Is 1P5 Expert Siscoe a Poor Scholar or a bit Disingenuous in Francis Validity Defense in leaving out St. Alphonsus's full Quote?
It appears that the OnePeterFive website papal validity expert Robert Siscoe could possibly be either a poor scholar or possibly a bit disingenuous in his leaving out the second part of a quote by a Doctor of the Church.
He says "peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected... nevertheless becomes a true Pope... [by] universal acceptance... curing any defects that may have existed in the election... Here is what [Doctor of the Church] St. Alphonsus taught:"
'It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff.'"
(TrueorFalsePope.com, "Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope," 2-28-19 & 3-20-19)
The problem with Siscoe's quote is he leaves out the very next sentence:
"'But if for a certain time, he was not accepted universally and truly by the Church, during that time then, the pontifical see would be vacant, as it is vacant at the death of a Pope.' 'Verita Della Fede', vol. VIII, p. 720.'"
(CathInfo.com, "Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal," December 2, 2017)
Did Siscoe leave it out because he is a poor scholar or for some other reason or because it said "for a certain time"?
He nor I know when this "certain time" is?
Is that "certain time" immediately at the conclave or is it a few years after the conclave?
Does this possibly mean that since Francis "afterwards... for a certain time... was not accepted universally... then, the pontifical see would be vacant"?
Francis is not "accepted universally."
I am honored to know a successor of the Apostles, Bishop Rene Gracida, who questions the validity of Francis and is calling for the cardinals to investigate if he was "lawfully elected."
Moreover, Siscoe can't have it both ways in his quotes when they apparently contradict each other.
In the above same article he quotes John of St. Thomas saying:
"[T]his man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff."
This quote of John of St. Thomas agrees with renown Catholic historian Warren Carroll's declaration about valid popes having to be "lawfully elected":
"A Papal claimant not following these methods [which are the laws of the conclave constitution of a previous pope] is also an Antipope."
(EWTN.com/library, "Antipope")
Strangely, Siscoe is a sedevacantist expert and should know they use that full quote to say all popes after Vatican II are Antipopes because "for a certain time [the Vatican II popes were]... not accepted universally."
(The sedevacantists reject Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales teaching that the Church [i.e. the cardinals] need to declare a pope a formal heretic before as St. Alphonsus says "the pontifical see would be vacant.")
Why did the sedevacantist expert Siscoe leave out the the second part of the quote?
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
He says "peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope who was not legitimately elected... nevertheless becomes a true Pope... [by] universal acceptance... curing any defects that may have existed in the election... Here is what [Doctor of the Church] St. Alphonsus taught:"
'It is of no importance that in the past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would become the true Pontiff.'"
(TrueorFalsePope.com, "Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope," 2-28-19 & 3-20-19)
The problem with Siscoe's quote is he leaves out the very next sentence:
"'But if for a certain time, he was not accepted universally and truly by the Church, during that time then, the pontifical see would be vacant, as it is vacant at the death of a Pope.' 'Verita Della Fede', vol. VIII, p. 720.'"
(CathInfo.com, "Contra Cekadam by Fr. Francois Chazal," December 2, 2017)
Did Siscoe leave it out because he is a poor scholar or for some other reason or because it said "for a certain time"?
He nor I know when this "certain time" is?
Is that "certain time" immediately at the conclave or is it a few years after the conclave?
Does this possibly mean that since Francis "afterwards... for a certain time... was not accepted universally... then, the pontifical see would be vacant"?
Francis is not "accepted universally."
I am honored to know a successor of the Apostles, Bishop Rene Gracida, who questions the validity of Francis and is calling for the cardinals to investigate if he was "lawfully elected."
Moreover, Siscoe can't have it both ways in his quotes when they apparently contradict each other.
In the above same article he quotes John of St. Thomas saying:
"[T]his man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff."
This quote of John of St. Thomas agrees with renown Catholic historian Warren Carroll's declaration about valid popes having to be "lawfully elected":
"A Papal claimant not following these methods [which are the laws of the conclave constitution of a previous pope] is also an Antipope."
(EWTN.com/library, "Antipope")
Strangely, Siscoe is a sedevacantist expert and should know they use that full quote to say all popes after Vatican II are Antipopes because "for a certain time [the Vatican II popes were]... not accepted universally."
(The sedevacantists reject Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales teaching that the Church [i.e. the cardinals] need to declare a pope a formal heretic before as St. Alphonsus says "the pontifical see would be vacant.")
Why did the sedevacantist expert Siscoe leave out the the second part of the quote?
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
Comments
Actually, you are being very benign when you say that, perhaps, Mr. Siscoe is a 'poor scholar' or perhaps 'disingenuous.'
He obviously can read. However, he has selectively omitted immediately proximate excerpts from the very text he uses.
This is to distort the author's intention who wrote that text.
It is analogous to deliberately suppressing what is true in order to present what is false.
This is not praiseworthy in the least.