Most Infallible 1P5/Remnant Francis Trad Policy is that there has never been any Antipopes in History & it's Impossible that Francis could be an Antipope
The Folly of Michael Matt, John Salza ...
The New Papolaters - OnePeterFive
The renowned scholar Fr. Kramer refutes Salsa on this point, while
upholding the notion of dogmatic fact arrived at by peaceful and
universal acceptance:
“When it is said in response by others,
"the Church" must judge, is it not understood that the definitive and
final judgment can only consist of a judgment ratified by a certain
pope, and not a doubtful one? And such a ratification of a judgment of
"the Church" cannot be made unless the question would first be resolved?
And how would it first be resolved, so that the judgment of "the
Church" could be ratified by a certain pope, unless men first arrive at a
private judgment through the use of the intellective faculty of
judgment to arrive at a reasonable and certain conclusion; so that the
private judgment becomes a general consensus, leading to a universal
acceptance of one claimant over the other? This is how schisms caused by
antipopes were historically resolved: Not by a definitive judgment of
"the Church", which is quite impossible while the positive doubt
persists over which man is the true pope representing the authority of
the Church; but by private judgment which becomes the prevailing general
consensus, and finally becomes a universal acceptance of one claimant
over the other. Thus, the private judgment of St. Bernard of Clairvaux
and Peter the Venerable[…]”
However, it only becomes apparent ex
post facto that private judgment leading up to universal acceptance is
what either prevents schism through withdrawal of false claimants in the
face of such, or makes manifest who the true pope is, as in the case of
Martin V with de Luna holding out to the bitter end.
Fr. Kramer
also upholds the doctrine of papal supremacy in refuting Salsa et al
notion of a sitting pope openly and manifestly espousing heresy being
pope until being deposed by a council, something unequivocally
impossible.
Excerpt From
On the true and false pope
Paul Kramer
https://books.apple.com/us/book/on-the-true-and-false-pope/id1595649148
This material may be protected by copyright. - Michael O'Hearn said [The Catholic Monitor comment section: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/11/the-great-and-powerful-remnant-1p5.html]
The great and powerful Remnant and One Peter Five (1P5) writer John F. Salza can be humorous and wrong at times such as when he attacks "new" Trads for not following the infallible Deep Church editorial policies of Trad Inc. and then breaking them himself. As Salza did for IP5.
Don't "express... contempt":
"Already we see Catholics, many new to the traditional movement, reacting to the motu proprio by expressing contempt for the Pope and the bishops, and publicizing the same throughout the world (i.e., internet)." [https://onepeterfive.com/pope-francis-suppresses-sacred-heart/]
This is not "expressing contempt":
"[F]ollowing Francis’ unconscionable act of idolatry of Pachamama in the Eternal City, civil authorities shut down churches throughout the world in the name of a phony pandemic, and almost all of the bishops capitulated to the lunacy. Now, God is allowing another punishment, a sort of ecclesiastical interdict, coming from the Pope himself. This punishment seeks to bar faithful Catholics from celebrating the Traditional Mass of all time, in favor of the mundane, Protestantized and often sacrilegious worship of the New Mass (which we must resist)." [https://onepeterfive.com/pope-francis-suppresses-sacred-heart/]
But, of all the most infallible Trad Inc. editorial policies, the most infallible is that there have never been any antipopes in history, and if there have possibly been it is impossible that Francis could be an antipope because of the greatest and most powerful theologian of all time. The infallible teaching as taught by the great and powerful Salza in the Remnant newspaper is:
"Catholics remain in union with the man the Church universally accepts as Pope." [https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3491-raymond-cardinal-burke-new-apologist-for-the-sedevacantists]
On February 20, 2020, John Salza claimed that Francis was "universally accepted":
"In
no case were any of these antipopes universally accepted by the entire
episcopacy following their election, as in the case with Pope Francis."
[http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/annbarnhardt-is-liar-and-fool-byjohn.html?m=1]
Salza's editors at the Remnant and 1P5 are not allowing free debate and argument on the validity of the papacy of Francis in their publications or comment sections. So, this seems like a good time to see if their greatest theologian of all time will answer five simple yes or no dubia questions and then respond to Bishop Rene Gracida's rejection of their and Salza's teaching since he would have to be part of that great and powerful infallible teaching of "universal acceptance":
1. Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales said ” The Pope… when he is explicitly a heretic… the Church must either deprive him or as some say declare him deprived of his Apostolic See.” Was St. Francis de Sales a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.
2. “Universal Acceptance” theologian John of St. Thomas said “This man in particular lawfully elected and accepted by the Church is the supreme pontiff.” Was John of St. Thomas for saying “the supreme pontiff” must be BOTH “lawfully elected and accepted by the Church” a Sedevacantist or a Benevacantist? Answer: yes or no.
3. Do you think that a “supreme pontiff” if “universally accepted” is still Pope if, to quote papal validity expert Arnaldo Xavier de Silveira on “dubious election[s]”, that he is “a woman… a child… a demented person… a heretic… a apostate… [which] would [thus] be invalid[ed] by divine law”? Answer: yes or no.
4. Renowned Catholic historian Warren Carroll agreed with Bishop René Gracida on the determining factor for discerning a valid conclave for a valid papal election besides divine law. Carroll pronounced:
“But each Pope, having unlimited sovereign power as head of the Church, can prescribe any method for the election of his successor(s) that he chooses… A papal claimant not following these methods is also an Antipope.”
Are renowned historian Carroll and Bishop Gracida for saying this Sedevacantists or Benevacantists? Answer: yes or no.
5. Is Bishop Gracida really only a pawn of the legendary and notorious “Sedevacantist and Benevacantist” mastermind Ann Barnhardt for convincingly demonstrating that there is valid evidence that Pope John Paul II’s conclave constitution “Universi Dominici Gregis” which “prescribe[d].. [the] method for the election of his successor(s)” was violated and must be investigated by Cardinals? Answer: yes or no. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/06/5-dubia-questions-for-steve-skojec.html]
Finally, on March 23, 2019, Bishop Gracida who would have to be part of such
a "universal acceptance" demonstrated that Salza's statement is false:
https://abyssum.org/2019/03/23/why-do-intelligent-men-pursue-the-application-of-an-obsolete-concept-universal-acceptance-to-the-problem-of-the-invalidity-of-the-papacy-of-francis-the-merciful-in-this-day-and-age-of-instant-elec/
WHY
DO INTELLIGENT MEN PURSUE THE APPLICATION OF AN OBSOLETE CONCEPT
“UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE” TO THE PROBLEM OF THE INVALIDITY OF THE PAPACY OF
FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF INSTANT ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATION AROUND THE WORLD
I am in receipt of an email from Steve Skojec, publisher of the website
OnePeterFive in which he defends his posts in which he argues for the
validity of the election of Francis the Merciful on the basis of the
“universal acceptance” of Francis’ election by the world’s Catholic
population.
The idea of “universal acceptance” of the election of popes of the past
may have had it’s origin in the first centuries of the Church when popes
were chosen by acclamation of the assembled citizens of Rome, and
perhaps later when the princes and kings of Europe decided on the
legitimacy of papal contestants in the time of the Avignon captivity of
the papacy.
But the idea of “universal acceptance” as the principle determining the
validity of Francis’ claim to the Chair of Peter is absurd in this day
of instant electronic communication. There is not a world-wide Pew or
Gallup poll that can determine the degree of “acceptance” of the
Bergolian regime as valid by the world’s Catholic population.
From the moment that Francis appeared on the balcony of St. Peter’s
Basilica improperly dressed and accompanied by men of known or suspected
homosexual orientation many Catholics besides myself were shocked and
dismayed.
Almost immediately almost every word publicly uttered by Francis shocked
Catholic sensibilities, such as telling the woman with several children
to “stop breeding like rabbits.” Many Catholics withheld their
“acceptance” and adopted a wait-and-see attitude.
Then the Amoris Laeticia debacle unfolded and now an even larger
percentage of Catholic around the world began to express reservations
about the ‘papacy’ of Francis the Merciful. There was never universal
acceptance of the validity of Jorge Bergoglio.
One thing is certain, the popes of the Twentieth Century were aware that
the election of future popes was now no longer subject to the
interference of kings and princes as in the past, now the corruption of
the democratic processes for choosing the heads of nations was
threatening the papal conclaves of the Church. Pope Paul VI, perhaps
alarmed by the forces for radical reform of the Church follow the lead
of his recent predecessor and published a revision of the Apostolic
Constitution which governs papal conclaves.
It is unthinkable that Pope Saint John Paul II was unaware of the
plotting that began with the St. Gallen Mafia in the early 1990s.
His magnificent Apostolic Constituion, Universi Dominci Gregis, was his
prescient action to head off the corruption of the conclaves of the
future. Yet, the rot at the center of the hierarchy had progress to
such point that Jorge Bergoglio was almost elected instead of Joseph
Ratzinger, but the St. Gallen conspirators succeed in 2013 with the
election of Francis the Merciful.
What is the sure test of the validity of the election of a cardinal to
the papacy? It is not the medieval concept of ‘universal acceptance.’
It is compliance with the law of the Church. The Apostolic Constitution
Universi Dominici Gregis is the only law in effect since it was
published by Pope Saint John Paul II in 1992.
If there is one characteristic that is common to the leadership of the
Church since the Second Vatican Council is disregard for law, all law,
divine law and canon law. Men who would be architects of the Church of
the Future ignore the law of God and the law of His Church. That is why
some cling to the outmoded concept of ‘universal acceptance’ of a man
who obtained the Chair of Peter through the manipulations of many who by
their immoral lives reveal their contempt for law, all law, including
Divine Law.
His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, having known a prodigious amount of information on this,
was fully knowledgeable in the details of dogmatic and doctrinal principles which previous
to his Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, could and would be applied to resolve
questions about the validity of a particular historic Papacy, and that His Holiness categorically
and specifically intended to dispense with, and utterly to preempt, the need for, and use of,
any principles which had been applied historically to resolve ambiguities and doubts
about the incumbency of any Pontiff putatively emerging from a Conclave to which His
Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis applied.
This means that because the status of Monsignor Bergoglio can be determined completely
by a fair and just application of Universi Dominici Gregis without reference to any guidance
external or extrinsic to such Constitution, having recourse to such historic doctrinal and
dogmatic concepts, e.g., universal acceptance, is neither material nor relevant, and never
necessary or proper for the rational discernment of the question of whether or not
Monsignor Bergoglio was validly elected as a true Roman Pontiff. The
“scienter” Promulgation determines this certainty of discernment
confined within the “four corners” of the Constitution:
“This Constitution . . . is to be fully and integrally implemented and is to serve as a guide
for all to whom it refers. As determined above, I hereby declare abrogated all Constitutions
and Orders issued in this regard by the Roman Pontiffs, and at the same time I declare
completely null and void anything done by any person, whatever his authority, knowingly
or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.”[Promulgation
Clause, Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis]
This language does not admit of any exception, and certainly not an exception based on
the degree to which a putative Pope has “acceptance” as such. “Universal acceptance”
originated in an age before the printing press, a time when what was required was known
by few and what was performed was understood by even less. It simply has no place
in discerning a Conclave called subject to Universi Dominici Gregis. What Skojec,
Does not seem to understand is that, long in advance and lawfully, His Holiness, Pope
John Paul II, has forbidden anyone from resorting to “universal acceptance”
or any other principle extrinsic to Universi Dominici Gregis to discern the outcome of papal election.
Thus, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, having known a prodigious amount of information on this,
was fully knowledgeable in the details of dogmatic and doctrinal principles which previous
to his Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis, could and would be applied to resolve
questions about the validity of a particular historic Papacy, and His Holiness categorically
and specifically intended to dispense with, and utterly to preempt, the need for, and use of,
any such principles which had been applied historically to resolve ambiguities and doubts
about the incumbency of any Pontiff putatively emerging from a Conclave to which His
Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis applied.
This means that because the status of Monsignor Bergoglio can be determined completely
by a fair and just application of Universi Dominici Gregis without reference to any guidance
external or extrinsic to such Constitution, having recourse to any such historic doctrinal and
dogmatic concept, e.g., universal acceptance, is neither material nor relevant, and never
necessary or proper for the rational discernment of the question of whether or not
Monsignor Bergoglio was validly elected as a true Roman Pontiff. The “scienter” Promulgation
determines this certainty of discernment confined within the “four corners” of the Constitution:
“This Constitution . . . is to be fully and integrally implemented and is to serve as a guide
for all to whom it refers. As determined above, I hereby declare abrogated all Constitutions
and Orders issued in this regard by the Roman Pontiffs, and at the same time I declare
completely null and void anything done by any person, whatever his authority, knowingly
or unknowingly, in any way contrary to this Constitution.” [Promulgation
Clause, Apostolic Constitution, Universi Dominici Gregis]
This language does not admit of any exception, and certainly not an exception based on
the degree to which a putative Pope has “acceptance” as such. “Universal acceptance”
originated in an age before the printing press, a time when what was required was known
by few and what was performed was understood by even less. It simply has no place
in discerning a Conclave called subject to Universi Dominici Gregis.
Some do not seem to understand that, long in advance and lawfully, His Holiness, Pope
John Paul II, has forbidden and anyone from resorting to “universal acceptance”
or any other principle extrinsic to Universi Dominici Gregis in order to discern the outcome.
[https://abyssum.org/2019/03/23/why-do-intelligent-men-pursue-the-application-of-an-obsolete-concept-universal-acceptance-to-the-problem-of-the-invalidity-of-the-papacy-of-francis-the-merciful-in-this-day-and-age-of-instant-elec/]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis's Amoris Laetitia.