure I know of who could throw a spanner in the works there is +ABL, however he was not a sedevacantist(yes he considered the position and ruminated over the issue, but at the end of the day he recognised them as popes). I don't think anyone, let alone +ABL, questioned Paul VI's papacy prior to V2 anyway. So no matter what way you cut it, V2 was called for and presided over by legitimate popes if UPA is doctrine. Sedevacantism is a pretty weak and meaningless position if only the popes from JP2 on were anti-popes. 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: XavierSem on October 21, 2019, 04:17:59 PM
The whole idea of Universal Peaceful Acceptance is that the identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact if he receives it. Well, maybe Francis *arguably* hasn't, but every other V2 pope certainly has. So if UPA is true then all those V2 popes were valid popes, utterly destroying the sedevacantist position.
Yup. Also if the Papacy of His Holiness Pope Ven. Pius XII is not a priori known to be an infallibly certain dogmatic fact, neither could we know with absolute certainty, as we must, that the dogma of the Assumption defined by His Holiness is certainly true. In other words, if we could doubt his legitimacy, we could doubt the dogma. But it is heretical to say we can doubt a dogma. Hence, it must necessarily be true that the Papacy of a Universally Accepted Pope - such as all admit Pope Pius XII to be - is a dogmatic fact.

Further, it is proved by the indefectibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church. For this reason, Pope Pius XII himself, in the dogmatic Bull declaring the dogma of the Assumption, says that the universal consensus of the Bishops, was already an infallible sign that the doctrine was true and definable. The principle of universal acceptance is same. Canonists and theologians say "universal acceptance is not the cause (the Pope being elected and accepting is the cause) but is a sign and infallible effect of a valid election". That is, if universal acceptance was present, it could only have been the effect of a certainly valid election being concluded.

One Caveat: I don't think any author, as far as I know, including St. Alphonsus, was speaking of the "second-man" scenario. As discussed. Thus, when St. Alphonsus says, "It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff." this does not apply, I believe, when there is a sitting Pope already reigning whom someone else is opposing or trying to unseat. That's AFAIK, and it may be wrong, but that's what I think. But as far as appears, it does apply in every other case, for the reasons already mentioned.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2019, 05:09:58 PM
Quote
So if UPA is true then all those V2 popes were valid popes, utterly destroying the sedevacantist position. 
No.  A validly elected pope can lose his spiritual office (or it can be impaired) for a number of reasons.  UPA doesn't destroy sedevacantism at all.  It is only concerned with the election of a pope.  His orthodoxy is another matter altogether.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 21, 2019, 05:20:50 PM
No.  A validly elected pope can lose his spiritual office (or it can be impaired) for a number of reasons.  UPA doesn't destroy sedevacantism at all.  It is only concerned with the election of a pope.  His orthodoxy is another matter altogether.
So every pope since Vatican 2 was validly elected and then was deprived thereafter? Well, it might work with sedeprivationism, but it in no way aids that position or any sede position for that matter so it's hard to see how sedes could have any motive in pushing it.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: XavierSem on October 21, 2019, 05:52:25 PM
No.  A validly elected pope can lose his spiritual office (or it can be impaired) for a number of reasons.  UPA doesn't destroy sedevacantism at all.  It is only concerned with the election of a pope.  His orthodoxy is another matter altogether.
For a Pope to lose his office, you'd need at least a small minority of Bishops to stop commemorating him. That's what Cardinal Billot says in the case of Pope Alexander VI. It's why, very likely, a Pope can only lose his office after warnings from the Cardinals and Bishops. At that time, after the warnings, he is no longer universally accepted, but many Bishops don't acknowledge him. Then, perhaps he could fall from the pontificate. 
It is certain that every Pope up until Pope Benedict XVI was validly elected and remained Pope until their death/resignation by this criterion. Whether Pope Francis will remain Pope or not until the end is something only God knows, I think, as it depends on the future.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on October 21, 2019, 06:05:26 PM
For a Pope to lose his office, you'd need at least a small minority of Bishops to stop commemorating him. 
Devil's Advocating, this has happened.  There are a couple bishops in the SSPV, at least one in the CMRI, Donald Sanborn.

Why don't they count?
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Matto on October 21, 2019, 06:17:41 PM
Devil's Advocating, this has happened.  There are a couple bishops in the SSPV, at least one in the CMRI, Donald Sanborn.

Why don't they count?

They are not really Bishops in the full sense because they have no authority from the Church. They are just laymen who managed to convince aging Bishops with traditional tendencies to give them orders. If I went to Bishop McKenna or even a retired Novus Ordo Bishop with a traditional Consecration and convinced him to consecrate me I would have just as much authority as Bishop Sanborn. That is none. I don't know how exactly to word it, but they have orders but no jurisdiction as they say. 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: ByzCat3000 on October 21, 2019, 08:02:30 PM
They are not really Bishops in the full sense because they have no authority from the Church. They are just laymen who managed to convince aging Bishops with traditional tendencies to give them orders. If I went to Bishop McKenna or even a retired Novus Ordo Bishop with a traditional Consecration and convinced him to consecrate me I would have just as much authority as Bishop Sanborn. That is none. I don't know how exactly to word it, but they have orders but no jurisdiction as they say.
I see your point, but this seems to create a kind of circular scenario.  Like any bishop who concluded the Pope wasn't Pope would necessarily lose ordinary jurisdiction sort of by design.

And to be clear, I'm a probable sedeplenist.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2019, 08:56:52 PM

Quote
So every pope since Vatican 2 was validly elected and then was deprived thereafter? Well, it might work with sedeprivationism, but it in no way aids that position or any sede position for that matter so it's hard to see how sedes could have any motive in pushing it.
Sedeprivationism is the only theory which lines up with all/most of the facts.  The election-then-deprivation-of-spiritual-office lines up with the fact that both St Pius X and Pius XII changed the election laws to allow exactly this scenario.
.
Meanwhile, sedevacantism has a plethora of reasons why the V2 popes aren't popes, with no consensus on the main reason, with no explanation of the above election law changes, and mostly using indirect logic (i.e. working backwards.  Example:  Pope was elected, pope spoke heresy.  That's not possible, therefore pope wasn't elected in the first place).  R&R also does not explain the election law changes, because they (generally speaking) don't acknowledge that the V2 popes are 100% heretics.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 21, 2019, 08:57:49 PM

Quote
For a Pope to lose his office, you'd need at least a small minority of Bishops to stop commemorating him.
That's true for the actual, physical, material, governing office.  Not true for his spiritual office.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Praeter on October 22, 2019, 10:12:18 AM
That's true for the actual, physical, material, governing office.  Not true for his spiritual office.
There's no difference between an actual, physical, material, governing office and a spiritual office.   It is all one and the same.  The distinction was invented by the heretic des Laureirs.  No real Catholic, much less one who called himself a Traditional Catholic, would give this novelty a second thought. 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 22, 2019, 10:40:50 AM
Quote
The distinction was invented by the heretic des Laureirs. 
He might have invented the distinction between the 2 types of "offices", but the idea of a material vs spiritual jurisdiction/authority (whatever you want to call it), has been around for centuries.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on October 22, 2019, 12:15:49 PM
There's no difference between an actual, physical, material, governing office and a spiritual office.   It is all one and the same.  The distinction was invented by the heretic des Laureirs.  No real Catholic, much less one who called himself a Traditional Catholic, would give this novelty a second thought.
That’s a strong accusation. Can you provide proof that he was a heretic?
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 22, 2019, 12:53:13 PM
There's no difference between an actual, physical, material, governing office and a spiritual office.   It is all one and the same.  The distinction was invented by the heretic des Laureirs.  No real Catholic, much less one who called himself a Traditional Catholic, would give this novelty a second thought.
While not quite the same distinction, Bellarmine made a distinction between the matter and form of the papacy, i.e that one can have the matter of the papacy(sitting on the throne of St. Peter and being recognised by the faithful as the pope) without having the form(actually being pope). Someone with the matter but without the form(that is, they lost the form due to heresy or some other means but they have not been deposed yet) would de facto occupy the material, governing office but not the spiritual office. At least in theory. 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 22, 2019, 12:54:28 PM
Sedeprivationism is the only theory which lines up with all/most of the facts.  The election-then-deprivation-of-spiritual-office lines up with the fact that both St Pius X and Pius XII changed the election laws to allow exactly this scenario.
.
Meanwhile, sedevacantism has a plethora of reasons why the V2 popes aren't popes, with no consensus on the main reason, with no explanation of the above election law changes, and mostly using indirect logic (i.e. working backwards.  Example:  Pope was elected, pope spoke heresy.  That's not possible, therefore pope wasn't elected in the first place).  R&R also does not explain the election law changes, because they (generally speaking) don't acknowledge that the V2 popes are 100% heretics.
All fair points, but it doesn't address the actual point of contention - UPA in no way aids the sedevacantist position and therefore it does not make sense that sedes would be the ones pushing it. 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 22, 2019, 01:18:27 PM
Quote
UPA in no way aids the sedevacantist position and therefore it does not make sense that sedes would be the ones pushing it. 
As I explained earlier, and with Clemens Maria's post on this thread being an example, he used the UA as a "gotcha" test against (presumably) R&R folk.  It has no bearing on the sede theory, but it's just used to attack the "other side".
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Clemens Maria on October 22, 2019, 02:43:37 PM
As I explained earlier, and with Clemens Maria's post on this thread being an example, he used the UA as a "gotcha" test against (presumably) R&R folk.  It has no bearing on the sede theory, but it's just used to attack the "other side".
You are a stupid idiot.  I don't even know if Universal Peaceful Acceptance as interpreted by the neo-SSPX is even Catholic teaching never mind believing that it is applicable to the current situation.  At no time did I ever argue for UPA (or UA, whatever).  But you are too stupid to understand that.
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 22, 2019, 03:02:48 PM
Quote
At no time did I ever argue for UPA (or UA, whatever).  But you are too stupid to understand that.
Clemens, you were the 2nd person to respond to this thread, with the title being "Universal Peaceful Acceptance".  You argued an over-simplified "either Frank is your pope and you must obey him, etc, etc.." or "he's not the pope and etc, etc". 
.
If that's not an argument related to (or for) UPA, then you shouldn't have posted on this thread at all.  We can only assume that your post was related to the SUBJECT OF THE THREAD.  If it was not, then who is stupid?
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Clemens Maria on October 22, 2019, 03:29:30 PM
Clemens, you were the 2nd person to respond to this thread, with the title being "Universal Peaceful Acceptance".  You argued an over-simplified "either Frank is your pope and you must obey him, etc, etc.." or "he's not the pope and etc, etc".
.
If that's not an argument related to (or for) UPA, then you shouldn't have posted on this thread at all.  We can only assume that your post was related to the SUBJECT OF THE THREAD.  If it was not, then who is stupid?
That post is in no way supportive of the UPA theory being pushed by the neo-SSPX.  You are still stupid.  You don't understand the arguments and then you make false statements about people based on your faulty understanding.

Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: Pax Vobis on October 22, 2019, 03:48:49 PM
Your post was neither for or against, as I said earlier, you used it as a "gotcha" test.  You had no intention of having a civil debate on the thread's subject, you just wanted to be divisive...just like you're being now. 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 22, 2019, 05:24:32 PM
Forlorn,

Could you provide the source for what you consider to be Saint Robert Bellarmine's distinction?  Or maybe a link or quote of some sort?  Thanks.    
https://www.fisheaters.com/bellarmine.html (https://www.fisheaters.com/bellarmine.html)
The cardinals cannot depose the pope if he holds the spiritual office(the form), however they can depose the man who sits on the throne of St. Peter and calls himself pope(the matter) if he loses said office by separating himself from the Church. 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 22, 2019, 05:27:25 PM
Your post was neither for or against, as I said earlier, you used it as a "gotcha" test.  You had no intention of having a civil debate on the thread's subject, you just wanted to be divisive...just like you're being now.
His post just said that one ought to obey Francis if he is pope, and not if he is not. UPA doesn't tell you whether or not the true pope's orders are lawful and must be obeyed, and therefore it has nothing to do with the R&R position(it supports sedeplenism, of which R&R is a form, but UPA would have no implications for the resist part of Recognise&Resist).
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 23, 2019, 01:42:49 PM
Thanks for posting the link.  

In the link you provided, where does Bellarmine make the distinction between the "matter" and "form" of the office?
I didn't link you the full thing, apologies. https://novusordowatch.org/de-romano-pontifice-book2-chapter30/

Quote
the Pope immediately ceases to be Pope: for the form cannot maintain itself without the necessary dispositions.
...
The example of the electors, who have the power to designate a certain person for the pontificate, without however having power over the Pope, given by Cajetan, is also destitute of value. For when something is being made, the action is exercised over the matter of the future thing, and not over the composite, which does not yet exist, but when a thing is destroyed, the action is exercised over the composite, as becomes patent on consideration of the things of nature. Therefore, on creating the Pontiff, the Cardinals do not exercise their authority over the Pontiff for he does not yet exist, but over the matter, that is, over the person who by the election becomes disposed to receive the pontificate from God. But if they deposed the Pontiff, they would necessarily exercise authority over the composite, that is, over the person endowed with the pontifical power, that is, over the Pontiff.

...

Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church.
The pope cannot be deposed, but the man still clinging onto the crown after he deposed himself through formal heresy can be deposed. The cardinals can act upon the matter and elect the pope, and if the election is valid then the pope receives the form from God. If a pope becomes a manifest heretic, he loses the form and no longer holds the spiritual office - and therefore he can be deposed. But the matter will still be sitting there on the throne of St. Peter until he's dragged off it, and he might be an occult heretic for many years before he's outed as a manifest heretic. So the Church provides and revokes the matter, but God provides and revokes the form. 

Now it's easy to read this as "the pope is not the pope from the instant he embraces heresy, and the deposition is just a formality to let the faithful know". But if you look at the second opinion he addresses, which is exactly that, he contradicts this view. 

Quote
Thus, the second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield. This is of John de Turrecremata [320], but it is not proven to me. For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men. But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will. Add, that the foundation of this opinion is that secret heretics are outside the Church, which is false, and we will amply demonstrate this in our tract de Ecclesia, bk 1.
It's clear from this paragraph that the Church deposition is not a mere formality and that the man is still pope until the Church declares him a manifest heretic and deposes him. 
Title: Re: What is Universal Peaceful Acceptance?
Post by: forlorn on October 23, 2019, 04:37:48 PM
forlorn,

There is a lot of context missing from the quotes you've provided.  I'm quite familiar with Saint Robert Bellarmine's writings and I think you're confused about some things.  I may be wrong however, so please tell me if I am.

forlorn
Taken in full context, we can see that Bellarmine is not making a distinction between the "matter" and "form" of the Papacy.  In this particular instance, Bellarmine is arguing against Cajetan's faulty logic concerning the status of a heretic.    

You can see, well before the first quote you posted, that Bellarmine is arguing against Cajetan's theory that a heretic remains a member of the Church and therefore the heretic Pope still maintains jurisdiction.  It's obvious that Bellarmine does not believe this theory.  

Your quote, highlighted above, taken in context, reveals that Bellarmine is simply talking about the "necessary dispositions", in which there are 2, one must have to be considered Catholic - faith and the baptismal character.  I don't believe that he's discussing the "matter" and "form" of the Papacy.  But I could be wrong...

Cajetan seems to be making the sedeprivationist argument about the material/formal pope, which Bellarmine disagrees with.

forlorn
Your second quote is missing some context as well.  In this particular instance, Bellarmine is now arguing against Cajetan's assertion that the Pope can be deposed.


Again, I don't believe that the second quote you've provided makes a distinction between the "matter" and "form" of the Papacy.  I believe Bellarmine is merely explaining that the first seat is judged by no one...full stop.  I think it's clear when he discusses the fifth opinion, which he believes to be correct.

forlorn
In this last quote provided, Bellarmine is simply speaking about occult heretics, or secret heretics.  The sentence immediately after the bolded, highlighted portion state this clearly.  

This is the teaching of Saint Robert Bellarmine, clearly and simply:

I should add that I do believe, for the good of the Church, some type of council, or even a conclave should be convened to announce the deposition of a heretical pope.  
The purpose of the first few quotations was not to show St. Bellarmine's opinion on the heresy question, but to show that he differentiated between the form and the matter, which is made abundantly clear in his mention of the composite(i.e of form and matter) created when the Church provides the matter and God provides the form. 
And your last sentence is just blatantly ignoring everything he's said. He clearly says that the pope must be a manifest heretic to lose office, and it's the Church which is the judge of that. He also explicitly says the Church would depose him, not that it's some optional thing for the good of the Church.