I received a text from Robert Siscoe (contributor to Catholic Family News) asking if he can answer my Boniface and Cum Ex objection against his universal recognition/dogmatic fact argument without me blocking his comment. I said absolutely. He said he would reply that evening but that was Oct. 2 and I still haven’t heard from him. I suspect he’s decided to write a big article for Catholic Family News with his argument and answers to my objections.
Another brief look at Siscoe’s argument
The practically unanimous consent of the faithful in accepting a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact. Since the universal acceptance of a Pope is a dogmatic fact (which is qualified as theologically certain), and since the denial of a theologically certain proposition is a mortal sin against faith, no Catholic has any excuse for rejecting it.
What Siscoe’s argument means
Since Francis I and his five predecessors were universally accepted by the practical unanimous consent of the faithful, it is an infallible dogmatic fact that all of them are true popes. Therefore, sedevacantism must be wrong.
My two objections
1. Antipope Boniface VII was accepted as a true pope by the practical unanimous consent of the faithful. There are several other antipopes also like Boniface, who were accepted as true popes by the vast majority of Catholics.
2. Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio by Pope Paul IV clearly teaches the contrary: “that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless; it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation; it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power…”
Therefore, the proposition that, the practically unanimous consent of the faithful in accepting a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact, is false when the papal claimant is a manifest heretic.
The implication to Siscoe’s argument
Whatever Siscoe replies to my objections, his argument has bound his future wishes, because no future pope could ever denounce the Vatican 2 popes as antipopes since infallible dogmatic facts are immutable. Yet, Siscoe not only hopes that a future pope makes the announcement, he’s depending on it. That’s why he’s suspending his “assent of Faith” to the current canonizations on John XXIII and John Paul II by Francis I. However, since under Siscoe’s argument, it’s an infallible dogmatic fact that Francis I is a true pope today meaning his two canonizations are locked up forever without any possible way for a future pope to denounce them. Future popes can’t undo canonizations or any other infallible dogmatic facts such as who was pope.
In fact, no future pope could ever undo the mess of the Vatican 2 popes without denouncing them as antipopes.
For example, if a future pope denounces the actions of the numerous inter-religious worship ceremonies by the Vatican 2 popes as contrary to the Divine law and the First Commandment (a situation which Siscoe holds), the faithful would necessarily have to render the condemnation as erroneous and meaningless. Why? Because rejecting the Divine law and First Commandment would be the equivalent of rejecting Catholicism, which a pope couldn’t do without losing his office, especially in light of the fact that the Vatican 2 popes call their rejection of the Divine law and First Commandment good and holy. Therefore, the future pope can’t denounce and undo the belief that inter-religious worship ceremonies aren’t contrary to Divine law and First Commandment.
Siscoe is trapped and has locked himself in his false religion with no way out. He can’t reasonably hold out on the canonizations which he knows are false because nothing can be done about them now.
Robert Siscoe’s aversion to sedevacantism runs so deep that he’ll reject his own faith in arguing against it.
Another way to look at it is…since we do not accept him, there is no unanimous consent. 😉
Problem solved.
Speray Replies: Unanimous means practically everybody or the vast majority. Siscoe quoted Berry on the issue about what he meant. However, if you meant Catholics who hold the Faith, then you’re right for sure… Vast majority of which Catholics? LOL
This subject is a total waste of time these men worked not for Christ but for lucifer enthroned in the vatican from paul vi on lucifer picked the imposters and if any one with any common sense can read and see should have no problem understanding evil it is in your face these men destroyed the faith and betrayed Mary the saints and Martrys and everything holy that was but in place since his crucifixtion of Jesus my last comment you sheeple who praise and honor these traitors beware of what you praise you promote evil instead of truth God himself gave simple rules and laws to show you these popes where not true but you Become blind as your blind to lucifers control of the world you sheeple better start worrying about your souls and believing right and doing right according to true tradition stop making up and altering what was given and stop believing theologians who some how Become the law over real true popes
“Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?”, asked a weary Johnny Rotten at the very end of the last show of the Sex Pistols‘ first (and last) US tour in 1978.
Relevant query for all of us betrayed Catholics. That’s the problem with the world today- we’re all unanimous. Sede-minded folk seem to be the only ones who have the conviction to think outside the box, so to speak.
We’ve been cheated for 50 years by this these pezzovanes of the Church.
Please Mr. Sisco, wake up to the reality that scoundrels are in control of the Vatican, and have been for a very long time. Holding on to the Novus Ordo for affectatious, totemistic, and/or nostalgic reasons is not true faith.
If we Sede’s are Johnny Rotten, who is today’s Malcolm McClaren?