Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope: Refuting Sedevacantism

This is just a short post brining attention of an excellent and complete refutation of any form of sedevacantism. One way to evade acceptance of Vatican II is too claim that the see of Peter is vacant. This position is not sustainable.

An excellent treatment of the topic can be found here http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html#:~:text=The%20peaceful%20and%20universal%20acceptance%20of%20a%20Pope,the%20form%20to%20the%20matter%20following%20the%20election.

Or just type in Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope. Then click on trueorflasepopr.com

I have to personally thank these authors for their work. They helped my soul out when I was journeying through these issues.

This website linked below goes over a detailed list of objections to the Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope. (you can translate from French into English using the Edge Browser) Universal Pacific Acceptance: Response to Objections – + Archdeacon + (wordpress.com)

Summary of objections and responses give by the link above.

After explaining the need for this doctrine, we will respond to various objections:

  • “Universal Pacific Acceptance is not a consensus among theologians.”
  • “Universal Pacific Acceptance is only a theological opinion.”
  • “Universal Pacific Acceptance concerns the whole Church, not just the bishops, and lay people have refused the legitimacy of John XXIII.”
  • “We sedevacantists did not exist before the promulgation of the heresies of Vatican II, and we had no reason to exist since no heresy has been defined.”
  • “During the vacancy of the See of Peter, the Church cannot teach dogmatic facts. It cannot therefore teach that a man has been legitimately elected and holds supreme authority. »
  • “Even if the bishops do not consider us Catholic, they are not infallible, and we still belong to their government and are subject to them.”
  • “Universal Pacific Acceptance only guarantees the legitimacy of the election of the chosen one, not that he is truly and legitimately Pope and Head of the Universal Church.”
  • “The bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio contradicts the doctrine of Universal Pacific Acceptance.”
  • “The antipopes Constantine II and Christophore were universally accepted by all bishops.”
  • “The election of universally accepted Popes were deemed null and void.”
  • “Theologians disobeyed John XXIII, so he did not benefit from Universal Pacific Acceptance.”
  • “Bishops disobeyed, and even doubted the legitimacy of Paul VI, so he did not benefit from peaceful and universal acceptance.”

Published by PromoteVaticanII

Protecting, Providing for and Promoting the message of Vatican II

32 thoughts on “Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope: Refuting Sedevacantism

    1. Thank you for the comment. Could you name a heresy and give the paragraph and decree/constitution that Vatican II taught it in?
      I think that it taught using the Ordinary Magisterium as is guarded from error by that very fact.

      Like

      1. Lumen Gentium 16: “But the design of salvation also includes those who recognize the Creator, and among them especially the Mosley’s; it is their avowal that they hold the faith of Abraham, they join us in adoring the single, merciful God who will judge mankind at the last day.” THIS IS HERESY TO TEACH PEOPLE WILL BE SAVED THROUGH FALSE RELIGION.

        Like

      2. Thank you again for the discussion. Perhaps this response may be of some light.
        Response: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-catechism-on-islam
        Basically, you have to take paragraph 16 in context with paragraph 13 and the entire work. (they are related structurally going from closely related to church to far and distant) It would be odd to think Lumen Gentium (Light for the Nations) is actually teaching you can be saved outside the Catholic Church. –The Church would not be a light then would it? Paragraph 13 of Lumen Gentium starts with, “All women and men are called to belong to the new people of God” and ends with, “All are called to this catholic unity…” It clearly teaches that the Catholic Church is were all are called to be. Lumen Gentium then says people belong or relate in different ways to the Church. These ways are related in the subsequent paragraphs going from closely to distantly related.
        This is clearly taught in Lumen Gentium 9 that the Catholic Church is the only true religion. “So it is that that messianic people (The Church), although it does not actually include all men, and at times may look like a small flock, is nonetheless a lasting and sure seed of unity, hope and salvation for the whole human race.” –Lumen Gentium #9 Vatican Website Translation
        Do Muslims worship the same God as Catholics? Muslims don’t get everything right because they don’t worship a Triune God, but they do profess (does not mean they actually do) to hold to the faith of Abraham. Thus, they worship imperfectly the one God just as the Jews do but do so imperfectly because of other wrong beliefs and misconceptions. Any quotations from previous Popes used to counter this claim should be read with the understanding that they also held that the Jews worship the same God, be it imperfectly, even though they did not believe in the Trinity. There would be little continuity between the New and Old testaments otherwise. To deny this would destroy a basic tenant of Catholic thought resulting in a form of Gnosticism which held that the Old Testament God was not the same as the God of the New Testament. It has been held from Apostolic times that the Jews worship the same God even though they don’t have a Trinity. In conclusion, Lumen Gentium teaches that the Catholic Church is for salvation but others only have limited connections to God and need to journey closer.
        Claiming or saying it is their avowal to hold the faith of Abraham may be true but V2 does not claim this offers salvation.

        In Fact, Pope St. Pius X http://www.catechism.cc/catechisms/Catechism_of_Pope_Saint_Pius_X.pdf goes even further than Vatican II in his Catechism Q12 under the communion of the saints section. All Vatican II says is that the Muslims worship God – that they are theists. St. Pius X’s catechism goes so far as to say that they worship the true God! That is something to recall when debating this issue. It was not something Vatican II came up with, and it never used the word true, just God as to point out that they are theists.
        I hope this helps — thank you for the discussion.

        Like

      3. I guess I just have a problem with the way in which the documents have been ambiguously written, and this nuance of true has been used by the enemies of the Catholic Church to subvert the whole message of the gospel.

        Like

      4. You would not be alone in that conclusion. Yes, I have thought about the ambiguity as well. The way I see it now is that St. Paul is ambiguous as well as St. Peter says. The difference with V2 is that some claim the ambigousness is on purpose. If this is granted you also have to grant that the same ‘evil’ writers were present during the last 50 years of Papal documents because most Popes or at least the majority of documents and Vatican documents have been Vatican II inspired or expansions and clarifications. Since, the same writers could not have been present throughout 5 Papacies of documents I just cannot hold the view that the majority of ambiguity was done on purpose. Plus after 50 years the chance of the doctrine being guarded by error increases in the Ordinary Magisterial level. I think a lot of the time V2 documents have a clarifying phrase given by the Holy Spirit in 1-5 paragraphs before or after the grey area. It is true that evil can twist the good – look at Jesus in the desert being attacked with scripture quotes. Yet, perhaps there is room to play on both sides. I would not claim V2 was perfect. Yet, for us to be holy and reclaim the world we don’t need the best council ever (the apostles sure were not) we simply need the council given us by God no matter how hard others tried to de-rail it.
        Cheers my friend.

        Like

    1. Hello Thank you for the reply. I don’t think you should be speaking of the Holy Father in that way. I profess fidelity to Francis valid and current bishop of Rome vicar of Christ on Earth. Who do you think is the Pope?

      Like

      1. Thank you for the comment. I think on this one you might have overlooked the fact that priest and bishops do not dispense sacraments through their own powers. As you probably already know, during the time of St. Augustine there was a heresy known as the Donatist. One of their views that was condemned by the Church and St. Augustine was the fact that the moral worth of the priest made the sacrament valid or not. You can find this in the Catechism of the Catholic church #1584 where the worthiness of the priest does not impair the sacrament. Same idea for the Pope, his ability to teach infallible doctrine or be assisted by Holy Spirit is not because he is holy, but in virtue of his Office -that of Pope. I hope this helps clarify. I personally think the Pope is very Holy, if you disagree that is okay – we should still both hold that his teaching authority does not come from his worth but from his office. Thanks Pray for me I will Pray for you.

        Like

      2. I agree. The sacraments are not effected by the sin of a Priest. However, I would question the validity of them on the grounds that the all the traditional rites and ceremonies have been changed. Especially the sacrament of Holy Orders which pertains to priesthood.

        Like

      3. Okay, I can see how that claim could come about. Could you be more specific. The Church has the power to change the rites and languages as has been done in the past. Change in itself would not make it invalid. Yet, I doubt you are making that claim. You probably have a more distinct reason of what parts should not have been changed. There has been several forms of ordination existing in the eastern Catholic Churches for centuries along side the Latin one so I personally think the form is more fluid than we sometimes think. Honestly, I am not as up to date on the liturgical environment and these discussion as in other Vatican II topics. The SPPX even hold that bishop’s consecration in the Novus Ordo is valid https://sspx.org/en/validity-new-rite-episcopal-consecrations#:~:text=Validity%20of%20new%20rite%20of%20episcopal%20consecrations%20Why,consecration%20and%20concluded%20that%20it%20must%20be%20invalid.

        Like

      4. With all the changes since V2, I’m just saying the sacraments are doubtful. According to Pope Benedict XI Catholics should not approach doubtful sacraments. The communion in the hand is an example; if transubstansiation is true, then this practice is a sacrilege. While the Pope has the power to change discipline, yes, but this discipline goes against dogma. The Mass was clearly Protestantized by the modernists. While Priests may retain some vest age of Apostolic succession in their ordination, the scandals and loss of faith that these novelty has caused can only be attributed to malformed modernist priests. Why expose myself to all that heresy? I go to the TLM to try to save my soul, the Novus Ordo is conducive to loss of faith and compromise. Only the cognitive dissident mind can be at home in that atmosphere. I’m sure the Lord is offended, because of apathy and irreverent attitudes. I want something transcendent, beautiful, that gives glory to God.

        Like

      5. Okay thank you. I go to the Novus Ordo, because I don’t think anything taught by the ordinary magisterium could lead to a loss of faith and moral because that would be greave error, yet Christ has promised protection from grave error to his teaching authority when acting together. My mind has faith in Christ’s promise so that is how I go to Novus Ordo without being a dissident mind. It does not matter what others do my holiness and reverence is my own actions – others cannot change that. My website has a whole section on communion on the hand which I support as not something that promotes error. According to the General Instruction of the Mass V2 reforms actually completed what Trent some of what Trent wanted to do but for lack of ancient sources did not have all the records. Personally, I think Novus Ordo is not to blame but other trends going on at the same time for the loss of faith in the Western World. Charlemagne and others made alot of change that perhaps should not have been introduced to the Mass. Novus Ordo has been great in Africa and Asia.

        I think we are not going to agree on this liturgical point but at least we both have had a great discussion. I learn a lot from everyone that I meet. TLM is very beautiful, I don’t think there is anything wrong with going to it as long as the reasons are right and just. So I thank you again.

        Like

      6. When was I was a Protestant, we learned many theological positions. One of them was semi-Pelagianism, this is the error I am seeing which puts too much emphasis on The free will of men, and not enough on the sovereignty of God. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas spoke to such notions, but the modern church has forgotten. Choosing instead relativism and Pelagianism to try to obtain salvation for all. The words of the Gospel say “many” not all; this hyper-mercy that is preached leads to Universalism.

        Like

      7. Honestly, I don’t think this conversation is getting anywhere anymore so I am less inclined to continue but anyway. Yes, there are many heresies and what you say can be true, but what about the idea of Protestantism itself. The idea that a person and pick and chose the ecumenical councils they want simply because of their own private understanding of the faith. It is equally as wrong to say V2 or modern Papal teaching is in error based upon a private judgement than it was 500 years ago when Luther broke from the Church because they would not offer him a response that he personally understood. I stand with the bishops and Pope. That is the truth.
        In response to your comment sent over email.
        V2 did not break with tradition in being pastoral only. Several other councils were as well In fact, three ecumenical councils—the First Lateran Council (1123), the Second Lateran Council (1139), and the Third Lateran Council (1179)—were disciplinary councils. Not only did these ecumenical councils not define any new dogmas, they did not address matters of doctrine at all.
        Was V2 just pastoral? No. While the Council did not define any new dogmas , and while its aims were largely pastoral, Vatican II also reaffirmed dogmas of the faith and developed key doctrines. In other words, the Council’s substance—as the names of its four constitutions make clear —are not merely dealing with pastoral matters.

        Yes, I did say that V2 did not define any dogma extraordinarily —- but it did define teaching using the ordinary magisterium of the Church.
        Is Vatican II teaching binding and infallible or fallible and optional?? This is a false dilemma. First, as stated before, Vatican II does affirm infallible dogmas of the faith. These affirmations require the assent of faith on the part of Catholics.

        But even when they are not affirming infallible dogma, the Second Vatican Council presents the teachings of the ordinary and universal Magisterium through an ecumenical council of the Church. This means that these teachings are assisted by the Holy Spirit (CCC 688), are promulgated by the pope in communion with the “authentic teachers of the apostolic faith endowed with the authority of Christ” (CCC 888), and require “religious assent which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it” (CCC 892). In short, the teachings are guarded from doctrinal error and are binding on all Catholics; they are not optional.
        Bishop Barron has recently commented on these question in response to Arch. Viagano and others false claims https://www.wordonfire.org/vatican-ii-faq/?fbclid=IwAR3epR-2qyxNVxJ5nAaWTomDY7QX4n2tYohkWZ1wxw-aL3iBm96kwLEGpCU#pastoral

        Like

      8. That is true a malformed practice does effect the faith. Yet, I would not be so hasty to call that out on Novus Ordo Catholics as if it does not also apply to the TLM. In Jesus’ time both the Pharisees in their tradition and the more liberal Sadducees both had problems. The conservative Pharisees lost sight of major parts of God’s message and made their human laws equal to that of God’s. I am not saying that everyone who attends more conservative traditionalist churches make human laws greater than God’s but the tendency is there is several groups and people that I know. There are many examples were traditional groups cry out against modern topics simply because they are modern forgetting that they are also called in obedience to obey. Personally, I think the Church is for sinners. That is why the Novus Ordo is so great. It gets people at all levels. If the TLM was as powerful as people claim — there would be more sinners and those of wavering faith attending because that is what the Church is about – getting those people to go deeper. Jesus’ disciples were not very faithful. On earth Jesus’ disciples looked more like Novus Ordo — good bad and the ugly.

        Like

      9. False obedience to error is the scourge of the Nicolaitans, who St. Jerome taught would conquer the laity. Resistance to error must be based in truth of scripture and tradition, and the knowledge of such. Blind obedience leads people to perdition. “My people perish for lack of knowledge.”(Hosea 4:1) You are wrong! The Church is for the Saints, who are reformed sinners. This is where the hierarchy has tried to down play sin just fill the pews. While the traditional side has its problems, at least they are not compromising their doctrine to include false pretenders into their midst. I am all for some latitude and grace when it comes to converts, but allowing people to live in sin while calling themselves Catholic or Christian is a grave sin against God’s Church. If it were only the outward form I would not have as much problem with innovation, but this modernism(which is a heresy, P.Pius X) has infected the core teachings and attempted to change Dogma itself. The Church is immutable, And as you should know Vatican II does contradict established Church teaching; ie. religious liberty, collegiality, and false ecumenism.

        Like

      10. I can agree that yes, there is a sense of universal salvation that should not be present in the Church. Perhaps the wording in V2 has contributed to this. Honestly, I like to Follow St. Kolbe on obedience. “The superiors can make mistakes, but we in obeying can never make a mistake. There is only one exception: if a superior should ever command a thing clearly evident to be a sin, even the smallest sin. This is a thing that does not happen in practice. In such a case the superior would not be the representative of God, and we would not be obliged to obey him. Apart from the superiors we cannot trust our reason, which can make a mistake. Only God, only He, infallible, most holy, most loving, He is our Lord, Father, Creator, End, Reason, Strength, Love… Our Everything!” -St. Kolbe (cf. Ricciardi, Rev. Antonio O.F.M. Conv. St. Maximilian Kolbe Apostle of our Difficult Age. Translated by Daugthers of St. Paul. Daugters of Saint Paul, 1982 page 84) The whole point is that Superiors saying to do evil – in St. Kolbe’s opinion — does not happen in practice. As a result I have faith in the Pope and Bishops. Even if what they say is not perfect – that will still make me holy. (I think V2 and Pope are great – but that does not really matter what I think – only what makes me holy)
        I can see how you think modernism has entered the church. Yet, I disagree that V2 broke on religious liberty, collegiality and ecumenism. My commentary on Religious liberty can be found here https://defendingvatican2.ca/defending-vatican-ii/10-0-dignitatis-humanae/ and my commentary on ecumenism can be found here https://defendingvatican2.ca/defending-vatican-ii/8-0-unitatis-redintegratio/
        Thank you again for the discussion.
        Again, I can see how you think that modernism has changed dogma, yet I do believe that there has been no rupture but a continuity with the faith and tradition. And excellent book I recommend is Vatican II: Renewal Within Tradition ed. by Matthew Lamb and Matthew Levering.
        I have never heard of your quote from St. Jerome I will have to do some research into it.
        Peace and please continue to pray for me and my family – we can use the prayers.

        Like

  1. For the record, I am not a Sedevacantist. But hold to the Sedeprivationist position. Therefore, I can say the Pope is materially Pope, but does not retain the charism of infallibility regarding faith and morals.

    Like

    1. Okay, my question to the materially pope but not with powers would be that this causes problems. For example, V2 never taught using Papal infallibility. It taught using Ordinary Magisterium of the Church which has all the bishops in line with the Pope. Thus, it is not directly Peter’s power that brings the safeguard but the group. Also, there is a sense of the faithful sensus fidelium. In a way if the entire faithful (or nearly so) believe something for a long time in line with tradition it is safe to assume that it is true. This type of sense was mentioned as to why the Assumption of Mary should be dogma in the extraordinary Papal proclamation sense. I would claim that the sense of the faithful claim that the current Pope has powers formally thus, it is at least the most lickely to be true. Also, if the previous Popes had no power they would not be able to elect cardinals. That would have made the current election invalid because ‘false’ unduly elected cardinals voted so Francis could not be materially but not formally Pope. It has to be both or neither.
      I think that you hold to the thesis of Cassiciacum. https://catholicendtimetruths.com/can-one-be-materially-pope-and-not-formally-also-2/10/08/2019 I personally don’t see how a Pope could be elected validly to be a formal Pope if this does not also come with the authority to Govern and Teach which are a direct part of the office. It should also be noted that no Pope is elected. The cardinal choose a member, but God himself gives the office. He is not limited by material matters.
      Anyway you have an very nuanced position, you must have thought it out. You must have love of God to think it out that much Please Pray for me I pray for you.

      Like

      1. You should also consider St. Bellarmine and his opinion that a heretic Pope would Ipso facto cease to be Pope if he was a manifest public heretic who was pernicious in his heterodox . Francis definitely fit this criteria.

        Like

      2. I think you are familiar with Ronald L. Conte as your website did a review of some of his works. On the topic of St. Bellarmine I support his view that https://ronconte.com/2020/02/28/what-bellarmine-really-said-on-heretical-popes/ St. Bellarmine thought that it is probably that I Pope could never be a Heretic.
        https://ronconte.com/2014/10/31/what-saint-bellarmine-really-said-about-popes-and-heresy/
        Personally I also believe that Vatican I (not II) taught that since the Pope has the sure charism of the faith he cannot teach or fall into grave error, but I would have to look into that one some more.

        Anyway I do believe there is room on either side of this point about being a heretic Pope and still being in office as a lot of theologians say different things about the topic https://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/can-pope-heretic
        Thank you again, I am learning alot. Your points are very good and make me learn and think!

        Like

      3. I don’t think that was what Vatican I was saying. The phrase was: “This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all.” It was more specifically the chapter that defined papal infallibility, which only works in Ex Cathedra statements. Hence it says the pope is given these gifts “in his see” rather than at all times. If we are to suppose that the gift of never-failing faith means that the pope cannot even be a heretic personally, we might suppose the “gift of truth” means that a pope cannot even be a material heretic, which is false. Many well-meaning popes have mistakenly erred prior to dogmatic definitions of various doctrines. We must remember that papal infallibility exists to protect us, not the pope. If the pope is completely incapable, no matter how hard he tries, of sinning mortally against the virtue of faith, I’m not sure if that would give him an aspect of divinity or mean that he loses his free will. Bellarmine taught that if a pope were to ever be a heretic, he would lose his jurisdiction, but no Catholic is required to believe that. So, if Pope Francis, or any other pope since John XXIII actually was a heretic, at least judging from my research, it isn’t a problem. Our Faith is in Christ Jesus, not in the Pope. According to the dogma of Papal Infallibility, of course, Pope Francis cannot define heresy Ex Cathedra, but to the best of my knowledge, no one has made that assertion.

        Like

  2. https://catholicism.io/2018/10/16/popes-sin-and-error/ Thank you for the reply. I do realize that there is some debate on the topic. So I link here the author that I did before to clarify more on what I mean by sure and never failing faith. I trust that if you have mentioned something I should go and look more deeply into the facts myself. There does need to be some play on when a how a Pope could be a heretic if possible. I would believe that if a Pope like John XXIII had heretical beliefs that would not go against the V1 teaching unless John was to make this into something that would jeopardize souls. I think the distinction that it guards from grave error (not just error) a Pope is at least plausible. Perhaps I can share this as well for your comments. I was recently in a discussion over when teaching requires the assent of faith and religious assent. Basically I argued that when teaching reaches the level of religious assent it is by fact guarded from grave error even though it is not by definition a infallible or clearly revealed teaching directly in the bible or from tradition that requires the assent of faith. I argued that it would be guarded from grave error due to the indefectibility of the church. If something were to reach the level of religious assent then the church would be teaching it as something all should do, yet if this was gravely sinful it would seem that the church was not of Christ but corrupt in a fundamental way. I think the similar idea can apply to the Pope’s sure charism. If the pope were manifestly and actively a heretic and is head of the church that would make it corrupt at some level even if our faith is in Christ not the pope. Honestly, I am trying to develop this idea so would love your thoughts. Thanks

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sorry that I didn’t see this earlier. Thanks for your response. I’m aware of Ron Conte. He (other than the fact that his book, The Return of Jesus Christ, from the table of contents appears to teach Millenarianism) has accused a number of fairly non-objectionable theologians (at least as far as I can tell; I could probably research this a bit more) of heresy, making me, personally, skeptical of his authority in this matter as a theologian. That said, it does not discredit his arguments, any more than it discredits mine that I am a layman without any official credentials whatsoever. The thing is, we know from history that Popes can commit grave scandals (i.e. Benedict IX, Stephen VI, Alexander VI, etc.). Furthermore, they can commit material heresy when not speaking Ex Cathedra, as every theologian, to the best of my knowledge, would agree. Therefore, I don’t see why they can’t commit formal heresy while still illicitly but validly being Pope. I found this article here http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/refuting-fr-kramers-error-unfailing.html interesting about the two gifts of Peter’s unfailing faith.

      As for religious assent, the Council of Trent clearly taught that anything which contradicts the unanimous consensus of the Fathers is heretical. Furthermore, as you know, Pius VI condemned the idea that the teachings of the Church can fall into general obscurity, but if a Pope were to teach heresy, I still don’t think it would necessarily mean that the Magisterium would fall into obscurity. For example, if the Pope were to come out and all of a sudden deny the Immaculate Conception in one of his homilies, anyone who examined earlier teaching would still know that this is contrary to what the Church actually teaches. John XXII, for instance, taught pastorally that souls could not see the beatific vision until the Last Judgment. Granted, we cannot know what was in his heart at that time and it hadn’t been defined yet, but the Faithful were quick to point out that his view was heretical and he eventually retracted it. Then, of course, there is Honorius I who was anathematized after his death in the Third Council of Constantinople. There’s some debate as to whether he actually was a Monothelite or simply allowed it to spread, but I think that he was excommunicated under the charge of actually adhering to it. At any rate, to believe sedevacantism on account of the past six pope’s real or alleged heresies really doesn’t make sense because God alone can judge the Pope. We, as laypeople, must wait for a later Pope to condemn the current Pope if he actually deserves such a condemnation.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: