Nishant Xavier (OnePeterFive contributer) commented on my website on three separate occasions concerning the universal acceptance doctrine:
It is heretical to say a Universally Accepted Pope is a heretical [sic], as Cardinal Billot clearly teaches. Therefore, all sedes are objectively heretics, while the Universally Accepted Pope is the True Pope.
A Universally Accepted Pope cannot be a heretic, but by the very fact of UA [universal acceptance] is infallibly proven to be a Catholic, since a heretic cannot be validly elected Pope.
Sedevacantism is heretical when there is a Universally Accepted Pope. Cardinal Billot clearly teaches this is the most certain principle of all in the Pope-Heretic question. Why do you obstinately reject it, Steven?
John Salza and Robert Siscoe published a list of canonists and theologians who teach that a pope universally accepted by the Church is a true pope removing all doubt that the pope could be a heretic, or is unbaptized, or having some other impediment preventing him from holding the papacy. [1]
I’ve responded to the universal acceptance doctrine several times over the years. [2] The doctrine has been labeled as de fide and a dogmatic fact, but it appears to be a thesis only, which falls into the realm of theological opinions. Dr. Ludwig Ott writes in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
Theological opinions are free views on aspects of doctrines concerning Faith and morals, which are neither clearly attested in Revelation nor decided by the Teaching Authority of the Church. Their value depends upon the reasons adduced in their favour (association with the doctrine of Revelation, the attitude of the Church, etc.).
A point of doctrine ceases to be an object of free judgment when the Teaching Authority of the Church takes an attitude which is clearly in favour of one opinion. Pope Pius XII explains in the Encyclical “Humani generis” (1950): “When the Popes in their Acts intentionally pronounce a judgment on a long disputed point then it is clear to all that this, according to the intention and will of these Popes, can no longer be open to the free discussion of theologians” (D 3013).
The universal acceptance doctrine is not universally accepted by canonists and theologians.
As I demonstrated in a recent article, the 17th century canonist and theologian Fr. Laymann explained how supplied jurisdiction would be provided if a pope becomes a heretic. This means the universally accepted pope is not actually the pope, because a true pope doesn’t need supplied jurisdiction to rule; only an imposter needs it.
Another 17th century Spanish Jesuit theologian Fr. Juan Azor taught the same as Fr. Laymann.
In my research on the subject, I found other theologians that rejected the universal acceptance thesis. In the following quote taken from a 1868 edition of The Dublin Review, we see how the Church could mistakenly believe in a false pope and that it’s not merely a universal acceptance that proves a pope is truly pope.
Turrecremata’s doctrine has been carried by later theologians to its legitimate results. Divine Providence he says will protect the Church against any evil results which might ensue to the Church from an unavoidable mistake of some seeming Pope for a true one. But if the false Pope proceeded to put forth doctrinal determinations quasi ex cathedra most serious evil would accrue to the Church. It is the explicit doctrine therefore of later theologians that so soon as a Pope recognized as such by the Universal Church has put forth any doctrinal determination he is infallibly the true Pope. Even F. Ryder (Letter p. 9) considers that this proposition is de fide. Whenever therefore any universally recognized Pope puts forth any doctrinal determination it is infallibly certain that he is not unbaptized, nor otherwise disqualified for the Pontificate. [3]
The Dublin Review, edited by William George Ward at the time, points to the teaching of theologian and Superior of the Birmingham Oratory, Fr. Henry Ignatius Dudley Ryder (1837-1907) who wrote in his Letter:
As to the third, I hold with Suarez (Disp. x. §. 5) that it is De fide (at least, after the Pope has pronounced a dogmatical definition), that he is Pope; neither do I see how this can be denied, without falling back upon the Gallican position, as Bannez unconsciously does {De Fide, qu.. i. art. 10), when, after maintaining that “etiam post summi Pontificis definitionem solum habetur ex humana prudentia et evidente inquisitione, aut etiam ex infusa prudentia cui potest sudesse falsiim speculativey quod hie est summus Pontifex …. nihilominus negare valde temerarium et scandalosum foret nisi proharet,” he insists, that any how, the Pope’s accepted definitions will be de fide, inasmuch as the universal Church cannot be deceived in accepting them. [4]
Suarez didn’t say “at least, after the Pope has pronounced a dogmatical definition.” Fr. Ignatius added this qualifier and for good reason.
This proves that at least two theologians in the late19th century did not hold that a mere universal acceptance by the Church proves an individual is the pope. According to them, it takes a dogmatic definition to prove it. Fr. Ignatius also taught that “It has always been maintained by Catholic theologians that for heresy the Church may judge the Pope, because, as most maintain, by heresy, he ceases to be Pope.” [5]
Lastly, Canonist Francis Sigismund Miaskiewicz demonstrated in 1940 that universal acceptance doesn’t make a true pope. Salza and Siscoe actually have part of the following quote on page 41 in their heretical book “True or False Pope – Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors.” They misrepresented Miaskiewicz as they did with Fr. Laymann.
John Salza also used Canonist Miaskiewicz in his Sept. 21, 2021 article, “Against Sedevacantism: Errors Concerning Supplied Jurisdiction.” [6] He obviously didn’t catch the fact a true pope doesn’t need supplied jurisdiction. However, Miaskiewicz implies that supplied jurisdiction is needed by one regarded as Pope by the world precisely because such a person is not actually the pope. Miaskiewicz wrote:
First, it must be remembered that at any time when the Church supplies jurisdiction she does so because in the person conferring or accepting the jurisdiction, or in the manner of its bestowal or acceptance, some formality required by the law for validity was not observed. Hence it is erroneous to say that the omission of formalities required by law for validity is not supplied. As a matter of fact, there are no formalities of Church law which could not be supplied. Thus, for example, if a Pope were invalidly elected, once he were regarded by the world as Pope all of his jurisdictional acts would be valid. [7]
Miaskiewicz did not say, “If a Pope were invalidly elected, once he were regarded by the world as Pope, he would be Pope.” A true pope is understood to have supreme jurisdiction. Yet, Miaskiewicz has to tell us that such a person has valid acts of jurisdiction, because it’s understood that he is not actually the pope. It has to be supplied. Hence the fact Miaskiewicz is explaining Canon 209, which concerns common error and supplied jurisdiction.
It’s irrelevant whether Laymann, Azor, Miaskiewicz, or Ward and Ryder are correct. The point here is that at least 5 canonists and theologians held that a mere universal acceptance of a pope doesn’t guarantee he’s the pope.
The main idea behind the universal acceptance thesis and the Laymann/Miaskiewicza/Ryder positions is to explain what makes for a true pope and what guarantees the Church from not following someone who can lead them into eternal perdition. The Church hasn’t defined what allows us to know with absolute certaintly that a pope is truly pope. What we know is that a true pope can’t lead the Church to hell through error and heresy and the Church itself can’t be fooled into thinking the path to hell is the path to heaven through an imposter pope.
All the above theological positions are actually rejected by the resistance position, because it’s known that following the Vatican 2 popes in their doctrinal teachings and liturgical disciplines will lead men to eternal perdition. The resistance position ultimately holds that true popes can lead men into hell through decree, liturgy, and law, which is contrary to the dogma on the papacy. Thus, each individual must become the pope’s pope. Every law and decree has to be judged by each individual Catholic and the pope’s authority is regulated or governed by the members of the Church.
The resistance position is further marred by the fact when a heretical pope promulgates some error by law or decree, the religion itself is no longer one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Popes validly and authoritatively promulgate the teachings of the Church. Those holding the resistance position now belong to an erroneous church, which they must accept as the true Catholic Church. Certain teachings of faith it promulgates, they must reject. As Pope Leo XIII taught in Satis Cognitum: For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others…”
I think Fr. Ignatius Ryder’s position harmonizes with sedevacantism. It would seem that if a dogmatic definition is pronounced, it would be guaranteed we have a true pope. However, it would seem that an imposter pope could also pronounce a dogmatic definition, which is actually sound and true. The difference would be in the fact that a dogmatic definition from a fake pope wouldn’t actually be a dogmatic definition. The Church would err in accepting as matter of divine faith and giving the assent of faith to an invalid definition by which it could excommunicated its members for not adhering to. God would have to protect his Church from an unknown imposter pope from pronouncing a dogmatic definition to prevent the Church from falling into this error. Therefore, in my opinion, Fr. Ignatius Ryder answers the question on what allows us to know with absolute certaintly that a pope is truly pope.
Sedevacantism holds that there’s a moral certitude the man elected to the papacy is pope. When there’s universal acceptance of a doctrinal decision on faith and morals by the papal claimant, it’s guaranteed the Church doesn’t err in accepting it. Therefore, we could have an absolute assurance that a true pope rules.
If the pope were to fall into heresy without the knowledge of the Church, Divine Providence would protect the universal Church from falling into error by keeping the heretic from teaching authoritatively whereby the Church couldn’t recognize it. The sedevacantist position presumes one is pope and is to be obeyed. Just as the sacraments are presumed valid until evidence to the contrary is proven, a pope is presumed to be a true pope until evidence to the contrary is proven.
Lastly, I don’t want to forget about Pope Paul IV who promulgated Cum ex Apostolatus officio in 1559, which was an official papal teaching on the matter at one time. Not only did the pope reject the universal acceptance thesis, but in my opinion, condemned it by law. Though Cum ex has been superseded by later legislations, it remains that the Church at one time officially held that it was possible to universally recognize a fake pope. To date, the Church has never officially taught the contrary. Cum ex reads:
In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] 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: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way; (iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain; (v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone; (vi) 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.
Footnotes:
[1] True or False Pope: Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope
[2] The Universal Acceptance Argument Revisited
[3] The Dublin Review Vol. 11, p 230
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: William George Ward (newadvent.org)
[5] Full quote: “It has always been maintained by Catholic theologians that for heresy the Church may judge the Pope, because, as most maintain, by heresy he ceases to be Pope. There is no variance on this head amongst theologians that I know of, except that some, with Torquemada and Bellarmine, hold that by heresy he ipso facto ceases to be Pope: whilst others, with Cajetan and John of St. Thomas, maintain that he would not formally [as opposed to materially] cease to be Pope until he was formally deposed.” Catholic Controversy, 6th ed., Burns & Oates, pp. 30-31
[6] Against Sedevacantism: Errors Concerning Supplied Jurisdiction – OnePeterFive
[7] “Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209” by Francis Sigismund Miaskiewicz
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
And thus, the Holy Spirit has and will continue to provide that protection and guarantee of a true pope such as you have presented. Have we seen a dogmatic definition since VATII? No…perhaps because of the protection of the Holy Spirit but we also recognized these popes have been heretics…alas, another fruit of the protection by the Holy Spirt. By that same grace we can comfort in the fact that we all will quickly recognize a true pope if and when it should happen.
These are interesting additional points. I’ve wondered if you could just avoid having to even argue them though as I don’t think universal acceptance can remove the heresies of Vatican 2 and other such problems and errors. It’s almost like they’re arguing that heresy can be “convalidated” or made in to Catholic teaching, through lots of people accepting it. That seems contradictory though and so the argument would seem to go in favor of sedevacantism.
The bishops constitute the hierarchy of the Church. To cut oneself off from them, as the sedevacantists do, has already been condemned by Leo XII and Leo XIII.
Speray Replies: Novus Ordo bishops are NOT the hierarchy of the Church because they don’t profess the Catholic Faith and they reject Catholic Dogma.
These popes were targeting a group whose members denied the legitimacy of Pope Pius VII: like the sedevacantists.
Speray replies: Wrong! Pius XII was a true pope while the Vatican 2 popes are not.
Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni: “Your Little Church cannot therefore in any way belong to the Catholic Church. By the very admission of your masters, or rather of those who deceive you, there are no longer any French bishops who support and defend the party you follow. Moreover, all the bishops of the Catholic Universe, to whom they themselves have appealed, and to whom they have addressed their schismatic claims in print, are recognized as approving the conventions of Pius VII and the acts which followed, and the whole Catholic Church is now entirely favorable to them.”
Leo XIII, Eximia nos laetitia: “Absolutely no bishop considers them and governs them as his sheep. From this they must conclude with certainty and evidence that they are defectors from the fold of Christ.
Now, just as the Little Church had no bishop who recognized them, so the sedevacantists had no bishop who recognized them, all of whom recognized the Council in 1964 and 1965.
Speray replies: Since your Novus Ordo Bishops all profess the heresies of religious liberty and a divided Church of Christ, then you don’t have any Catholic bishops at all. Now when you’re ready to defend your bishops as being Catholic when they preach heresy, then come back and try again. Otherwise, keep your sophomoric comments to yourself.
“Novus Ordo bishops are NOT the hierarchy of the Church because they don’t profess the Catholic Faith and they reject Catholic Dogma.”
=> Most of these bishops were consecrated under Pius XII.
Speray Replies: It doesn’t matter who consecrated who. Your bishops don’t profess the Faith NOW. You’re only Catholic when you profess the Faith, and when you stop professing the faith, you stop being Catholic. To prove your religion is the Catholic Church, you must prove your bishops profess the Catholic Faith. Disproving sedevacantism doesn’t prove your religion true.
According to Leo XII, when all bishops consider an act as Authoritative, they are right and it proves those who reject these acts to be schismatic.
Speray replies: He was talking about bishops who profess the Catholic Faith. I agree. But when the great falling away happens as it did, then you don’t have a majority of Catholic bishops but only non-catholic bishops.
Which bishop recognized you as Catholic and governed you in 1965 ?
Speray replies: According to Lefebrve, there were about 250 bishops who rejected the heresies of Vatican 2. I wasn’t alive in 1965, so I wasn’t governed by anyone.
“Wrong! Pius XII was a true pope while the Vatican 2 popes are not.”
=> It is about Pius VII, not Pius XII. Also, the Little Church denied Pius VII’s legitimacy.
Speray replies: Pius VII was a true pope so your argument is moot. You must understand what makes a true pope. So far, you have shown that you understand that point.
Leo XII and Leo XIII proved they were schismatics because they reject acts of Pius VII and his legitimacy, whereas all bishops accept them and no single one recognized and governed the Little Church.
Speray replies: Again, they were true popes. Yours are not. They professed the Catholic faith, yours do not. Again, you’re not dealing with the issue of professing the Catholic Faith and what makes for a true pope.
Once again, which bishop recognized you as Catholic and governed you in 1965 ?
Speray replies: I already answered that question.
“Since your Novus Ordo Bishops all profess the heresies of religious liberty and a divided Church of Christ, then you don’t have any Catholic bishops at all. Now when you’re ready to defend your bishops as being Catholic when they preach heresy, then come back and try again. Otherwise, keep your sophomoric comments to yourself.”
=> No single bishop rejected Vatican II’s documents.
Speray replies: There were many who did and we don’t know who signed what since they’re were so many liars running around at that time.
Even most conservative bishops defended its authority in 1965. You can chech the article (or YouTube video which has been subtitled in English) “Paul VI, pape universellement accepté”.
Speray replies: Sure, and they had to do mental gymnastics to make it sound right. But there were some with reservations.
Once again, which bishop recognized you as Catholic and governed you in 1965 ? If sedes can’t quote any bishop who rejected Vatican II and recognized & governed sedevacantists in 1965, it proves they’re not Catholics.
Speray replies: You have totally misunderstood the teachings of the popes you cite. They are taking about CAtholic bishops, not non-Catholic bishops.
“It doesn’t matter who consecrated who. Your bishops don’t profess the Faith NOW. You’re only Catholic when you profess the Faith, and when you stop professing the faith, you stop being Catholic. To prove your religion is the Catholic Church, you must prove your bishops profess the Catholic Faith. Disproving sedevacantism doesn’t prove your religion true.”
=> Council of Trent teaches that : “1776 Dz 966 Can. 6. If anyone says that in the Catholic Church a hierarchy has not been instituted by divine ordinance, which consists of the bishops, priests, and ministers: let him be anathema [cf. n. 960].”
Speray replies: Of course, we believe a hierarchy has been established by Christ. We’ve been arguing that point for years.
According to it, the Church must possess a hierarchy with Catholic bishops.
Speray replies: That’s not what it means. It means that Christ established a hierarchy. It doesn’t mean there will always be a hierarchy. Your religion is anti-Catholic with its anti-Catholic doctrines and practices. Your bishops support your anti-Catholic doctrines and practices. You don’t have a Catholic hierarchy.
It is also what imply Leo XII and Leo XIII because the Church would fail if it doesn’t has a single Catholic bishop.
Speray Replies: We have bishops, but they don’t hold offices. They continue, however, to preach the faith as it has always been taught. Nothing had changed insofar as the Catholic Faith is preached. That’s the core teaching from the popes you cite. Bishops must profess the Catholic faith, which yours do not.
Then, either you think that in 1965, there were 0 catholic bishop, and you’re condemned, or you think that there were a few Catholic ones, then you must accept the acts of Paul VI that 100% of these Catholic bishops accept.
Speray replies: Nope! You forgot something.
“According to Lefebrve, there were about 250 bishops who rejected the heresies of Vatican 2. I wasn’t alive in 1965, so I wasn’t governed by anyone.”
=> When I say “you” I mean sedes at the time 1965. Who governed them ?
Speray replies: I don’t know who was Catholic and who wasn’t. I know that God will protect the Church and there must have been at least one. Bp Blaise Kurz perhaps. See http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/06/a-forgotten-hero.html
Also, Abp. Lefebvre doesn’t say that, what he says is that some bishops and cardinals followed his positions, during the preparatory sessions, then it was before the texts were promulgated.
Speray replies: Nope. It was speaking years after the council. He said bishops were afraid to speak out and many had already died.
Plus, he quotes for example Cardinal Ruffini and Siri, who signed Vatican II and accepted it. Cardinal Siri said the Novus Ordo, a photo exists. He bowed before Popes, etc.
Bishop Pintolello also signed Vatican II’s documents and always recognized Paul VI.
Speray replies: So? What’s your point? Siri did the new mass but there was a bishop who didn’t. There were many drafts in Vatican 2. Which drafts were signed and which were not but were placed in Vatican 2 is something we may never know. We do know that Lefebvre said he did not sign all the documents yet his signature is found on all of them. So what gives? I don’t believe the liars of Vatican 2.
“Pius VII was a true pope so your argument is moot. You must understand what makes a true pope. So far, you have shown that you understand that point.”
=> You don’t have an objective way to recognize a true pope.
Speray replies: I explain how in this very article which you’re commenting on.
Everything is subjective : one can say that he was heretical, that his council is heretical, if that’s not the case, one can also say that the Conclave is invalid, that there was a problem during the elections etc.
Speray replies: We know what is heretical. Are you denying that we can’t know what is heretical? As for whether a conclave is valid or not, we can only have moral assurance, much like the sacraments. We don’t know absolutely but with moral assurance. If evidence to contrary is proved, then we can know if something is at least doubtful. If you actually read the article, you’ll see the answer.
How can you prove with absolute certainty that all Popes since Julius II to Pius XII didn’t do a simony for example S(between 16th century and 20th century it rendered the election null and void) ?
Speray replies: We don’t know absolutely if all the popes are valid or not. We still don’t know if which popes if any were valid during the Great Western Schism. Some theologians like Suarez thought that none of them were valid.
I could prove it by the fact that all bishops recognized these popes.
Speray replies: That doesn’t prove anything. Pope Paul VI told us that if the whole world accepted a heretic as pope, he would still not be pope.
And again, Leo XII wanted to teach against people denying Pius VII’s legitimacy, so he proved Pius VII’s legitimacy by saying that all bishops accepted his acts and that no bishop recognize and govern the denyers, which are schismatics. I do the same with Paul VI and sedevacantists.
Speray replies: But all those bishops were Catholic. They held the same teaching as always passed down. The teaching of Christ must always be taught in the Church. They were Catholic as they professed the Catholic faith. So, let’s start here. The Catholic Church has always taught the man doesn’t have a God-given right to profess he false religion in public. The Church had officially forbidden Muslims from just calling Mohammad in public, which would be an error against Divine law if Vatican 2 is right. If Vatican 2 is right the Gates of hell prevailed 700 years ago. So explain how your religious liberty is not heretical or how the Church of Christ is divided. Your popes teach that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs are pastors in the Church of Christ and that their false religion is part of the Church of Christ. Do you agree with your popes or is it heretical to say that the Eastern Orthodox religion makes up the Church of Christ? Answer that question or don’t comment further.
“There were many who did and we don’t know who signed what since they’re were so many liars running around at that time.”
=> Yes, we can, there are Acta Synodalia available on the Web for free, we can check who signed the final documents : by the way Lefebvre did and he even signed by proxy. In 1964-5 he also published articles in which he defended Vatican II and Paul VI’s authority, I listed them in the article I posted but I suppose you didn’t read it.
Speray replies: Why should it be trusted? Lefebvre said he was against at least 2 of the documents during and after the council. But answer the question about the Eastern Orthodox and religious liberty because the bottom line is the historic Catholic Faith. Pope Leo XIII was clear about that as he wrote: “St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic”
“That’s not what it means. It means that Christ established a hierarchy. It doesn’t mean there will always be a hierarchy. Your religion is anti-Catholic with its anti-Catholic doctrines and practices. Your bishops support your anti-Catholic doctrines and practices. You don’t have a Catholic hierarchy.”
=> The Church always taught that it will remain as it is when it was founded, for example Pius XI in Mortalium Animos :
“Christ our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society, external of its nature and perceptible to the senses, which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race, under the leadership of one head,[4] with an authority teaching by word of mouth,[5] and by the ministry of the sacraments, the founts of heavenly grace;[6] for which reason He attested by comparison the similarity of the Church to a kingdom,[7] to a house,[8] to a sheepfold,[9] and to a flock.[10] This Church, after being so wonderfully instituted, could not, on the removal by death of its Founder and of the Apostles who were the pioneers in propagating it, be entirely extinguished and cease to be, for to it was given the commandment to lead all men, without distinction of time or place, to eternal salvation: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations.”[11] In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present to it, according to His solemn promise: “Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world?”[12] It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists to-day and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, unless we were to say, which God forbid, either that Christ our Lord could not effect His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted that the gates of hell should never prevail against it.[13]”
SPERAY REPLIES: You don’t understand what you’re reading. Every time a pope dies, the Church is not exactly as it was established. You’re applying his teaching incorrectly.
Catholic Bishops are established by divine law, therefore they must always exist.
SPERAY REPLIES: The papacy was established by divine law, but it doesn’t mean there will always be a pope. Your reasoning is flawed.
“We have bishops, but they don’t hold offices. They continue, however, to preach the faith as it has always been taught. Nothing had changed insofar as the Catholic Faith is preached. That’s the core teaching from the popes you cite. Bishops must profess the Catholic faith, which yours do not.”
=> Because no single bishop has jurisdiction, they can’t be the remaining Church. Indeed, no single bishop GOVERNS sedevacantists, since nobody has this power.
Speray replies: Yes, that’s what’s left of the remaining Church. Yours have no jurisdiction because they all are public heretics
“I don’t know who was Catholic and who wasn’t. I know that God will protect the Church and there must have been at least one. Bp Blaise Kurz perhaps.”
=> I saw the article, it proves nothing. Indeed, we know that Bp. Kurz signed Vatican II’s documents + he signed a Declaration in May 1966 which basically states that he recognizes Vatican II as a legitimate Council. If you’ve seen the article “Paul VI, pape universellement accepté” you would know.
Speray replies: You didn’t read the article.
“Nope. It was speaking years after the council. He said bishops were afraid to speak out and many had already died.”
=> Ok, it’s more understandable. But, first in 1964-5 no bishop contested Vatican II, it was only years later. But Cardinal Siri, for example, never recognized sedevacantists.
Speray replies: No one contested publicly because of fear. They all were cowardly. Who cares about Siri?
He always bowed before Popes. So by “250” Lefebvre must say who. Because there are not 250 bishops who refused the New Mass in public, for example. Only a handful refused to say the New Mass, and still it wasn’t a recognizance of sedevacantism. Plus, Bp. Lefebvre wasn’t sedevacantist in 1978.
Speray replies: Lefebvre was never a sedevacantist. What’s your point? If you bothered reading the article, you’ll understand that a pope isn’t guaranteed until he defines something. Until then, we only have a moral assurance of who’s the pope. That’s why Thuc finally figured it out.
“So? What’s your point? Siri did the new mass but there was a bishop who didn’t. There were many drafts in Vatican 2.”
=> He didn’t refused Vatican II in 1965. He even wrote articles praising it.
Speray replies: WHO CARES ABOUT SIRI? He went along with it all.
“Which drafts were signed and which were not but were placed in Vatican 2 is something we may never know.”
=> These documents aren’t “drafts”, but officially promulgated documents. We can see them in Acta Synodalia. If you’ve read the article you would know that Bp. Lefebvre’s manuscript (original) signature was found + he signed by proxy. Bp. Lefebvre deny to have signed, but if he signed then just below signed by proxy, it is about final signatures.
Speray replies: He said he didn’t sign them and didn’t agree with at least 2 of them.
Actually, he confused the votes and the final signatures. Bp. De Mallerais says it in a biography of Bp. Lefebvre.
Speray replies: Lefebvre himself said he didn’t approve 2 documents.
“We do know that Lefebvre said he did not sign all the documents yet his signature is found on all of them. So what gives? I don’t believe the liars of Vatican 2.”
=> It doesn’t change since you can’t prove that in 1965, bishops recognized and governed sedevacantists. We can even prove without the signatures that they praised Vatican II in 1965.
Speray replies: Some did, but not all. But it doesn’t matter. This all reflects the great falling away.
“We know what is heretical. Are you denying that we can’t know what is heretical?”
=> Sometimes, we can’t, since we aren’t experts and we need to be guided, also sedevacantists are subjective since they THINK something is heretical, so they reject it.
Speray replies: That’s ridiculous. You would tell Christ, Sorry Jesus, I can’t really tell who are the false teachers because I need experts to tell me if something is false.
But actually it was taught by previous theologians and popes (for example, collegiality). Then, the assent of all bishops for a document is the proof that it isn’t heretical, but is an authoritative pontifical document.
Speray replies: I don’t argue collegiality. The two arguments I stick to are the nature of the Church heresy and religious liberty.
“As for whether a conclave is valid or not, we can only have moral assurance, much like the sacraments. We don’t know absolutely but with moral assurance.”
=> That’s the problem. Imagine that an antipope who promulgates a dogma, then the whole Church accept it, only to know 20 years later that he wasn’t the true pope. It isn’t good at all since it will falsely believe that something is de fide.
Speray replies: That’s what happened with Vatican 2 and Vatican 2 popes. It’s not good at all. EVen you have bought into the heresies of Vatican 2.
“If evidence to contrary is proved, then we can know if something is at least doubtful. If you actually read the article, you’ll see the answer.”
=> That’s the problem, we would never be absolutely sure that a Pope would be legitimate Pope. Then, how can we believe with certainty what he teaches.
Speray replies: Answered in the article.
“That doesn’t prove anything. Pope Paul VI told us that if the whole world accepted a heretic as pope, he would still not be pope.”
=> *Pope Paul IV. And no, he didn’t say that.
Speray replies: Yes he did.
He was talking about Cardinals. The “or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all” part only concerns Cardinals, not the whole Church.
Speray replies: That’s your interpretation.
Veneration and obedience are the Cardinalice rites, they give to the Pope Veneration and prestation of obedience. You can see that the term “obedience”/”adoration”/”veneration” are used in Bulls concerning the election of the Pope always concern Cardinals. Plus, well-known theologians understood these words like concerning Cardinals.
Speray replies: It all applies to all.
“But all those bishops were Catholic. They held the same teaching as always passed down. The teaching of Christ must always be taught in the Church.”
=> YOU say that, but according to Petite-Eglise these bishops weren’t Catholics.
Speray replies: He didn’t hold to the teaching as passed down. Your argument is absurd.
Also, imagine there were no single catholic bishop in 1965, then it would mean that the hierarchy was interrupted. It isn’t possible, for example the Church must have bishops to govern Catholics, to give Confirmation etc.
Speray replies: There has always been bishops. They have the power to give the sacraments.
“They were Catholic as they professed the Catholic faith. So, let’s start here. The Catholic Church has always taught the man doesn’t have a God-given right to profess he false religion in public. The Church had officially forbidden Muslims from just calling Mohammad in public, which would be an error against Divine law if Vatican 2 is right.”
=> What V2 teaches is a negative right. This right must respect 3 conditions : saveguard of the peace, saveguard of the Morals and saveguard of the fundamental rights of other (eg. right of circulating).
Speray replies: Total BS! And your explanation doesn’t work anyway.
“If Vatican 2 is right the Gates of hell prevailed 700 years ago.”
=> YOU judged it.
Speray replies: No, you have.
“So explain how your religious liberty is not heretical or how the Church of Christ is divided.”
=> We don’t need to explain, since it was accepted by all bishops you must accept it. But Archidiacre (channel on YouTube) made a video about it “Liberté religieuse : Vatican II complète la tradition”. It has EN-captions.
Speray replies: Already refuted it.
“Your popes teach that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs are pastors in the Church of Christ”
=> “Pastors” is not to be understood in a strict sense here. You misunderstand everything since you don’t want to be submitted to bishops. Also, Pius XII used similar terms which aren’t to be taken at the strict sense.
Speray replies: So you agree that Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs are pastors in the Church of Christ? They aren’t IN the Church of Christ and their religion is not the Church of Christ.
“and that their false religion is part of the Church of Christ.”
=> We don’t, recent popes taught that Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
Speray replies: The Balamand Statement does and it’s approved by JP2.
Archidiacre made a video about the subsistit in which has EN-captions to
Speray replies: Already refuted on this website. Do your homework.
“Do you agree with your popes or is it heretical to say that the Eastern Orthodox religion makes up the Church of Christ? Answer that question or don’t comment further.”
=> They don’t say that.
Speray replies: Yes, they do. You’re not being honest.
“Why should it be trusted? Lefebvre said he was against at least 2 of the documents during and after the council.”
=> I can also say “Contra factum non fkit argumentum”. These documents are official documents. Plus, Bp. Lefebvre said he didn’t signed two documents, but he signed the OTHERS, especially Lumen Gentium etc.
Speray replies: So he was a liar? And the liar signed LG.
“But answer the question about the Eastern Orthodox and religious liberty because the bottom line is the historic Catholic Faith. Pope Leo XIII was clear about that as he wrote: “St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic”””
=> Leo XIII is not saying that all bishops could loose the faith or teach something heretical here.
Speray replies: But they did and that’s the point.