This is an excellent demonstration of the sede error. The authors do not understand the simple but important difference between human reason and human authority.
Catholics recognize a man as Pope because the College of Cardinals proclaim him. It is the humble submission by the Catholic to the Church that results in the acceptance of that fact as true.
Of course all men (well, not the sedes of course), understand that Bergoglio is the Pope, because the Church proclaims it. The protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, even the atheist recognizes this truth. They do not need to accept as a matter of faith-they simply recognize the authority of the Church.
We all (well, not the ‘sovereign citizens’) recognize human authority. In my town, there is a police chief, and his officers. There is also a judge. They have authority I do not. I might stand on the side of the road and proclaim, “That man is speeding”, and I might even be right, but I lack the authority to legally declare it. I also lack the authority to enforce it (that would be the judge).
It doesn’t matter that I believe the police chief is not really the chief, and that his officers are not really his deputies, and that the judge is not really a judge…I do not have the authority.
The sedes’ faulty ecclesiology, so similar to that of the Protestants, confuses the innate human ability to reason for the Church’s authority to bind and loose.
The sede, like the protestant, argues that because he can observe something, he therefore has the *authority*. He says to himself, “I, through my personal judgment, have decided Bergoglio is not Pope, therefore he is not Pope. What the Church says on the matter is irrelevant”.
You do not find this reasoning anywhere in the law of the Church. The sede will cite Bellarmine for this opinion, but Bellarmine never taught this. His oft-cited opinions about the 5th opinion is radically different than what modern sedes proclaim. They ignore his teaching on the two warnings, on the role of a council and of the jurisdiction of an anti-Pope until the warnings and declaration of divine deposition have occurred.
In other words, they reject Bellarmine.
Thus they are left with no Catholic authority in support of their argument.
Not the law, not tradition, not custom, not a lone Bishop a la Athanasius, not even a twisted reading of an opinion of a Doctor of the Church. All they have is their own personal magisterium.
Although they will proclaim they are different from Henry or Luther on the question because they reject not the Papacy per se, only the Popes (and all of the Bishops united to him).
Of course, this is a euphemism, a distinction without a difference.
In the world of the sedes (and the protestants), the entire Roman Church HAS defected from the faith. Not just the Pope in his person x5, but the Roman See and every Bishop of the world.
From a twitter thread by: The WM Review
🧵 on “I don’t have the authority”
If you can…
– Recognise one man is the pope
– Recognise that everybody else is not the pope
… then obviously you have the ability to recognise whether or not someone is the pope or not, and some criteria for making this judgement. Cont.
Now, you might say your recognition of Francis is based on the fact that he was elected, that the cardinals say he is the pope, or the whole Church, etc. This is to concede the point. You have the ability to recognise these criteria are fulfilled, and judge he is the pope. Cont.
Once you have admitted this, you are admitting that you *do* have the ability to judge objective criteria and decide whether you are going to say the man is pope or not.
Aristotle said: “Where it is in our power to act it is also in our power not to act, and vice versa.” NE 3.5.
So, if you have the power to judge sufficient criteria have been fulfilled to make a man pope, you also have the power to judge sufficient criteria have not been fulfilled.
Indeed, we do this every day. EG., we judge that the criteria have not been fulfilled to make Biden pope.
This leaves the question: what are the criteria?
As mentioned, some say that a completed election is the criteria. But they can’t prove that, because it’s false. If the cardinals elected a woman, then the criteria would not be fulfilled, and we would know it.
Every authority agrees that in order to be validly elected to the papacy, the candidate must be:
2. Rational (ie., not insane or below the age of reason)
3. A member of the Church
A candidate who does not fulfil these criteria is not validly elected, and is not pope.
The third point – a member of the Church – is subject to the same treatment as this thread. Namely, there are objective criteria for recognising whether a man is a Catholic and a member of the Church, or in fact a non-Catholic and outside the Church.
Once again, there are some who will try to beg the question here, and invent their own criteria for membership.
Once again, this merely concedes the point that each human being is able to apprehend and judge reality, *and in fact does so all the time*.
The criteria for membership are clear and expressed in the piece below, and applied to Francis.
Even if you think a declaration is needed, you will still be judging that the criteria of a declaration have indeed be filled.
You can’t hide from yourself.
In short: it is either a misunderstanding of the issue at hand to say “I don’t have the authority to judge he isn’t the pope”, or it is a dishonourable evasion and dereliction of duty.
This evasion is dishonourable because *we all make such judgment all the time.*
We can’t just cry “the First See is judged by no-one” either. Even Mr Lofton
admits we can *and even should* make judgments about Francis.
If we have the power to make a positive judgment about Francis, we have the power not to make one. https://wmreview.co.uk/2022/09/29/lofton-debate-review/