Roma Locuta Est

April 15, 2024 (Steven O’Reilly) – [Updated 4/17/2024] This will be my second article covering the recent debate on Benepapism between Matt Gaspers and Dr. Edmund Mazza.  My first article addressed Dr. Mazza’s blatant ad hominem attack on me during the course of that debate (see A Reply to an Ad Hominem), and his employment of the genetic fallacy].

This article will focus on the claims by Benepapists, such as Dr. Mazza, that there is an exception to the doctrine of peaceful and universal acceptance (“Universal Acceptance”), which proves the universal acceptance of Pope Francis does not indicate he is a valid pope.  Archbishop Viganò had made a similar claim in 2023 when proposing his ‘mens rea’ thesis as to the invalidity of Francis’s election. I replied to Archbishop Viganò’s argument in a Roma Locuta Est article titled Thoughts on Vigano’s ‘Mens Rea’ Thesis. This current article will take a look at Dr. Mazza’s argument, and explain why the argument he advanced in his debate with Mr. Gaspers, and the specific historical example he cites are wrong.

It is not the purpose of this article to go into great detail on the doctrine of Universal Acceptance. For an excellent, and detailed treatment of this doctrine, I point the reader to various articles by John Salza and or Robert Siscoe, and in particular their jointly authored book, True or False Pope — which I cite below at various points.

The goal of this article is to provide a brief summary of the doctrine before moving on to show why Dr. Mazza’s and Archbishop Viganò’s example of a supposed exception to Universal Acceptance is both mistaken historically, and fails to prove the point they are trying to make with regard to the invalidity of the election of Pope Francis; and in the case of Dr. Mazza, the invalidity of Benedict XVI’s resignation

Overview of the Doctrine of “Universal Acceptance”

The doctrine of “Universal Acceptance” means simply that if the Church, by the “overwhelming majority” of Bishops and faithful, accepts that a given man, elected as pope, is the pope — then that man is, in fact, the true, valid, and legitimate pope. John Salza and Robert Siscoe explain in their book, True or False Pope — via many citations (emphasis added), that; “Theologians explain that the unanimous acceptance of a Pope, by bishops and the faithful, is an infallible sign — an infallible “effect” — of his legitimacy.” [1]

This “unanimous acceptance” is a “sign” or “effect” that a given pope is a true, and valid one; but it is not the cause of his legitimacy. Thus, it is possible for a papal election to yield an objectively valid, and true pope but for some reason, not lead to “unanimous acceptance” amongst the “overwhelming majority” of bishops and the faithful across the whole Church, i.e., universal acceptance will not necessarily follow the election of a valid pope. While the lack of “universal acceptance” does not mean a valid pope is not pope; the manifestation of “universal acceptance” does mean the pope, is a valid pope.

That the above is historically the case can be seen in various examples during the Great Schism when there were at times two or more claimants to the papal throne, and Christendom was divided on the question of who was the valid pope. But even in that circumstance, there was always one true pope, although, “universal acceptance” was absent and of no help in pointing the way to that true pope. We will return to the Great Schism later on in this article in relation to Dr. Mazza’s false assertions in his debate with Mr. Gaspers.

So, as said, a valid election of a legitimate pope will not necessarily result in universal acceptance. However, if there is universal acceptance of a given pope, then we can be sure he is the true pope. This is one of the points made by Mr. Gaspers in his debate with Dr. Mazza (see, beginning at c. 26:50), and by Salza and Siscoe in their book[2]; all of whom cite Cardinal Billot on the question (emphasis added):

“…the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself…”[2]

Here, Cardinal Billot makes two key points, that Universal Acceptance is (1) an infallible sign a given pope is legitimate, and (2) that all the conditions required for his legitimacy are present. As to the first point, if one thinks it through, one can see why the common theological opinion must be right, as Billot goes on to say in the same citation that “the adhesion of the Church to a false pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith.“[3]  Further, Universal Acceptance is a sign that “all the conditions” required for a legitimate election have been met; and that any defects in the election (e.g., fraud) have been healed “in the root.” As Billot also says:

“…For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all the fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”[4]

And this final point above is vitally important.  Universal Acceptance “heals in the root” any and all fault in the election, and “proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.” Pointing to a Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Salza and Siscoe argue in their book that even a pope who “was not legitimately elected, or somehow took possession of the pontificate by fraud, has nevertheless become a true pope”[5]. Salza and Siscoe cite St. Alphonsus Ligouri on this point (emphasis Salza’s and Siscoe’s):

“…It is of no importance that if in past centuries some pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff.”[6]

Based on the discussion of Universal Acceptance above, various conclusions flow from it: (1)  A valid papal election may not necessarily result in Universal Acceptance, as Universal Accept is sign of a valid election, but not a necessary condition of one; however, (2) whenever Universal Acceptance is present after the election of a pope, then this is an infallible sign the one elected is, in fact, a true pope; and finally, (3) it also follows that an invalid, illegitimate pope will never obtain the universal acceptance of the Church.

As stated above, if there is universal acceptance, then this is a sign that “all of the conditions” necessary to make a man a true pope are present, and or any deficiencies, such as fraud, have been healed.  One of the necessary conditions is that the See of Peter is actually vacant. Therefore, the universal acceptance of a man as pope would be an ‘infallible sign’ that the see of Peter was in fact empty, thereby allowing the man to be validly elected.

So, logically, it follows that any papal resignation preceding a universally accepted election of  a pope was necessarily valid. The implication is clear: if Francis was universally accepted as pope by the Church, it follows “all conditions” were satisfied, and thus the See of Peter was empty, i.e., Benedict’s resignation must have been valid.

The unanimity in the acceptance of a pope, is not intended by theologians to mean “all” will accept a valid pope’s election. Salza and Siscoe show in their book that what is intended by these theologians is an acceptance which is “practically unanimous“[7], and these two authors in their book cite Fr. Sylvester Berry, who writes:

“The practically unanimous consent of bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainly of the fact.”[7]

In sum, the valid election of a pope is one thing, and the universal acceptance of him as true pope by the Church is something else.  There is the ‘declaration’ or vote of the cardinals in a conclave for a given man to be pope. If it is a valid election, the man elected is immediately true pope. Whenever there is “universal acceptance” of a pope by the Church, then this is an ‘infallible sign’ this man is a true pope. This ‘acceptance’ is evidenced by the Church not contradicting the “news of the election” [8] and by the ‘gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church‘ [9] which “begins at the place of election, and then spreads “throughout the rest of the world.” [10]

A valid election of a true pope is immediate. But certainly with respect to past centuries and millennia, where news of a papal election could take days, weeks, or even months to spread throughout Christendom; universal acceptance may have taken a long span of time to manifest. However, in our modern age, with the means and speed of modern communication, universal acceptance might be expected to manifest almost immediately, if not instantaneously, among the bishops and faithful of the whole Church. This is important to keep in mind as we consider the exception to universal acceptance proposed by Archbishop Viganò and Dr. Mazza.

Is the 1378 case of Clement VII an exception to Unanimous Acceptance?

In light of the above, the Universal Acceptance of a pope is an infallible sign “all of the conditions” in electing a pope were present to make the pope legitimate. Thus, in electing a pope who is subsequently universally accepted, the condition of a vacant See of St. Peter must have been present at the time of the election — otherwise universal acceptance would not have followed. Consequently, it logically follows, that any papal resignation preceding a “universally accepted” pope, must necessarily have been valid.

The implication of the above for our present circumstance, as unwelcome as it may be, is also clear: if Francis was universally accepted as pope by the Church, it necessarily follows “all of the conditions” were satisfied, and thus the vacancy of the See of Peter — as one of those conditions — must have been satisfied at the time of election; therefore, Benedict’s resignation was valid.

So we see, the doctrine of Universal Acceptance is a significant hurdle for theories claiming the election of Pope Francis was invalid either due to some deficiency in the conclave, or due to the claim Benedict’s resignation was not valid.

Consequently, for those who deny the validity of Benedict’s resignation and or the validity of Francis’s election, a way must be found to find an exception to the doctrine of universal acceptance, i.e., find an anti-pope who was universally accepted. Archbishop Viganò recently attempted this (see transcript called Vitium Consensus).  In this video, Viganò commented, saying (bold added):

“Bishop Athanasius Schneider maintains that any irregularities that may have occurred in the 2013 Conclave have in any case been healed in radice by the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been recognized as Pope by the Cardinal Electors, by the Episcopate, and by the majority of the faithful. Practically speaking. The argument is that, regardless of the events that may have led to the election of a pope – with or without external meddling in it – the Church, practically speaking, places a time limit beyond which it is not possible to challenge an election if the person elected is accepted by the Christian people. But this thesis is called into question by historical precedent.”

As the last line above indicates, Archbishop Viganò attempts to refute Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s argument of universal acceptance by citing the elections of Pope Urban VI and Clement VII in 1378. In the aforementioned debate, Dr. Mazza raised the same historical case of Pope Urban VI and Clement VII. I’ll go into more detail on this case in a bit. But here it suffices to say that months after Pope Urban VI’s election, the cardinals who had elected him regretted their choice for a variety of reasons. Pleading they had voted for Urban VI under threat of the mob, they then proceeded to elect Clement VII, who is now reckoned to be an anti-pope.

Viganò — and Dr. Mazza following his example — claims that if Universal Acceptance is always valid without exception, then anti-pope Clement VII should have been recognized as the actual true pope, and not Urban VI.  This is so, Viganò and Dr. Mazza claim, because Clement VII was “universally accepted.”  But, given Urban VI is reckoned to be the true pope, and not anti-pope Clement VII; Viganò and Dr. Mazza argue there is an exception to Universal Acceptance — and thus we can ignore the universal acceptance of Pope Francis.

So, for example, Viganò’s claims the “universal acceptance” of the anti-pope Clement VII was later ignored by the Church, thus proving there is an exception to the rule of universal acceptance. Viganò said (bold added):

“If universal consensus were an indefectibly valid argument for a pope’s legitimacy, Clement would have had the right to be considered the true pope, rather than Urban. Antipope Clement was defeated by Urban VI’s army in the battle of Marino in 1379 and transferred his See to Avignon, leading to the Western Schism, which lasted thirty-nine years. Thus we see that the universal acceptance argument does not withstand the test of history.”

Dr. Mazza makes the same sort of argument. In his debate/discussion with Matt Gaspers, the question of Universal Acceptance came up (see Mazza’s comments beginning 31:05).  Dr. Mazza, also addressing Bishop Schneider’s universal acceptance argument, says in part (emphasis added):

“…So Bishop Schneider has talked about this. Bishop Schneider of Kazakhstan, who is otherwise a good and holy Bishop. He says here, and this is to reiterate what Matt was just saying,

quote the practice of the church makes it evident even in the case of an invalid election this election will be de facto healed through the general acceptance of the new elected by the overwhelming majority of the Cardinals and bishops. unquote,

But historical fact contradicts this theological theory. Take the case of the illegal election of Pope Clement VII while Urban VI was still alive. Doctor Warren Carroll relates quote on September 20th, 1378. 11 French Cardinals and Pedro de Luna of Spain. Elected Cardinal Robert of Geneva Pope. The three Italian Cardinals accepted Robert when he was enthroned, taking the name of Clement VII. unquote

So against Bishop Schneider and against Matt Matt’s position. This invalid election — it was invalid because the Pope was still alive, Urban VI — was not healed when all the Cardinals universally and peacefully accepted Clement. Urban VI had no Cardinals on his side. He only had Catherine of Siena, which we’ll get into in a second here. So the fact that all the Cardinals accepted Clement did not, you know, heal this invalid election. For 600 years, Clement has been reckoned an antipope. And Urban, the true Pope. So likewise, if Benedict was alive and still the valid Pope, all the Cardinals accepting Francis would not heal Francis’s invalid election…”

Dr. Mazza, following a response by Matt Gaspers, then goes on to conclude, in part (emphasis added):

“…Here’s the core issue.

Urban VI was universally and peacefully accepted as Pope. Pope Benedict XVI was universally and peacefully accepted as Pope. They were both legitimate popes. The Cardinals elected Clement VII as the new Pope while the true Pope was still alive. But according to universal peaceful acceptance that invalid election should have been healed because he [Clement VII] was universally and peacefully accepted, there was no other Cardinals supporting Urban VI. Similarly. If Pope Benedict, who was still alive, messed up his resignation, then that means he was still Pope. So if he was still Pope. The conclave that elected Francis was illegal, invalid. And it cannot be healed by universal peaceful acceptance. The same way that Clement VII election was not healed by universal peaceful acceptance.

It’s that simple…”

Is it as “simple” as Dr. Mazza claims?

 Was Clement VII “universally accepted” by the Church?

We can put Dr Mazza’s argument regarding the case of Pope Urban VI and anti-pope Clement VII essentially as follows:

1. 1. Given Clement VII was elected ‘pope’ while Urban VI was still a living, legitimate pope; the universal acceptance of Clement VII could not heal Clement VII’s invalid election and make him a valid pope.
   2. Therefore, similarly, given Francis was elected ‘pope’ while Benedict XVI was still a living, legitimate pope; the universal acceptance of Francis cannot heal Francis’s invalid election and make him a valid pope.

The force of Dr. Mazza argument rests on whether he is correct in saying Clement VII was “universally accepted” as pope. Dr. Mazza is a “Church historian,” but has he understood the history here? Has he properly described and addressed the question of the doctrine of universal acceptance? The answer to both questions is “no.”  Let’s unpack why Dr. Mazza is wrong.

In terms of a summary history of the Urban VI-Clement VII controversy, Pope Urban VI was elected on April 8, 1378. There is no need to go into the particulars here, but as described by JND Kelly, in his Oxford Dictionary of Popes, by August 2, 1378, many of the Cardinals who elected Urban VI had declared that his election was invalid, “as having been made, not freely, but under fear” [see JND Kelly’s, Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 227].  Speaking of these cardinals, JND Kelly wrote that “On Aug. 9 they informed the Christian world that he (Urban VI) had been deposed as an intruder” (cf, Ibid, p. 227). This, in turn, led to a series of events culminating in the election of Clement VII on September 20, 1378, only a few months after Urban VI‘s election, April 8, 1378.

However, Dr. Mazza appears to be engaging, intentionally or not, in something of a bait and switch. How so? Dr. Mazza claims explicitly “all the Cardinals universally and peacefully accepted Clement.” Well, yes – the cardinals ‘elected’ anti-pope Clement VII…but that is NOT the doctrine of universal acceptance!!! Dr. Mazza clearly associates the supposed “universal acceptance” of Clement VII with the fact “all the cardinals” elected him pope, after having abandoned the true pope, Urban VI. This is what Dr. Mazza appears to claim is the “universal and peaceful acceptance” of Clement VII. Dr. Mazza used the same mistaken definition in online conference, titled “Is the Pope Catholic” (see 4:18-00-4:20:54).

However, if this is what Dr. Mazza is suggesting — and it certainly appears to be so, he is not defining “universal acceptance” correctly.  Universal acceptance involves more than just the cardinals.  As seen earlier in this article, universal acceptance involves the adhesion of the whole Church — “the practically unanimous consent of bishops and faithful.”  So, in considering universal acceptance, we must not only look at the cardinals, but at the “overwhelming majority of the bishops” around the world, as well as the faithful.

Dr. Mazza, who has PHD in Medieval History, should have known this, so his debate response is inexplicable. Indeed, in his debate with Mr. Gaspers, Dr. Mazza should have had in mind the correct definition of “universal acceptance” because he, himself, had cited Schneider’s definition of Universal Acceptance to mean that the “election will be de facto healed through the general acceptance of the new elected (pope) by the overwhelming majority of the Cardinals and bishops.”

So, it seems rather odd that Dr. Mazza, in his public debate, would leave universal acceptance only at the doorstep of the cardinals.  Yes, cardinals can validly elect true popes.  But that alone is not what constitutes “universal acceptance!” Whether a majority or even “all of the cardinals” elected Clement VII does not mean, by this fact, that Clement VII was “universally accepted”!

If Dr. Mazza intended more than only the cardinals were involved, he should have said so — but if he had said so, he then would have had to address the question as to whether in the case of Clement VII there was a “practical unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful” as Fr. Sylvester Berry puts it, or of “an overwhelming majority of the Cardinals and bishops” as Bishop Schneider puts it. If Dr. Mazza had properly addressed the case of Clement VII with a more proper statement of the doctrine of Universal Acceptance in mind, he would have known — or should have known — his argument could not withstand scrutiny.

Thus, recalling — as Dr. Mazza did not — that “universal acceptance” involves also the ‘practical unanimous consent‘ of bishops, and the faithful; a review of the facts will demonstrate Clement VII was not “universally accepted” as Dr. Mazza alleges.  While the cardinals in the illegal second conclave did invalidly elect Clement VII; it is untrue for anyone to suggest the “overwhelming majority of the bishops and faithful” around the world supported or “universally accepted” Clement VII, i.e., in sum, it is not true to suggest there was “universal acceptance” of Pope Clement VII.  Here’s why.

As word spread throughout Christendom that there were now two claimants to the papal throne — Urban VI and Clement VII; Christendom divided into competing camps in support of one or the other. Indeed, an online Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Western Schism states, “Christendom was quickly divided into two almost equal parties“[11], while another article in the Catholic Encyclopedia states that “The obedience of Urban was more numerous, that of Clement more imposing”[12]. The former of these two articles in the online Catholic Encyclopedia on the New Advent site gives the following breakdown of this division of support between the two papal claimants:

“The greater number of the Italian and German states, England, and Flanders supported the pope of Rome (i.e., Urban VI). On the other hand, France, Spain, Scotland, and all the nations in the orbit of France were for the pope of Avignon (i.e., Clement VII).”[13]

In The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, J.N.D. Kelly gives additional details, writing that those siding with the anti-pope Clement VII included France, Burgundy, Savoy, Naples, and Scotland, while those siding with Urban VI included England, Germany, ‘most of Italy,’ and Central Europe (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, JND, Kelly, p. 227).

The point of this lesson in Church history 101 should be obvious, Dr. Mazza’s claim that the invalidly elected anti-pope, Clement VII, was “universally accepted” by “the Cardinals” is not only grossly misleading, it is clearly erroneous. Universal Acceptance consists in more than just the cardinals at the election — it is the universal acceptance by the Church, which includes the “practically unanimous” acceptance of the election by the “overwhelming majority of bishops.” And, as this lesson in Church history 101 demonstrates; Christendom was divided. The bishops and faithful in the different blocs of countries supported the claims of one or the other of the two papal claimants. Indeed, this was the beginning of the great Western Schism which would last about 40 years and would involve as many as three rival claimants to the papal throne at the same time!

In view of the history outlined above, one cannot argue that Clement VII was universally accepted by the Church. Consequently, Dr. Mazza is dead wrong. 

Conclusion

In his debate with Mr. Gaspers, Dr. Mazza makes something of an argument by analogy.  Dr. Mazza begins by arguing that the invalid election of anti-pope Clement VII was not healed by his “universal acceptance,” and thus the still living Pope Urban VI — even though abandoned by the cardinals — remained the valid pope.  Similarly, according to Dr. Mazza, the invalid election of Francis was not healed by his “universal acceptance,” and thus the still living Pope Benedict XVI — even though ‘abandoned’ by the cardinals — remained the valid pope. Therefore, per Dr. Mazza, Francis was never a valid pope.

However, as demonstrated, Dr. Mazza, Church Historian, got the history and doctrine wrong.  Clement VII was not “universally accepted” by the Church in terms of the doctrine of universal acceptance, e.g.., the “practical unanimous consent of bishops and faithful“, etc. The specific allegiances of only the cardinals at this time – in terms of the doctrine of universal acceptance – is not sufficient to save Dr. Mazza’s argument. Rather, it was demonstrated that Christendom was divided between the true pope, Urban VI, and the anti-pope, Clement VII; and thus, Clement was never “universally accepted” by the Church. Therefore, since Dr. Mazza got the history and the doctrine of universal acceptance wrong, his argument fails. Most assuredly, the case of Clement VII is not an exception to the doctrine of universal acceptance.

His appeal to the case of Clement VII as a historical precedent having been shown to be fallacious and dead wrong, Dr. Mazza is left with an unsupported conclusion; that the invalid election of Francis was not healed by his “universal acceptance,” and thus the still living Pope Benedict XVI, even though ‘abandoned’ by the cardinals, remained the valid pope.

Instead, the doctrine of universal acceptance would necessarily imply here that the “universal acceptance” of Francis as pope would signify he met “all the conditions” necessary to become the true pope. As one of those necessary “conditions” to become pope is that the See of Peter was vacant at the time of his election; it necessarily follows from the universal acceptance of Francis as true pope, that the resignation of Benedict XVI was valid.

Final Thoughts

Now, the infallibility of the popes was believed before it was defined. Only with Vatican I were the scope, limits, and conditions of papal infallibility precisely, and dogmatically defined. Might something analogous happen with the Church’s understanding of the doctrine of Universal Acceptance at some point in the future? I suppose. Perhaps the case of Pope Francis might lead to such a definition.

Certainly, as I have written before, some future pope will have to address the papacy of Francis, in much the same way as Pope St. Leo II addressed the case of Pope Honorius, some 40 years after the fact (see Guilty Only of Failure To Teach; James White is Wrong; Why the Case of Pope Honorius Matters, Mr. Alt). Still, the doctrine of Universal Acceptance is a significant hurdle for any theory that hopes to “de-pope” Francis. If there is some “exception” to Universal Acceptance out there that would undo the Francis pontificate, it has yet to come to light. Is it possible? Who knows — but not likely. What is certain — Dr. Mazza has not found it.  This article has demonstrated that much.

The unfortunate reality is, there is one resemblance the case of Urban VI and Clement VII has to the current, sad situation in which we find ourselves. Benepapists like Dr. Mazza, Ann Barnhardt, Andrea Cionci, et al, are essentially acting in the role of the cardinals who ended up causing a schism, in as much as they have essentially denied the legitimacy of a valid pope (Urban VI) – even as bad as he is. Those cardinals who undermined Urban VI’s validity, even as bad as he was, bore a significant, moral responsibility for the confusion and chaos that followed, and which their actions entailed, i.e., the Western Schism. The Benepapists mentioned above, and other ones of their ilk, are leading confused Catholics astray with bad theology, bad history, misread and misinterpreted documents, fallacious arguments, etc. No one should follow them.  No one should believe them.

Now, this blog has been clear.  We here at Roma Locuta Est are not ‘fans’ of Pope Francis in any sense, and the archives of this blog prove that. He has been an unmitigated disaster. However, grasping at any theory, like grasping at straws, is no way to approach this current crisis in the Church. A bad theory is no solution — and Benepapism is a bad theory.

I ask the fair minded reader, who might be otherwise inclined toward Benepapism, to challenge leading Benepapists like Dr. Mazza or Ann Barnhardt to explain themselves in light of the evidence provided in articles like this one.  Unfortunately, their favorite tactic against me and my arguments of late has been the ad hominem. The most recent, and egregious example being that of Dr. Mazza’s (see A Reply to an Ad Hominem), but there have been others described in other articles (seeDeconstructing Ann Barnhardt’s Benedict Video; Hey, leading Benepapists, “if you’re ‘ad hominem-ing’; you’re not winning”).  If one is playing a winning hand in an argument, such tactics are unnecessary —  thus, clearly, they know they are playing a losing hand.

If you are really willing to follow these arch-Benepapists into schism, and neo-sedevacantism — at least make sure you understand the arguments on the other side against them.  Look before you leap.  You owe it to yourself.  You owe it to your family, etc. You owe it to the truth. Check out this free set of articles (see The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”), or my free videos (see HERE), and or my book (see Valid? The Resignation of Benedict XVI).

Benedict XVI, pray for us.

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com  or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on GETTR, TruthSocial, or Gab: @StevenOReilly).

Notes:

[1]  John F. Salza and Robert J. Siscoe, True or False Pope: Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors, (STAS Editions, Winona, Minnesota: 2016).  Kindle Version, p. 475 (Kindle).

[2] Ibid, p. 478 (Kindle).

[3] Ibid, p. 478 (Kindle).  This quote from Billot, cited by Salza and Siscoe, is from:  Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, Volume p. 612-613

[4] Ibid, p. 479 (Kindle).  This quote from Billot, cited by Salza and Siscoe, is from:  Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, Volume p. 612-613

[5] John F. Salza and Robert J. Siscoe. p. 479 (Kindle).

[6] bid, p. 481 (Kindle). This quote from Ligouri, cited by Salza and Siscoe, is from: Ligouri, Verita Della Fede, “In Opera…”, Volume VIII, p. 720, n. 9

[7] Ibid, p. 476 (Kindle). Cited from “The Church of Christ”, p. 288, 289, and 290.

[8] Steve Skojec, One Peter Five. (https://onepeterfive.com/a-brief-word-on-universal-acceptance-of-a-pope/), referencing Robert Sicoe’s citation of John of St. Thomas on “Universal Acceptance”:

All that remains to be determined, then, is the exact moment when the acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient to render the proposition de fide. Is it as soon as the cardinals propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate locality, or only when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread through the whole world, wherever the Church is to be found?

I REPLY that (as we have said above) the unanimous election of the cardinals and their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops of a Council legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like a confirmation of this declaration. Now, 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.

[9] IBID.

[10] IBID.

[11] Salembier, Louis. “Western Schism.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm&gt;.

[12] Mulder, William. “Pope Urban VI.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15216a.htm&gt;.

[13] Salembier, Louis. “Western Schism.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm&gt;.