Universal Acceptance for Everyone?
Universal Acceptance is a dogmatic fact, which until recently, was one of Catholicism’s obscure tidbits. It was resurrected by John Salza and Robert Siscoe in their seminal work combatting modern errors, among which is Sedevacatism. But it finds application in the Benedict/Francis controversy as well. This site initially attacked the concept – until being taken behind the woodshed.
This article explores universal acceptance in the context of singular non-acceptance, which regards the question: did Pope Francis’ non-acceptance of the papal office void the election? While the answer is presumed to be no, nevertheless, there are unanswered questions and an unprecedented circumstance.
On the surface, the answer appears to be cut and dry. The unanimous opinion of the canon lawyers and theologians is that universal acceptance is a dogmatic fact, which has further recognition by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. However, what is not known is whether the present situation was considered.
It would be, of course, an incredible miss by the many brilliant and holy men, who diligently examined this. But stranger things have happened, and these are strange times. However, here, only questions are raised: the answers are unknown. So, let us begin with the extraordinary times we find ourselves in.
The secret of La Salette provides an overview, which paints two distinct stages. The first stage is turmoil/persecutions/chastisements that will be followed by a period of peace (25 plentiful harvests), which is the peace subsequently promised at Fatima. The second stage is the degeneration that terminates with the coming of Anti-Christ. But the Virgin presented these two stages as a single chain of events: a unity.
La Salette covers roughly two hundred and fifty years of history. Coupled with the typical obscurities of private revelation and vision imagery, precise interpretations will be hit and miss. But the general outline is clear enough: the Anti-Christ will appear tomorrow. Granted, La Salette only provides a lower bound of say three decades (and no upper bound). But in terms of Church history, that is tomorrow…
The upshot is this: the common opinion is Anti-Christ will attack the Church from without, suppressing it, etc. This will be the definitive attack of Christ’s Church from the outside. Therefore, per parallelism, what we are living through now is the definitive attack of the Church from the inside. Before the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, this attack will have a culmination point. There are many indications this is coinciding with Pope Francis.
The implication is the Conclave of 2013 was a singular event, definitive in magnitude, apocalyptic in substance. With that backdrop, singular non-acceptance will be examined.
Popemobile for sale: never used!
Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG) defines the current rules for papal elections. UDG 88 reads: “After his acceptance, the person elected, if he has already received episcopal ordination, is immediately Bishop of the Church of Rome, true Pope….” So, is the required acceptance more than providing the empty show of driving around in a Popemobile? The direct analog is marriage.
The Supreme Pontiff receives his power directly from God. The electors choose, the electee accepts, but it is God who confers the office. A sacramental marriage is quite similar: the man and woman choose, the priest witnesses, but it is God who establishes the unbreakable bond of matrimony. But there is no sacrament if the couple doesn’t actually commit. The classic example is when one partner has no intension of being faithful. If a marriage tribunal establishes that, the marriage is declared null and void. In fine, God never joined the couple in marriage.
Regarding papal elections, consider the extreme example of the Anti-Christ being elected Pope. As a master of deception, including not revealing himself immediately, the Cardinals could possibly choose him, notwithstanding the many reasons why this won’t be so. Yet, could God confer upon him the papal office? This is taken to be impossible since the colossal contradiction of the Anti-Christ substantially being the Vicar of Christ is evident.
In particular, Anti-Christ will do everything to destroy the Church, replacing it with satanic worship and belief. The complete obliteration of the moral order is a given. This, of course, is diametrically opposed to the papal office, whose foundational function is to guard and protect the deposit of the faith, and to preach and teach the same.
So far, Bergoglio and the Anti-Christ are on the same page. Bergoglio’s agenda of transforming the Catholic Church into the Anti-Church is quite transparent: it is Sankt Gallen Mafia’s brand of Modernism, it is a systematic attack on central doctrinal teaching, it annihilates the moral order – and the list goes on.
Bergoglio differs from the Anti-Christ in terms of style, intensity, directness and depth. The modus operandi is to act slowly: “a quiet revolution.” Just as it took one century (two if measured per Freemasonry) to obtain the papacy, this mafia’s plan is long term. However, in contrast to the Anti-Christ, Bergoglio actually cares about humanity. The problem is he does seemingly more so as a secularistic humanist.
So, did Bergoglio never intend to uphold the deposit of faith: always planning to undermine it? Acceptance means agreeing; an agreement is a contract. In fine, acceptance is contractual at its root. Bergoglio’s intended breach of contract cannot be seriously disputed. Pope Pius X quipped that Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. But it is also fair to summarize like this: Modernism is apostasy masquerading as Church reform. The operative question is Bergoglio’s apostasy sufficiently deep that Jesus Christ rejected him and thus did not confer the papal office?
A Hole in the Bucket?
Universal and peaceful acceptance shouts a resounding NO – the election aftermath was the infallible effect of a valid election wherein the doctrine admits no false positives. Yet, was the case of non-acceptance anticipated by of the theologians? Singular non-acceptance potentially brings something new to the mix.
John of Saint Thomas developed his thesis based on the Pope being the living rule of faith. The Catholic faith is contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition as handed down by the apostles. But what exactly is that? The rule of faith is the measure by which the deposit of faith is understood: it is the authoritative interpretation. From this, it follows the Supreme Pontiff is the living rule of faith.
Another key ingredient of this doctrine is Indefectibility of the Church. For the Church to survive, papal election validity must be infallibly known. This is connected to the necessity for a rule of faith. But Bergoglio is a living anti-rule of faith: his raison d'être is to subvert Catholicism.
The theological magic thus needed is resolving how Indefectibility admits an anti-rule of faith, of necessity. This is further compounded by the fact that Indefectibility does not prevent the Church from flying into pieces when shaken to the core. Indefectibility, ultimately, only provides for the Church’s survival. This in turns strikes at the timing question. For this singular apocalyptic case, why could not the uproar of an invalid election be delayed?
Alas, the answers are locked in Latin: currently no English translation of John’s thesis exists. As such, little more will be said. But a critical examination is in order: Missourians have the right to be shown exactly why denying universal acceptance is a denial of the Catholic faith.
Regarding the Benedict controversy, universal acceptance provides a simple dogmatic answer. A clear exposition would help those pondering, such as Father Z who recently touched upon singular non-acceptance inadvertently (see Appendix A).
The current status of the theological consensus saying so without determining if singular non-acceptance is covered leaves legitimate room for doubt, regardless the chances are slim that universal acceptance fails. And while a clear proof would probably not be universally accepted, few practicing Catholics would explicitly deny dogmas. So, hopefully, someone with competency in Latin will unveil the theology.
|Our singularly beautiful consecration hymn to the Blessed Mother has just been universally accepted. The debate is over... All proceeds go to charity. Click here for details.|