If Benedict thought he could resign the Papacy and at the same time retain the Papacy in the least degree, his intellect was in error concerning the substance of his action
(LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Schneider opens his essay that Francis must be Pope by arguing that human law or Church law must be subordinated to the greater good of the whole Church. He is not incorrect.
But Pope Benedict’s resignation is first of all a matter of Natural Law from which no man may prescind (and whose infraction no amount of subsequent episcopal unanimity may make licit). A resignation, like a marriage, is not valid in the eyes of Almighty God if it is not freely willed. And it is not freely willed if that person’s intellect has an erroneous understanding of the substance of the act. If Benedict thought he could resign the Papacy and at the same time retain the Papacy in the least degree, his intellect was in error concerning the substance of his action. Can anyone dispute this logic? In which case, his substantial error not only violates Canons 126 and 188 of the 1983 Code, but Natural Law itself. In which case, he unalterably remained Pope until his death almost two years ago.
The next argument that His Excellency makes is that Francis must be Pope because:
The universal Church cannot exist for a considerable time without a visible Supreme Shepherd, without the successor of Peter, since the vital activity of the universal Church depends on its visible head, such as, for example, the appointment of diocesan bishops and cardinals, appointments that require the existence of a valid pope. In turn, the spiritual good of the faithful depends on a valid appointment of a bishop, since in the case of an invalid episcopal appointment (due to an invalid pope), priests would lack pastoral jurisdiction (e.g. to hear confessions, to witness marriages).[1]
While true to a degree, the above principles do admit of exceptions and extenuating circumstances. Taking a doctrinaire and exceptionless stance on the Church’s visibility would be at odds with the known facts of history. And as St. Thomas teaches, “Against a fact there is no argument.”
Anacletus II (r. 1130-1138), who today is generally considered an antipope, was elected and accepted by the overwhelming majority of electors and clergy and ruled from the Chair of Peter in Rome for almost eight years. He appointed vacancies (later challenged by Pope Innocent II) throughout his tenure. If God can permit this to go on for eight years back then, he can permit it for twelve years right now.
The Visible Church survived this incident as she later did the Great Western Schism which saw two and then three “popes” over the course of forty years. Episcopal appointees of these antipopes did not destroy the spiritual good of the faithful because they were not invalid, they were ultimately “grandfathered in.” (And unlike Francis who overwhelmingly appoints [homosexual] Modernists who pervert the faithful, these antipope cardinals and bishops actually adhered to the Church’s faith and morals.)
The next argument that Bishop Schneider makes that Francis must be Pope is that “universal peaceful acceptance” of a man as pope heals any illegality in his election:
The spiritual good and eternal salvation of the faithful is the supreme law in the normative system of the Church. For this reason, there is the principle of supplet ecclesia (“the Church supplies”) or of sanatio in radice (“healing at the root”), that is, the Church completes what was against the human positive law, in the case of the sacraments, which demand jurisdictional faculties, e.g. confession, marriage, confirmation, the burdens of the intentions of the Masses.
Guided by this truly pastoral principle, the instinct of the Church has also applied the principle of supplet ecclesia or sanatio in radice in cases of doubts about a renunciation or a pontifical election. Concretely, the sanatio in radice of an invalid pontifical election was expressed in the peaceful and morally universal acceptance of the new Pontiff by the episcopate and the Catholic people, and in the fact that this elected, supposedly invalid, Pontiff was named in the Canon of the Mass by practically the entire Catholic clergy.
It is actually a disputed question whether Francis IS universally peacefully accepted in the sense intended by the theologians. (See https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/is-there-universal-peaceful-acceptance-of-francis-as-pope/) Furthermore, while this theological opinion may possibly be true in principle, it must be viewed against the facts of history. The principle does not appear to be valid when the real pope is still alive.
In September 1378, the entire college of cardinals universally and peacefully accepted Cardinal Robert of Geneva as “Pope” Clement VII. According to Schneider’s reasoning, any illegality in his election should have been healed in the root by his unanimous acceptance by the college. But down through the centuries he has been viewed as an antipope—the man who started the Great Western Schism.
Universal peaceful acceptance seemingly does not work when the true Pope is still living, as in the case of Urban VI at the time of Clement, or Benedict at the time of Francis.
Elsewhere Bishop Schneider has written: “There is no authority to declare or consider an elected and generally accepted Pope as an invalid Pope.”[2]
But, once again, facts are stubborn things. Doctor of the Church, St. Catherine of Siena (an unlettered laywoman) did exactly that: declared and considered an elected and generally accepted “Pope” Clement VII an antipope and defied the entire college of cardinals when she wrote to them:
…I tell you that you [cardinals] did wrong, with the antipope…he was chosen a member of the devil…you have committed all these faults in regard to this devil…to confess him as Pope, which he surely is not…[3]
Additionally, His Excellency has written that Francis must be Pope because:
…automatic loss of the papacy due to heresy remains only an opinion…even St. Robert Bellarmine…did not present it as a teaching of the Magisterium…The perennial papal Magisterium never taught such an opinion.[4]
But as Rev. Damien Dutertre points out, the same is true about universal peaceful acceptance, an opinion upon which Bishop Schneider leans so heavily:
…the…doctrine of universal peaceful acceptance … [proposed by] renowned theologians…has [only] the authority of the theologians…Although these…are approved authors, and…their speculation…permitted and encouraged by the Church, it does not bear the authority of the Church’s magisterium.[5]
Should we continue to countenance the loss of countless souls under a putative antipope because we have made an idol out of universal peaceful acceptance—an opinion which has never been taught by the Magisterium? Indeed, there isn’t even a consensus on what constitutes “universal” acceptance.
Bishop Schneider has written elsewhere that Francis must be Pope because
Even in the case of a heretical pope, he will not lose his office automatically and there is no body within the Church to declare him deposed because of heresy…[6]
But as scholar Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira points out, Schneider’s
opinion–which Saint Robert Bellarmine classifies as ‘exceedingly improbable’–is defended by only one theologian, among the 136 theologians… [over the last thousand years!] whose position on this matter we could verify.” [Only Marie Dominique Bouix (d. 1870).][7]
Another objection that Bishop Schneider raises in his Lifesite article is that we cannot read Ratzinger’s mind. The whole notion of his resignation being invalid due to his erroneous understanding is illusory since
God alone judges intentions whereas canon law merely limits itself in evaluating the outward behavior of the baptized. “A well-known sentence of canon law … affirms that ‘De internis non iudicat praetor’; a judge does not judge interior things”
The answer to this objection is: Yes and No.
Yes, Pope Benedict might have resigned out of pride, for example, or embarrassment, or despair—or because he wanted to spend more time with his cat! These are his personal intentions to which the rest of humanity have no access. But this is not the intention which we are speaking about.
We are not speaking about “the finis cujus gratia opus fit, the end for which one does something, which is extrinsic to it.” We are speaking about the very
finis operis, the intrinsic end of the work itself. Personal motivations (the subjective intention) could be very difficult to determine, and are often a combination of many different reasons…[but] for whatever personal reasons, the person wants to do something…[8]
A famous example from history should suffice to explain. In 1896, in the document Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII declared all Anglican orders invalid. What is key for us, is that the Pope attributed this partly due to defect of intentioneven though intention is normally part of the internal forum:
[D]efect of “intention”… is equally essential to the Sacrament. The Church does not judge about the mind and intention, in so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so far as it is manifested externally, she is bound to judge concerning it. A person who has…used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do (intendisse) what the Church does…On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then …not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.[9]
So it is possible to judge Benedict’s objective intention (not his personal motivation) from an examination of the words he used in his Declaratio. True, resignation is not a sacramental act, nevertheless, if Benedict deviated from the traditional expression of resignation (i.e. “if the rite is changed”) and if his words (and actions) contradict what “belongs to the nature” of resignation and/or “the nature” of the Papacy, one can judge it to be invalid. His renunciation was, after all, a legal act:
By legal transaction is ordinarily understood a juridical act…a direct manifestation of intention or will to produce a juridical effect. Hence, the essential requisites of every legal transaction are: (a) will or intention of the subject…(b) their competence (natural or legal)…(c) external manifestation, without which the internal will has no legal force or value…just as if you ate meat on Friday thinking it was a Thursday, you did not sin…you did not intend to…eat meat on Friday, so also, whenever the internal intention does not correspond to the legal transaction posited.
What matters is therefore the objective intention, manifested externally, which is necessarily included in the subjective intention, which is internal…[not] the personal, subjective, intention motivating someone to do something, which would answer the question: … Why do you want to do this thing? It is sufficient to observe that, whatever his personal motives are, the person in fact clearly manifests the intention to do something.[10]
Benedict, in his Declaratio, manifested his intention externally when he explicitly said: “I am well aware that this munus [office], due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering;” he will continue the prayer and suffering, therefore, he will continue participating in the Petrine munus. And Can. 331 specifically states that a pope’s power comes from making the munus his own: “The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the munus given by the Lord uniquely to Peter…and to be transmitted to his successors…By virtue of his munus, he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power…”
Benedict never renounced the munus and so it appears he implicitly attempted to share it with the new Bishop of Rome. This amounts to a bifurcation of the papacy, which is not canonically or metaphysically possible.[11]
READ: Is Francis really the pope? The debate
In conclusion, it is long past time for the cardinals and bishops of the Church to do something about the unprecedented situation in the Church today: a putative pontiff not teaching Catholic doctrine but rather spreading heresy and fully cooperating with Marxists and Masons for the destruction of the Faith.
Sister Lucy of Fatima said that unless a valid pope and bishops consecrate Russia to Mary’s Immaculate Heart, every country in the world will be taken over by communism.
Our Lady of Akita said that, unless mankind repents, “fire will fall from the sky…the living will envy the dead.”
If World War III breaks out—and it can happen any day now—because no (valid) pope ever consecrated Russia with all the (genuine) bishops in time, it will be precisely because the “princes” of the Church failed to act when they could have.
St. Catherine’s words to the cardinals of her day will then certainly apply to them:
Flowers you who shed no perfume, but stench that makes the whole world reek! No lights you placed in a candlestick, that you might spread the faith; but, having hidden your light under the bushel of pride, and become not extenders, but contaminators of the faith, you shed darkness over yourselves and others. You should have been angels on earth, placed to release us from the devils of hell, and performing the office of angels, by bringing back the sheep into the obedience of Holy Church, and you have taken the office of devils. That evil which you have in yourselves you wish to infect us with, withdrawing us from obedience to Christ on earth, and leading us into obedience to antichrist, a member of the devil, as you are too, so long as you shall abide in this heresy.[12]
O Mary conceived without original Sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee!
Dr. Mazza is the author of The Third Secret of Fatima and the Synodal Church and is delivering online lectures, which you can watch live or download here, about conclaves and antipopes.
Footnotes
[1] https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/exclusive-bishop-schneider-explains-why-he-believes-francis-must-be-the-pope/?utm_source=featured-news&utm_campaign=usa
[2] https://onepeterfive.com/bishop-athanasius-schneider-on-the-validity-of-pope-francis/
[3] St. Catherine of Siena, Letter to Italian Cardinals, 1378. https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=/Medieval-EN/XCT.053.html;chunk.id=00000117
https://archive.org/details/saintcatherineof0000vida/page/280/mode/2up
[4] https://onepeterfive.com/bishop-athanasius-schneider-on-the-validity-of-pope-francis/
[5] Rev. Damien Dutertre, “ANSWERS TO THE OBJECTIONS BASED ON THE UNIVERSAL PEACEFUL ACCEPTANCE,” October 2022, mostholytrinityseminary.org
[6] https://onepeterfive.com/bishop-athanasius-schneider-on-the-validity-of-pope-francis/
[7] Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira, THE THEOLOGICAL HYPOTHESIS OF A HERETIC POPE, 1975.
[8] Rev. Damien Dutertre, “On the Lack of Intention to Accept the Papacy;” https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/06/Lack_of_Intention_Dutertre_2022.pdf
[9] Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896, 33.
[10] Pio Ciprotti, article “Act, Juridical,” in the Dictionary of Moral Theology, Roberti and Palazzini, (Westminster MD, 1962); As cited in Dutertre, “On the Lack of Intention.”
[11] Paul Kramer, To Deceive the Elect, “A partial act of renunciation is null and void due to defect of intention, ‘To the Pontiff, as one (person) and alone, it was given to be the head;’” Domenico Gravina, OP, 1610.
[12] St. Catherine of Siena, Letter to Italian Cardinals, 1378. https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=/Medieval-EN/XCT.053.html;chunk.id=00000117
https://archive.org/details/saintcatherineof0000vida/page/280/mode/2up
For pete’s sake, as my mother would say this asshat Ratzinger was CO FREAKING AUTHOR of that SATANIC FILTH VATICAN II. CO AUTHOR. I was an altar boy with the TRUE LITURGY LATIN RITE TRIDENTINE MASS which was and is the ONLY MASS. I witnessed the “progression” towards SATAN. I was born November 1958 the fake SATANIC popes began with Roncalli in October 1958. Every single pope since then has been invalid. Roncalli Montini Luciani Wojtyla Ratzinger Bergoglio. The masons marched on the Vatican in 1917 saying they would replace the See of Peter with SATAN. Maximillian Kolbe was present at that march and wrote extensively about it. I have been sedevacantist my entire adult life. I cannot support anyone who does NOT REJECT VATICAN II
Bravo Steve! Look who supports
Benevacantism, or pretends to question it. All Opus Dei connected. Benevacantism is designed, maybe not on purpose by all, such as Mark and *maybe* even Ann and Mazza, to keep Catholics attached to the false VII religion.
An invalid “pope” resigned invalidly….nothing to see here.
There is no Vatican 2 false religion.
Vatican 2 is not dogmatic, is an illusion.
Sedes justify their existence, which is outside the Church, by giving V2 more power than it has. They NEED Vatican 2.
Canon Law proves Benedict didn’t resign. Canon Law, which was written long before Vatican 2. Every other pope you think is invalid is based upon your emotional reaction to Vatican 2.
You basically claim 1 billion people are in a false religion and you aren’t. The hubris.
The Church is under demonic assault from Satan and Sedes have given him aid and comfort.
If this was 1570 you’d be upset at the Tridentine Mass and would split too.
NOTE, the devil is attacking the Church from within. We must fight it from within the Church. Not from a little traditional catholic cosplay club
“You basically claim 1 billion people are in a false religion…”
Yep.
But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?
My question to you is it is even possible, in principle, to be proven wrong? Or is that just nonsense apologism and apostasy?
Sedes are a cult. Ergo they are never wrong. That’s one of the ways you can tell it is a cult. They never make a mistake.
It’s noted Mike; you only attack SVists instead of SVism. It’s tiresome.
“Always right Mike” – the One Man Cult.
Self awareness…it’s not for everyone.
I understand you’re upset that I have corrected you. Whenever I post to the forum I make sure I’m right. This is why I can say “I am always right”. I don’t post ignorance. I thoroughly research before I type. I did this whenever I wrote papers in college and graduagte school. In fact, it’s quite common in research papers, persuasive writing.
We have the sum of human knowledge at our fingertips. The paradox of our time is that we are more ignorant than ever.
And unlike the Sedes, and Trump, I speak tongue in cheek. I don’t believe I am actually always right. But I’m not going to post without being right. And I’m not going to abandon the Catholic Church, or endorse an evil man.
Hey Steve, Just wondering what the True Mass was before 1570 when, after 1537 years the Church got around to establishing a True Mass.
And how much do you want to bet you and Kono would’ve reacted the same way and threw a tantrum and established a little club to oppose the Council of Trent?
I’ll say it again. Vatican 2 was not dogmatic. It was an illusion that leftists used to reform and people like you used to oppose the Church. Reform only comes from within. From real fighting. Nothing you do as a Sede will save the Church nor your soul .
If Paul 6 was a valid pope, and Vatican II a legitimate ecumenical council, then what was promulgated is binding ordinary magisterium. (Paul 6 said as much).
If Vatican II isn’t binding (or is heretical in part), then non-sedes need to explain how that can be, since it had the teaching authority of the pope in union with the world’s bishops and should have been protected from error.
My admittedly inexpert attempt to square the circle: the NO, like most of the fruits of VII, was *barely* on the side of being Not Absolutely Wrong, and therefore was permitted by heaven. VII was the Church equivalent of a toddler holding up his finger *almost* to his brother’s face, and chanting “I’m not touching you!”
The suppression of The Mass, however, was an “illegal order”; and following it was indiscreet obedience.
If Paul 6 was a valid pope, he had the absolute right to suppress the TLM (not that I would support that). Ultimately. I find it’s the R&R folks who undermine the papacy – not the ’58 or ’22 sedes.
Negative. Immemorial custom has the force of law. Even Pius V tacitly conceded this when in quo primum he ordered the suppression of all other rites *except* those which had been known over 200 years. That is, had been known for as long as there was trustworthy oral tradition.
So Paul VI, presuming he was really the pope, had not the power to order the Mass to be suppressed, whether for a better or a worse rite. The order was illegal, therefore null.
Again, this is me opining in relative ignorance, but I think it hangs together well enough.
Nothing in the 16 V2 documents reflects the reality of what has been done in its name. More importantly, it isn’t infallible because it doesn’t reveal dogma or define heresies. It can be changed or revoked.
Want it changed? Want to go back? Ok, fine. You can’t do that outside of the Church. And Sedes define themselves by being outside of what they think is Vatican 2 religion. They think they are the true Church.
And that’s the problem.
You fight for the Church from within the Church.
So a valid pope, in union with the bishops of the world under the auspices of an ecumenical council, can teach error through the ordinary magisterium…good to know!
Edison, yes. It has happened before, but was corrected later. Filioque controversy best example. Decree on Conciliarism from the Council of Constance another big one.
I don’t think pre-Vatican II teaching / theologians would support your opinion about a legit ecumenical council.
I believe you are wrong about Constance because the pope wasn’t valid: “The Council of Constance was convoked in 1414 by the Anti-Pope John XXIII, one of three rival claimants to the papal throne, the other two being Gregory XII and Benedict XIII. The Council was called to resolve all doubts as to the true successor of Peter, and end the Great Schism. John agreed to resign if his rivals would do the same, then he fled the city. In the absence of a papal convenor, the Council enacted Haec Sancta (fifth session, 15 April 1415), which purported to subject even papal authority to the authority of the Council. John was brought back and deposed for scandalous conduct. Gregory convoked the Council anew, rejected all its prior proceedings (including Haec Sancta), and then resigned.” (From EWTN)
Can you give more detail on the Filioque controversy? I will look into it.
Haec Sancta continued in force under at least two valid popes until overturned over a hundred years later. The Filioque was omitted in the Nicene Credo, contrary to what you’ve been taught. The council at Ephesus in 431 further upheld this. It wasn’t until the ninth century at the earliest that the Filioque was inserted into the Credo.
From what I can see of the Filioque controversy, a clarification to the Creed was made, not a correction, so no error was taught: “Ephesus’s prohibition of making a new creed in addition to the Nicene prompted questions about the status of the material added by Constantinople I. How this material was to be regarded was settled at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), which stated,
Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod . . . decrees that the creed of the 318 fathers is, above all else, to remain inviolate. And because of those who oppose the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit handed down by the 150 saintly fathers who met some time later in the imperial city–the teaching they made known to all, not introducing anything left out by their predecessors, but clarifying their ideas about the Holy Spirit. (Definition of the Faith).
According to Chalcedon, it was permissible for the Fathers of Constantinople I to include the material on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Nicaea; they were not adding substance but clarifying what was already there. Yet if this option of making clarifying notations to the creed was permissible for them, it would be permissible for others also. Thus the Council of Florence could add “filioque” legitimately as a clarification of the manner of the Spirit’s procession.” – Catholic Answers
Again, I believe it is established Catholic teaching that a legitimate ecumenical council in union with a valid pope cannot teach error.
It was omitted on purpose. There was a dispute, and it was omitted.
Edison, the Council of Constance is recognized by the Catholic Church. Pope Gregory XII in 1414.
He confirmed its legitimacy. At the end of the council John XXIII was deposed, Pope Martin V was rightfully elected.
FWIW, the link below explains how the initial sessions of Constance were convened by an anti-pope and how Haec Sancta was therefore promulgated without papal authority. Gregory XII, the valid pope at the time authorized sessions beginning on 4 July 1415 and declared all previous sessions (the first thirteen — which included Haec Sancta) null and void. Martin V ratified the succeeding sessions at the conclusion of the Council. So again, a legitimate ecumenical council did not teach error.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/council-of-constance-1459
Edison, you’ve pasted this here before, and it’s wrong. I’ve provided the accurate history, but you just don’t like it.
It’s not simply that “I don’t like it”, you haven’t provided any sources or citations to backup your assertions. If you have any, I’d like to review them.
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2020/07/de-mattei-fake-news-no-historical-truth.html?m=1
Mark, just a quick glance at the Rorate link and I see the second source they used was a Josef von Hefele, a liberal, German bishop who denied VI papal infallibility. I’ll try to dig into their other sources when I have time.
Mark – I think this article (also by de Mattei) does more to prove your point (you’ll have to hit the translate button):
https://katalikutradicija.lt/istorija/haec-sancta-1415-visuotinio-susirinkimo-dokumentas-pasmerktas-baznycios
However, the article you linked does undercut the validity of the Council at the time Haec Sancta was promulgated, saying it had no authority (de Mattei agreeing):
“Cardinal Brandmüller notes that: “the assize which issued those decrees was in no way an ecumenical council authorized to define the doctrine of the faith. It was, instead, merely an assembly of the followers of John XXIII (Baldassarre Cossa),one of the three “popes” contending at that time for the leadership of the Church. That assembly had no authority. The schism lasted until the council of Constance unified with the other two parties, i.e. the followers of Gregory XII (Angelo Correr) and the ‘natio hispanica’ of Benedict XIII (Pedro Martinez de Luna),an event that occurred in the autumn of 1417. Only then did the ‘council’ of Constance become a true ecumenical council, even if still without a pope, who eventually was then elected.”
All true, but Martin V , elected ‘the true’ Pope in Constance on November 11, 1417, in the Bull Inter cunctas of February 22, 1418, acknowledged the ecumenical nature of the Council of Constance and all that it had decided in the previous years, albeit with a generically restrictive formula: «in favorem fidei et salutem animarum». 2”
All very confusing, as the actions of Gregory XII aren’t addressed, nor is there real clarity as to what was truly accepted or simply allowed to remain unaddressed given pressure on the papacy due to the schism at the time.
Edison, you might also consider a deep dive into the Filioque controversy. This error by omission first committed at Nicaea, continued on through eight successive Ecumenical Councils and their various tinkering with the Credo until, 700 YEARS LATER, it was finally corrected. You’ll agree the Church did not defect at any of these Councils, nor were there nothing but antipopes for 700 years.
Everyone is wondering why LifeSiteNews and Taylor Marshall are suddenly promoting the truth that Bergoglio is an antipope. It is now the fifth or so article on LifeSiteNews presenting the irrefutable evidence that Bergoglio is an antipope.
Ann Barnhardt in her last podcast suggests it is because they really believe it but have been too scared to lose their money and privileges that they get from the establishment Vatican II anti-Church. They are terrified to be excommunicated. Frank Walker at Canon212 thinks it is because Bergoglio is so old, and they are hedging their bets.
On the other hand, deep state operative Eric Sammons (check out his LinkedIn resume; he goes from providing the government with software in Rockville, Maryland, to Director of Evangelization in the Diocese of Venice), who seems to have purchased with CIA money Crisis Magazine and appointed himself the CEO, decided he would never ever criticize “Francis” and that he must repent of this terrible sin.
It reminds me of the sleazy behavior of the RINO deep state operatives Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo before and just after the election.
The “universal peaceful acceptance” crap has to stop. John of St. Thomas is quite clear: “UAP” inherently infers that the Universal Church accepts the claimant as 1) the proximate rule of Faith (in that when he speaks on matters of Faith and morals, the faith accept his teachings as, at the least safe, trustworthy, and not wrong), and 2) the Supreme Legislator (in that when the claimant rules on something or interprets a matter of law, that interpretation is final and binding). NEITHER of those has been granted to any claimant since the death of Pius XII in 1958. Thus, no Conciliar pope has has had universal peaceful acceptance.