by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Here I continue my public conversation with Mr. Siscoe, which I started on his blog, but I will continue here, because I see he is not addressing the argument and I do not have any confidence that he will repost my reply.
Read my previous comment, to understand the context of what I am about to write.
When pushed, claim your theory is Church doctrine
Br. Bugnolo: “There are major problems with your theory and its application.”
Mr. Siscoe: This is not my theory. It is the common doctrine of the Church.
I have been to seminary and studied at 3 Pontifical Universities and have read multiple manuals of theology, some of them 12 volumes long, and I can assure you that Siscoe’s universal acceptance is not the doctrine of the Church, because to be such, it has to be contained in a magisterial document.
To be clear, the notion of a dogmatic fact is precise: it regards legitimate acts. Thus, if Monsignor So and So refuses to be bishop of this or that, even though he was just nominated as Bishop of this or that, the Papal act is not a dogmatic fact, even though it is papal, because it is contrary to fact. It is a dogmatic fact that the pope nominated, but not that the man nominated is the Bishop because he refused to accept.
Thus even a Conclave which followed all the rules — which the Conclave of 2013 did not, according to the testimony of Cardinal Daneels — which pertain to conclaves — which the Conclave of 2013 did not, because the Papal Law requires a legal renunciation as it itself says — and resulted in the election of a man who was accepted by the whole Church, all the while the man insisted he never accepted, then, that he was the pope would not be a dogmatic fact, even though it would be a dogmatic fact that the Cardinals chose him, because to be the pope requires acceptance, as the papal law itself says.
Sisoe is playing a Triple Shell game, as I explained last year:
He has anted up on his game, because now, he not only claims that those who did not have true knowledge of the events of Feb. 11, 2013 are the Church, but that his doctrine of Universal Acceptance as applied to present events is the Doctrine of the Church!
But Canon Law is magisterial. And Siscoe ignores that completely.
Siscoe’s theory does not apply to contested elections
Siscoe also ignores that John of St. Thomas explicitly said that the concept of universal acceptance regards a legitimate election. That any theologian before or after omits that condition proves nothing, because as anyone who knows theology knows, many authors repeat doctrines imprecisely and incompletely, and their doing of such does not alter the doctrine. Thus you cannot escape from the fundamental condition of the notion of universal acceptance which only regards LEGITIMATE ELECTIONS.
Thus, it appears that what he is saying, is that Blessed Urban II, for example, and every legitimate pope after whose election the Cardinals or part of them, elected another, as an antipope, was not the true pope. I say “his theory” because no one with a sane mind would put in doubt a dogmatic fact of a valid election simply because there was no universal acceptance. But that is what he is doing. He is saying law does not matter, only opinion.
Ignore the events of Feb. 2013
Mr. Siscoe is also playing another game. He admits, the following in his recent reply to me:
The universal acceptance has nothing to do with the renunciation. It is an infallible sign of a legitimate Pope, not the infallible sign of a legitimate abdication.
Well then, WHY ON EARTH are you resorting to using your theory, Mr. Siscoe, if you admit it has nothing to do with renunciations! When you know well the validity of the renunciation is contested and has been from day 1, as I showed in the preface to my scholastic question.
It seems that Mr. Siscoe simply wants to condone law breaking, and refuses to consider anything else.
When the facts do not fit your case, massage them
Finally, notice how Mr. Siscoe alters reality when it does not suit his pet theory:
Br. Bugnolo: “The other problem with your theory is that in the present case, there never was universal acceptance. Bishop Gracida never accepted the renunciation or the election And I just met about 12 persons at a Conference here in Rome, over the weekend, who told me they did not accept Bergoglio the moment he came out of the Loggia and said, Buona Sera!”
Mr. Siscoe: 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.
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? 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. You would be laughed right out of every tribunal and court in the world, if you attempted such a legal argument. You have adopted the absurdity of a Skojec.
All Bergoglians are blasphemers
Finally, I will observe that Siscoe doubles down on his theory and seals it with a blasphemy, like all Bergoglians. Notice how a Catholic, when using a contrary of fact, uses the conditional, but Siscoe uses the indicative: for him blasphemy is a real option:
Br. Bugnolo: First of all, no theory of interpretation trumps canon law, because if it did, then Jesus Christ would be a liar Who said of Peter and the laws of all his successors, Whatsoever you bind upon Earth, shall be bound also in Heaven. THUS IF A MAN WERE ACCEPTED BY ALL IN THE CHURCH AS THE POPE, WHEN HOWEVER HE HAD NO LEGITIMATE CLAIM TO THE PAPACY BECAUSE OF THE NON COMPLIANCE WITH ANY PAPAL LAW REGARDING BECOMING POPE, THEN CHRIST WOULD BE PROVED A LIAR.
Mr. Siscoe: But Francis was accepted by all in the Church as Pope in the days, weeks and months after his election. Therefore, according to your own reasoning, Christ would be proven a liar if Francis had no legitimate claim to the Papacy because of non complains with ecclesiastical law. Therefore, either Christ is a liar, or the Francis DID have a legitimate claim to the Papacy based on ecclesiastical law.
Mr. Siscoe has a real problem, for him the Church means what he says it means. And if you do not agree with him you are not part of the Church. He is a perfect bergoglian. He also cannot read, because the context of my statement regards the presumption of the theory of Universal Acceptance being a valid theory of interpretation, but Siscoe reads my statement as if it was made in reference to fact, not the theory. He also ignores the context of proved a liar, which is that Christ would accept the illegitimate election on the basis of common opinion, and not on that of the law.
I have argued on street corners and sidewalks with every kind of protestant, and whenever you catch them in a lie or false statement, they change the argument. So I am not fooled by Mr. Siscoe’s slippery way of responding to anything said to him. His manner of argumentation is simply another proof that his opinion does not come from God. Indeed, he speaks as if Christ is not God.
+ + +
7 thoughts on “Siscoe rejects the Magisterium and invents his own”
I will say, among Trad Inc. recently, I’ve run into this exaggerated and dogmatic use of the term “universal acceptance” like Siscoe, but I’ve also run into another wacky argument that justifies Bergoglio’s papacy, and it’s an idea which I first heard from the Chilean author and writer from TFP (Trad Inc.), Jose Antonio Ureta, and it goes like this:
Even though Bergoglio may not be a legitimate pope and even though he may be a heretic, just like we (humans) have a body and soul, so too, the Church has a body and soul, such that a person who internally does not believe the Truths of the Faith, and has internally broken with the Church, still belongs to the Church externally because the Church is a society that is visible, and because the Church is visible, and insofar as the Church is a visible society, She also needs a visible authority. So, if Bergoglio is an anti pope or a heretic, he must be declared as such by the Church. In the meantime, he is the visible authority of the Church and is the legitimate pope until declared otherwise.
Talk about mental gymnastics…these Trad Incas are really falling as low as they can go…
Pope John Paul II:
“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]
Siscoe: Francis is pope because….. universal acceptance.
This is the second instance today of Trad, Inc. completely ignoring Universi Dominici Gregis. Millette on 1 Peter 5 is completely ignorant of what UDG says in regard to the rules governing papal elections.
How providential that document was.
Again, I must thank you, brother, for your to the point answer. You exposed exactly what Mr Slaza and Mr Siscoe (Mr S&S) are doing: sophistry, or ‘Triple Shell game’.
Allow me to reiterate what you said focusing on their standard weapon: Universal acceptance.
I response to you Mr S%S, uses this example of UA:
The acceptance of the Church is realized (…) by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church (…). 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.
Those words of St Thomas make perfect sense. This approach, let’s name it for our purposes Interpretation nr 1 of UA (I-1), is not specific to the Church but to most, if not all, human organizations that last. It prevents rejection of legitimate pope based on anybody’s sympathy or political preferences or matters of this sort. It should be obvious that St Thomas is talking about legitimate pope. When there is no UA, means that there is possibility that something went wrong and all aspects of election must be carefully examined.
I said that I1 relates only to legitimate pope. One can imagine situation where people are lied to. For example, false news are spread that pope is dead, that conclave was called and new pope is elected. If I hear such news, not knowing they are false, I will accept new pope, and if I’m a priest I include the name of new pope in Canon. I apply I-1.
If, after some time, the truth emerges about pope, that was announced dead, being still alive, thus there was no valid conclave, thus person I thought is new pope in reality is an anti-pope, I withdraw my acceptance of new ‘pope’.
What Mr S&S do, is taking the same words of St Thomas and using them against the Church. They say to me that if I once did accept new ‘pope’ he becomes legit and nothing can be done about it. This will be Interpretation nr 2, (I-2). According to I-2 if I, with others, accept new pope deal is done, God is bind by my act and somehow, automatically, changes status of both elects to mach reality to my choice. In other words my acceptance of a man as a pope forces God to rubber-stamp a lie. I-2 leads to many contradictions and rendering God is a liar one of them. There is no contradictions with I-1.
I know that God does not build His Church on lies thus one of two other elements must be wrong. Or St Thomas is wrong with his description, or UA or I-2 is wrong. Tertium non darur.
Now, how Mr S&S perform ‘Triple Shell game’. Point of interest is answer nr 3 in response to br. Bugnolo.
Brother Bugnono: “The use of this theory of Universal Acceptance IN THE CASE OF A PAPAL RENUNCIATION has been abrogated explicitly by Canon 332 §2, which said that the acceptance of a renunication by anyone whomsoever is not required for its validity. Therefore, it is not the cause of its validity, nor a sign of its validity”
Answer: “The universal acceptance has nothing to do with the renunciation. It is an infallible sign of a legitimate Pope, not the infallible sign of a legitimate abdication.”
Surprisingly, answer of S&S is correct. UA does not apply to papal renunciation, as br. B shown in his question. But this answer is true only if we use I-1. With I-2, UA superseeds the Law and makes it almost irrelevant. With I-2, UA has decisive power over outcome of papal resignation. If elect is universally accepted he becomes a valid pope regardless if previous pope resigned or not – contradiction to the Law. Hence S&S do a quick switch of shells before readers’ eyes. Would he stick to I-2 nonsense of this position be to obvious.
Forgive me, please, repetition of what br B. said but I think it is very important to realize what’s really going on. Mr S&S by promoting I-2 enter democracy to the Church. If people by UA can affirm anybody in papal seat they can, by the same power remove unwanted (by electing next one).
“Triple Shell game” or, calling it by name, sophistry seems to be favorite way of argumentation by S&S. They use the same method in disgusting answer to A.B. Funny point is that by refuting her accusations they confirm them… This is different matter though.
I wish everybody fruitful lent.
Its John of Saint Thomas, not Saint Thomas, but otherwise a good summary.
Comments are closed.