Z
zhoudu
Guest
In a previous post, I asked questions about the 1958 papal conclave. There are some doubts on who was the real pope from that papal conclave. There is the Siri thesis.
But now I have a more general question: After a papal conclave, how can people be sure who is the real pope?
As far as I know, it is a valid papal election and the acceptance of the elected person that make the person the pope. So, the validity of a pope is based on the validity of the election and the acceptance of the elected person. But both of them happen in the conclave, and only cardinals can witness them. So, what if all the cardinals lie or be silent about them, which may be the case in a conspiracy?
By contrast, the validity of a priest is based on the ordination, which ordinary people can witness, and so is usually free from doubts.
But now I have a more general question: After a papal conclave, how can people be sure who is the real pope?
As far as I know, it is a valid papal election and the acceptance of the elected person that make the person the pope. So, the validity of a pope is based on the validity of the election and the acceptance of the elected person. But both of them happen in the conclave, and only cardinals can witness them. So, what if all the cardinals lie or be silent about them, which may be the case in a conspiracy?
By contrast, the validity of a priest is based on the ordination, which ordinary people can witness, and so is usually free from doubts.