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

... 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, ref2,

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.

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 circuмstance 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.

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 ecuмenical? 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 ecuмenical, 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,’ 3^rd 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 ecuмenical 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 Ecuмenical 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 ecuмenical (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, 3^rd 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]): 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] See, for all, Franciscus Xav. Wernz, Petrus Vidal, "Ius canonicuм", 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).  

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?

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).

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 (Jєωs) 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!

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 (Jєωs) 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 = Jєωιѕн globalism.

Side story:

I had this friend in high school who was Jєωιѕн.  Years later, I became educated on the Jєωιѕн 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 Jєω 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 Jєωιѕн 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 Jєω.

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 Jєω whom they liked very much.

One day the German army showed up asking for him and they took him away to a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ 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 Jєωιѕн foreman, wearing a Russian army uniform.

It turns out this Jєω 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 Jєω about rumors that were spreading about gas chambers, and with a grave vocal inflection, he said to me, “the Jєω 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.