The Universal Acceptance Doctrine Not Universally Accepted – How We Can Know a True Pope Rules

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 17^th 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 17^th 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 late19^th 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)

[4] A letter to William George Ward, Esq., D. Ph. on his theory of infallible instruction : Ryder, H. I. D. (Henry Ignatius Dudley), 1837-1907 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

[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

Read Full Post »

The Universal Acceptance Argument Revisited

In 2014 and 2015, I replied to the argument against sedevacantism that it’s a dogmatic fact that a pope is a valid pope when he’s accepted by the practical universal acceptance of the Church. [1]

Many theologians have taught that God “cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.” [2] Therefore, it’s argued that sedevacantism is impossible because the practical unanimous consent of the Church recognized as popes, John XXIII and Paul VI.

My rebuttals to the argument in 2014 and 2015 were that the practical unanimous consent of antipope Boniface VII and Pope Paul IV’s teaching that a heretic is not pope even if he’s recognized by the whole Church prove the argument wrong. [3]

Before saying the theologians are wrong, notice that they don’t all say the same thing. Card. Billot says, “whole Church” but doesn’t tell us what “whole Church” includes. If he means every single person, then the argument against sedevacantism doesn’t work. He doesn’t tell us if the acceptance must be absolute or moral.

Rev. Berry says, “practical unanimous consent” but doesn’t tell us if he means unquestionable, moral, implicit, explicit, or legal consent. He doesn’t tell us how the consent must be expressed. Is it by words or tacit? How could we know how it was fulfilled?

If we use the sacraments as an example, we have a moral certitude that they are valid, but not with an absolute certitude. We know that valid form, matter, intention, and minister are needed for valid sacraments. We don’t question the validity of the sacraments unless evidence to the contrary is presented. In other words, when something is found that would invalidate the sacrament. We see examples of this with marriage, which is presumed valid until impediments are presented and annulments granted. When I go to Confession, I presume the priest to be valid. However, if evidence came forward that the priest wasn’t a true priest, there would be a question as to whether my confession was valid. I would want to know all the facts and if the evidence is more than mere hearsay, then the Confession becomes doubtful. You can’t accept a doubtful sacrament as a valid sacrament. We can’t accept a doubtful pope, either, and for the same practical reasons. [4]

Therefore, if Billot and Berry meant an absolute acceptance or unquestionable consent presented in words, then it is possible to reconcile their statements with sedevacantism and the elections of John XXIII and Paul VI.

However one interprets the theologians, it’s only an opinion of theologians and not a Church teaching or law of the Church. The doctrine of opinions, which is not Church doctrine, is not infallible and it’s not binding. [5]

The argument using the opinion of these theologians that the Church can’t be wrong about its pope is further marred by the fact that the whole Church recognized one of the three doubtful popes during the Great Western Schism. Not only was the whole Church in error over the papacy, it was divided over the papacy, which in all practical purposes might be worse than having one false pope. We have another instance in history where the vast majority accepted antipope Anacletus II and the minority accepted Pope Innocent II until St. Bernard of Clairvaux convinced the majority to change positions. By the way, he did this on his own authority.

There’s also the teaching by some theologians that popes can’t be occult heretics. [6] The implication is that if one of the popes in history were an occult heretic, he wouldn’t have been a true pope even though the whole Church recognized him. Perhaps, it would be argued that we’ve never had an occult heretic pope, but how could anyone know? This minority opinion seems to fly in the face of the opinion that God cannot permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimate. Someone might argue that Billot also says “adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.” Therefore, the adhesion guarantees no occult heretic. However, Billot didn’t think an occult heretic can’t be a pope, so using his argument doesn’t work.

When I wrote my book, “Papal Anomalies and Their Implications” I noted that the greatest anomaly is the fact the Church has never defined what makes a pope a pope or defined all who have been popes. The Church has recognized popes who were never elected and who were invalidly, unlawfully, and unjustly elected. Since the conclave, the Church has recognized popes who are secretly elected and all we have is the testimony of the cardinals.

All we know for sure is that only a man can be elected. If he’s not baptized, he must get baptized. If he’s baptized, he can’t be a heretic/apostate. That’s about it. We have Pope Hadrian V who was never consecrated bishop, ordained priest, or crowned pope. The minimum age of a pope is not defined either. Pope John XII was elected at 15. Were these true popes? Again, the Church has never defined all who have been true popes.

My belief is that God protects the Church from doctrinal error regardless. Yet, we see so many Catholics accept the heresies of the Vatican 2 popes. How did God protect the Church with John XXIII and Paul VI?

I answer the question this way. There are two aspects to the Church, the faithful and her official teachings. When we say the Church teaches, we don’t mean everyone except the pope. The faithful who are not pertinacious in their errors are not heretics. They remain members of the Church, although, in an abnormal way, because they are worshipping in a non-Catholic new mass. It does seem strange that it’s possible that a vast majority of faithful could be so deceived, but God has allowed it.

I’m reminded of what Rev. M. P. Hill, S.J taught about the future Church after explaining the strangeness of the Great Western Schism: “But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.” [7]

Many of the faithful didn’t accept the heresies of Vatican 2 because they were unaware of them and those who knew better rejected them. This made the Vatican 2 popes suspect.

What I’m specifically referring to in my statement that God protects the Church is in her official capacity for teaching. Antipopes have no authority to make official teachings. Vatican 2, for example, was not ratified by a true pope. Its teachings are not the Church’s teachings. Division and scandal immediately arose during the council. Although a false pope was practically universally recognized at least morally with silent implicit consent, Vatican 2 was not.

Bishop Blaise Kurz was one bishop at Vatican 2 that rejected the heresies of the Council and ordained Gunther Storch who would later be made bishop by Bishop Guerard des Lauriers. Archbishop Lefebvre said in an interview that 250 bishops supported him in opposition to the council because it had erred. [8]

Going back further, John XXIII’s document Pacem in Terris was rejected by an expert in theology. Rev. Saenz Y Arriaga, Ph.d. (carried 3 doctorates in theology, philosophy, and canon law) questioned/rejected John XXIII as pope and his acts. [9] He was not alone. His friends Frs. Adolfo Zamoro and Moisés Carmona would later be made bishops by Archbishop Thuc. The three Mexican priests suspected Paul VI as an antipope from the beginning. There’s no reason to believe these are the only Catholics in the world who rejected Vatican 2 and the Vatican 2 popes especially since these men had Catholic followers.

The Catholic Church has survived both in doctrine and in the Faithful. The argument using the opinion of the universal acceptance of a pope is crushed by history, a papal bull, and the fact that the faithful, which includes bishops, priests, and theologians, have kept it going.

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/robert-siscoe-caught-in-his-own-trap-against-sedevacantism/

https://stevensperay.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/steven-speray-responds-to-robert-siscoe-and-the-remnan1.pdf

[2] Cardinal Billot – Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi Vol I pp 612-613:

“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.’ For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, 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.

Rev. Sylvester Berry: “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”. (The Church of Christ, p. 290)

[3] Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum ex apostolatus  officio of 1559, declared: 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.

[4] Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” (The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927, Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.)

[5] § 7. 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). (Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 9)

5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally”
6. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opinio tolerata). which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church. (Ibid. p. 10)

[6] Ioannes de Turrecremata (Juan de Torquemada), Summa de Ecclesia, lib. 4, pars 2 c. 18, IIIa via;

Francisco Suárez, De fide disp. 9, sect. I, nn. 5, 13, 18 (Opera, vol. 12, pp. 246, 248-249, 250-251);

Luis Molina, Concordia (Ed. crit., Oniæ-Matriti, 1953), p. 3, q. 14, a. 13, disp. 46, n. 18, pp. 283-284;

Charles-René Billuart, Summa sancti Thomæ (ed. Palmé, nova editio), vol. III, diss. 3, a. 2, §IV, pp. 299-301;

Johann Baptist Franzelin, Theses de Ecclesia Christi, th. 23, pp. 402-423;

Michelitsch, §202;

Fraghi, De membris Ecclesiæ, 90;

Stolz, 32;

Journet, vol. II, 1064;

Zapalena, vol. II, 389.

[7] The Catholic’s Ready Answer [1915] p. 287.

[8]  http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/inview.htm

[9] The New Montinian Church, ch xii and xxii. Also, on p. 329, Fr. Saenz Y Arriaga writes: About John XXIII we can say that he tolerated and fostered heresy, although, at least so it seems, he did not undersign and ratify it.

On p. 342, he writes: As time passes and events occur, ail forecasts agree as to the principal evil forces behind it, namely, the deviation and manifest turnabout of the hierarchy and the ambiguous Vatican Council II, which intended to create a new pastoralism without firmly resting it on the immutable dogmas of our Catholic Faith. Both of the last two Pontiffs have indisputably interrupted the harmonious unity of the Church’s Tradition and Magisterium. That is why I have always maintained that as long as we keep on trying to save John XXIII, Paul VI, and their pastoral council, we shall find ourselves in a blind alley.

 

Read Full Post »