In a previous discussion, Br. Bugnolo claimed that Francis election was not universally accepted, because Bishop Gracida and 12 other people he just found out about, never accepted it. I responded by saying:
“The universal acceptance only requires a moral unanimity, not a mathematical unanimity. There’s over a billion Catholics in the world and you know of 13 who rejected him in secret. That doesn’t suffice. The universal acceptance occurs when the news of the election spread throughout the Church, provided it is not at once contested. John of St. Thomas explains: “The acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a pope has been elected, AND THAT THE ELECTION IS NOT CONTESTED, they are obliged to believe that that man is the pope, and to accept him.”
In his recent blog post, Br. Bugnolo only quoted the first sentence of my reply, and then commented as follows:
“Does he think that Mons. Gracida and those 12 persons are holding that Benedict is the Pope or that the renunciation is dubious in secret? If it was in secret, how do I know about it? [7 years later] Siscoe has just implied I have the grace to read minds! That being the case, Mr. Siscoe, I will use that gift and say you are not being honest. Because no honest man replies to facts that way.”
The one who's not being honest here is Br. Bugnolo, and if he had included my entire reply it would have been evident. The universal acceptance happens “as soon as” the election reaches the entire Church, provide it is not at once contested. No one publicly contested or raised any objections to Francis election until at least a year later, which was a year too late.
As soon as universal acceptance takes place, his legitimacy is an infallible dogmatic fact, and no future doubts can be raised against it. In the words of Cardinal Billot: “From the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever [e.g., a vacant munus] necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.” (De Ecclesia Christi, I, Editio quinta, apud aedes Universitatis Gregorianae, Romae, 1927, p. 623)
If anyone rejected Francis’ election immediately, it was done in secret at the time. That’s what I was referring to in my previous reply, as the context and the quotation from John of St. Thomas made clear. But Br. Bugnolo conveniently eliminated that part, not only so he could spin what I wrote, but also so he can continue to pervert meaning of UPA (just like hehas done with dogmatic facts), by implying that the ‘universal acceptance’ is not a one-time event that removes all future doubt, but a factor that must continue uninterruptedly into the future.
Br. Bugnolo’s antics only show why the legitimacy of an election is determined by the Church’s act of acceptance - the public judgement of the magisterium – not the subjective opinions and private judgment of individuals.
UPA has no meaning given that a previous pope was elected by cardinals and governed peacefully for 8 years.He was then deemed an antipope.
So Billot and all those other theologians are spouting rubbish on that so called UPA
Anacletus II was never universally accepted as Pope. The true Pope, Innocent II, was elected three hours before Anacletus, and he was always acknowledged as Pope by a large portion of the Catholic world. The following is taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"On 14 Feb., 1130, the morning following the death of Honorius II, the cardinal-bishops held an election and Gregory was chosen as his successor, taking the name of Innocent II; three hours later Pietro Pierleone was elected by the other cardinals and took the name of Anacletus II. Both received episcopal consecration 23 Feb.; Innocent at Santa Maria Nuova and Anacletus at St. Peter's. Finding the influential family of the Frangipani had deserted his cause, Innocent at first retired into the stronghold belonging to his family in Trastevere, then went to France by way of Pisa and Genoa. There he secured the support of Louis VI, and in a synod at Etampes the assembled bishops, influenced by the eloquence of Suger of St. Denis, acknowledged his authority. This was also done by other bishops gathered at Puen-Velay through St. Hugh of Grenoble. The pope went to the Abbey of Cluny, then attended another meeting of bishops, November, 1130, at Clermont; they also promised obedience and enacted a number of disciplinary canons.
"Through the activity of St. Norbert of Magdeburg, Conrad of Salzburg, and the papal legates, the election of Innocent was ratified at a synod assembled at Würzburg at the request of the German king, and here the king and his princes promised allegiance. A personal meeting of pope and king took place 22 March, 1131, at Liège, where a week later Innocent solemnly crowned King Lothair and Queen Richenza in the church of St. Lambert. He celebrated Easter, 1131, at St-Denis in Paris, and 18 October opened the great synod at Reims, and crowned the young prince of France, later Louis VII. At this synod England, Castile, and Aragon were represented; St. Bernard and St. Norbert attended and several salutary canons were enacted. Pentecost, 1132, the pope held a synod at Piacenza. The following year he again entered Rome, and on 4 June crowned Lothair emperor at the Lateran." (Catholic Encclopedia, 1913, Innocent II).
Innocent II was acknowledged as the true Pope by Germany, France, England and numerous other countries, as well as by three synods, within the first year of his election. Anacletus II was never universally accepted as Pope.
It is difficult to imagine a worse historical case to appeal to in an attempt to disprove UPA than that of Anecletus II.
Post a Comment