Tag Archives: Theory of Universal Acceptance

2013 Conclave, 2025 Conclave, Canon Law, Church History

Council of Rome, 1060 (1059) A. D., Canon 1 condemns the theory of Universal Acceptance

2 Comments

And the Conclaves of 2013 and 2025

Catholic Doctrine

A monstrous lie and masonic falsehood has been promoted in recent decades under the name of the theory of universal acceptance, which is nothing other than a dogma of Hell and a concoction of the inferno. This diabolic lie holds that a man is to be regarded as the legitimate Roman Pontiff, if the whole Church accepts him as such, solely on the basis of the popular agreement of all parties.

This doctrine contradicts all known Catholic authors, who with authors like John of Saint Thomas, only advance the theory that when there has been a lawful and valid election of a Roman Pontiff, the universal acceptance of the Church follows as a consequence of the fact that the Church cannot be deceived.  But these authors do not say that this universal belief follows immediately or is a legal proof or motive to hold that a man is the true pope.

In fact, as all Catholics know, and as all honest men admit, during the Great Western Schism, caused by those greedy and sinful Cardinals who rejected the valid and legitimate election of Bartolomeo Prignano, the Archbishop of Bari (Italy), as Pope Urban VI, on April 6, 1378 A. D., and during the next 35 years, no true pope and no antipope was accepted by all.  These Cardinals separated themselves and elected the antipope and heretic Count Robert of Geneva (a widower), as Clement VII on September 20, 1378. This latter fled to Naples and then to France, where at Avignon he established his own papacy. 

For the next 39 years, all of western Christendom was divided, with some holding with Pope Urban VI, the Italian, and others deceived by the lies of these errant Cardinals, holding with Clement VII and his successors, sitting at Avignon (France).

Today, there is universal acceptance that all the popes who sat in Rome during these years were the true Popes. But the Vatican has never declared this: it is only the universal teaching of all theologians in communion with the Apostolic see during the last 500 years.

So it is sheer madness and deceit that some authors hold, today, that the Catholic authors of the past who spoke of universal acceptance, used it as a determination of which pope is the true pope, immediately upon his election or even during his lifetime.

The Council of Rome, 1060 A. D.

The teaching of Pope Nicholas II with the Council of Rome, in the second year of his pontificate, rebuts this diabolic modern perversion, in its first canon.*

This council was held in the year following the publication of In Nomine Domine, which altered the manner of the election, in normal circumstances, of the Pope, and assigned the choice of the candidate to the Cardinal Bishops alone. Before that, it was upto the whole body of the Faithful who attended the election, to suggest and chose the candidate, as St. Peter had arranged before his death, according to the norms of civil law, in the Eternal City of Rome, for all publicly elected candidates.

So let us quote Canon I of the Council of Rome, held in 1060, from Tomassetti’s, Bullarum Diplomatum et Privilegiorum, tome I, p. 660, first column, published in 1857 A. D., which reads thus:

Which in English, according to Br. Bugnolo, would be:

First, indeed, with God as (our) inspector, it has been established, that the election of the Roman Pontiff is in the power of the Cardinal Bishops: thus, that, if anyone is enthroned upon the Apostolic See without their prior agreement and canonical election, and then, the consent of the following orders of religious, clerics and lay people, he is not to be held to be pope and/or the apostolic (successor of Saint Peter), but (rather) as an apostate.

This canon, which recapitulates the new rule for elections mentioned in the Bull, In Nomine Domini, does so with a logical character, by listing all the necessary requirements for a pope’s claim as pope: that he be canonically elected, by the officially designated electors, and enthroned. But if he is not, then he is an antipope and apostate, since he has usurped the office and pretends to be what he is not, contrary to the will of Christ, who confirms papal laws in Heaven, which deal with the elections of His Vicars on earth.

Not, that here, “canonically elected”, is taken in the general sense of “lawfully elected”, since the rule for papal elections at the time of the Council of Rome in 1060, was the Bull of Nicholas II published in the previous year, and not a canon decreed in a council or established in any Code of Canon Law.

But as this canon of the Council of 1060 A. D., is an ecclesiastical decree, it has to be read in harmony with Nicholas II’s, Bull, “In Nomine Domine”, which does affirm the same things — without stating “canonically elected” — for elections which are held according to the norms of law.  Because after an election which is not held regularly, or under force or simony or other such dishonesty, Nicholas II in the Council held at Rome in 1059, taught that all the Faithful regain the right to elect a true pope, and this anywhere, even outside the city, and even with only a few voting.e

In addition, the words of this Canon, “canonically elected”, serve as the official interpretation of n. 3 of In Nomine Domini, which, since it uses other words, could be undermined by anyone claiming that they refer to elections which are corrupted by simony or endangered by physical violence, and not pure lawlessness, as happened in recent conclaves.

So the theory that if a man be universally accepted, EVEN IF HIS ELECTION IS ILLEGAL, he is the true pope, is thus shown to be contrary to Catholic doctrine and heretical.

Thus, again, Br. Bugnolo has been proved right against the claims of Salza and Siscoe (click to read past articles refuting these two serial liars) and many other authors, who possessed by the spirit of mendacity, would excuse their heretical and schismatic adhesion to the recent two antipopes, so as to excuse any duty to adhere to Popes Benedict XVI and Hildebrand.

Because clearly there is no legal defect in either of their elections, but there is in the Conclaves of 2013 and 2025, since in the former, Pope Benedict XVI had never abdicated his office, only retired from ministry, after the example of Pope Benedict VIII a thousand years before, as Pope Benedict XVI expressly stated (cf. Andrea Cionci’s, The Ratzinger Code available in English, French and Italian); and in the latter, in May of 2025, 133 cardinals voted at the same time, violating the law of John Paul II, in no less than 4 paragraphs (see more here).

On which account, it can be said rightly that the teaching of Canon 1 of the Council of Rome in 1060, nullifies the election of Pope Francis in 2013 and of Pope Leo XIV in 2025. — A good argument to use with all your friends! For, of course, to anyone with an honest mind, if they but read n. 76 of Pope John Paul II’s, Apostolic Constitution, Universi dominici gregis, for papal elections, he will see that it establishes the same rule: if the laws are not followed, the one elected is not the pope.

—————————–

* Mansi, writing a century after Tommasetti, reckons that there was only one Roman Council, and that it took place in the year 1059, and thus lists the canons of this 1060 council as issued on the second day of the same council, in which the bull, In Nomine Domini, was promulgated: cf. Mansi, Concil. XIX, p. 897, and especially, Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Tome CXLIII,  p. 1351, VIII.

Canon Law, Editorials, News

The theory of Universal Acceptance is contrary to Faith, Law and Fact

15 Comments

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Over at True and False Pope, Mr. Salza has published a reply to Ann Barnhardt full of vile insults, which is most unworthy of any man.

I do not usually comment on blogs, but I decided to join the fray. After soliciting from Mr. Siscoe a clear definition of the theory of Universal Acceptance, I show why that Theory in this case is contrary to Faith, Law and Fact. Here is my reply:

There are major problems with your theory and its application.

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.

Therefore, to assert such a theory is applicable in such a circumstance is contrary to the Faith. Therefore, in such a case, if you want to use it, I would have to conclude you are a blasphemer and a heretic, and also a schismatic, since you would thereby adhere to a false pope.

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!

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 renunciation by anyone whomsoever is not required for its validity. Therefore, it is not the cause of its validity, nor a sign of its validity. Therefore, to resort to it in the present case is to be a rebel against the papal law, and thus to be condemned by Unam Sanctam, because it is a grave duty of the Faith that we be subject to papal laws and to the true pope.

Finally, you resort to this theory of Universal Acceptance because you manifestly reject to accept the norm of Canon 332 §2 which defines the essential juridical act as a renunciation of munus, which never occurred. Nor can you legitimately read munus where ministerium is written in the Declaratio, because as Saint Alphonsus dei Liguori says in his tract on Interpretation of Law in his Theologial Moralis, that such an interpretation would require a positive additional act of the lawgiver. But such a requirement means the original act is not clear in itself. And as Mons. Arrieta of the Pontifical Council of Legal Texts affirmed for me on De. 11, 2019, such a renunciation which is not clear in itself would be invalid.

Please note, that I have used no ad hominems in my response to you. Unlike the comments you publish here which hurl them at me.

* * *

I add here, not at the other blog, that the use of the theory of Universal Acceptance is the last resort of the willfully blind. Because everyone trained in law knows that the validity of a juridical act has nothing to do with whether it is accepted as valid or not.

I will admit, here, however, that I only read True or False Pope Blog, because the authors of it admitted in substance that they did solicit the financial support for the Fatima Center and that the requirement of the donor was that the center be purged of anyone who held the opinion of Father Gruner, that Benedict was still the Pope.

So, here, I will ask Mrs. Siscoe, Salza and Ferrara a public question: Did any of that financial support arrive in your pockets directly or indirectly? And was it given before you adhered to the theory of universal acceptance?

Finally, it does not surprise me that the authors of the Book True or False pope cannot comprehend the present Church Crisis, in which we have both a True AND a False pope. When you begin with a false premise which you use as a principle of epistemology, then you have blinded yourself from the outset.

__________

CREDITS: The Featured Image is a screenshot of the blog mentioned in this article and is used here in accord with fair use standards for editorial commentary.

+ + +

[simple-payment id=”5295″]