Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope
By
Robert Siscoe
(Objections and Answers were added at the end of the article on 2-28-19. Revised and expanded on 3-20. For additional quotes see here)
The legitimacy of a Pope, who has been
elected peacefully and accepted by at least a moral unanimity of Catholics, is infallibly certain. His legitimacy falls into the category of a dogmatic fact, which is a secondary
object of the Church’s infallibility. This is the unanimous teaching of the
Church’s theologians.
Fr. E. Sylvester Berry
The following, taken from Fr. Sylvester
Berry’s Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, The Church of Christ, further
explains these principles:
"The extent
of infallibility refers to the truths that may be defined by the Church with
infallible authority. Some truths are directly subject to the infallible
authority of the Church by their very nature [i.e truths contained in Scripture
and Tradition]; others only indirectly because of their connection with the
former. The one set of truths constitutes the primary, the other secondary
extent of infallibility. (…)
"This
secondary or indirect extent of infallibility includes especially (a)
theological conclusions, (b) truths of the natural order, (c) dogmatic facts
(…)
"DOGMATIC
FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately
connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact
there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First]
Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the
election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before
decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or
binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible
in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as
well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the
bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff
as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the
fact." ( The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)
Notice the term “practically unanimous,” which is distinct from
“mathematically unanimous.” A practically unanimous acceptance does not require
acceptance by 100 percent of professing Catholics; it is rather a morally
unanimous acceptance, which represents the “one mind” of the Church. As we will
see later, the fact that individual Catholics reject the legitimacy of a Pope
does not mean he has not been accepted by a morally unanimous consent.
Monsignor Van Noort
In the following quotation, Msgr. Van Noort further explains the infallibility
of dogmatic facts. He also explains that the infallibility of dogmatic facts is
qualified as “theologically certain.”
Those who depart from tradition by rejecting a doctrine that is
qualified as theologically certain are guilty of a mortal sin
"Assertion
2: The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic facts. This proposition is
theologically certain. A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources
of revelation, [but] on the admission of which depends the knowledge or
certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are
concerned with dogmatic facts: ‘Was the [First] Vatican Council a legitimate
ecumenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation
of the original books of the Bible? Was [past tense] Pius XII legitimately
elected Bishop of Rome? One can readily see that on these facts hang the
questions of whether the decrees of the [First] Vatican Council are infallible,
whether the Vulgate is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Pius XII is to be
[present tense] recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church." ( Christ’s Church, p. 112)
In another place, Van Noort addresses the peaceful and universal
acceptance of a Pope from the perspective of the Ordinary and Universal
Magisterium (the teaching Church). In the following quotation note that, once
again, he refers to the currently reigning Pope (Pius XII), not merely a “former
Pope” (which is the argument the Sedevacantist priest, Fr. Anthony Cekada,
tried to use to get around his rejection of this doctrine).
"Meantime,
notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining
some matters in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight
of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we
must hold with an absolute assent, which we call ‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the
following theological truths: (a) those which the Magisterium has infallibly
defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed
throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be
held (tenendas). So, for example, one must give an absolute assent to the
proposition: ‘Pius XII is [present tense] the legitimate successor of St.
Peter’; similarly … one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius
XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.’ For —
skipping the question of how it begins to be proven infallibly for the first
time that this individual was legitimately elected to take St. Peter’s place —
when someone has been constantly acting as Pope and has theoretically and
practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church,
it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly
clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession." ( Sources of Revelation, p. 265)
What this explanation also proves is
that a Pope, who is recognized as Pope by the Magisterium, has not secretly
lost his office for heresy, since his
legitimacy remains infallibly certain, by the force of the Ordinary and
Universal Magisterium, as long as they continue to recognize him as Pope.
Cardinal Billot
Cardinal
Billot makes a number of interesting observations about this doctrine as well. In
addition to explaining that the acceptance of a Pope by the universal Church is
an infallible sign of his legitimacy, he also explains, quite logically, that
the universal acceptance is an infallible sign of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy, such
as the condition that the one elected was not
a public heretic. Another interesting and quite relevant point he makes is that
God could permit an extended vacancy of the Apostolic See, but he cannot permit the whole Church to accept a false Pope as being
the true Pope (which, it should be noted, presents more problems for the
“Siri Theory”[1]). Here is Cardinal
Billot’s teaching on this subject:
"Finally,
whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the
aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope falling into heresy], at least one point
must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any
doubt whatever: 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. It is not necessary to look
far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the
infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against
it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ For the adhesion of the
Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of
faith,[2]
seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow
and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we
shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be
prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the
legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole
Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.
"Therefore, from
the moment in which the Pope is
accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no
longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a
possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For
the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the
election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”[3]
In The
Church of the Word Incarnate, Cardinal Journet wrote the following about
the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope:
"[T]he peaceful acceptance of the universal Church given to
an elect, as to a head to whom it submits, is an act in which the Church
engages herself and her fate. It is therefore an act in itself
infallible and is immediately recognizable as such. (Consequently,
and mediately, it will appear that
all conditions prerequisite to
the validity of the election have been fulfilled.)
"Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when
the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election
is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest.[4] The
Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to
certain knowledge as to who is elected."[5]
The
Conditions for a Valid Papal Election
Concerning the prerequisite conditions necessary for a valid papal
election, there are conditions required on the part of the electors, who are
the efficient cause of the election,
and conditions that must be satisfied for the one being elected, who is the material cause. Regarding the latter, there are both positive
and negative conditions that must exist for a valid election. For example, the one elected must be a male
and baptized (positive conditions), and he must not be a public heretic, a
schismatic, or mentally insane (negative conditions). As Cardinal Billot explained above, the
infallible certitude we have that a Pope, who has been accepted as such by the
Church, is in fact the true Pope, provides equal certitude that the conditions required
for validity were met.
The following syllogism will help to clarify this
point:
Major: If a man is accepted as pope by
the entire Church, his legitimacy as pope is infallible certain.
Minor: There are certain conditions that must be satisfied for a man to become pope.
Conclusion: If a man is accepted as pope by the entire Church, it proves infallibly that all requisite conditions were satisfied.
Conclusion: If a man is accepted as pope by the entire Church, it proves infallibly that all requisite conditions were satisfied.
If number 1 is true, number 3 is also true. The ‘universal acceptance’ does not guarantee the man
will be a good Pope, but it does guarantee he will be a true pope. In
fact, it doesn’t even guarantee that the Pope will not be
a positively evil, or even “a devil like Judas the apostle”. This is one
of the errors of the heretics Wycliffe and Hus, who rejected numerous Popes on
the basis that they were too evil to be true successors of St. Peter. In response, the Church formally condemned
the following proposition:
“If the pope is wicked,
and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas
the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy
Church Militant since he is not even a member of it.” – CONDEMNED
John
of St. Thomas’ Treatise on the Peaceful and Universal Acceptance
The brilliant Dominican theologian, John of St. Thomas, wrote a lengthy
treatise on the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope, in which he
explains that the legitimacy of a Pope, who has been accepted as such by the
Church, is de fide – that is, it must
be accepted with the assent of faith. He
also discusses the conditions
required on the part of the electors, and on the part of the one elected, and
how we can have certitude that they were satisfied.
After defining his terms,[6] he
begins his treatise as follows:
"In the present
controversy we discuss whether or not it is de
fide that this specific person, who has been legitimately elected, is the
Pope and the head of the Church, as well as the degree of certitude with which this
proposition is to be held."
He then provides his answer:
"Our conclusion
is the following. It is immediately of divine
faith that this man in particular, lawfully elected and accepted by the
Church, is the supreme pontiff and the successor of Peter, not only quoad se (in himself) but also quoad nos (in relation to us) —although
it is made much more manifest quoad nos
(to us) when de facto the pope
defines something. In practice, no
Catholic disagrees with our conclusion [that his legitimacy is de fide], even though, when he considers
it as a theoretical question, he might not think that he believes it with
divine faith. (…)"
Next, he provides three reasons why the legitimacy of the Pope must be believed with divine faith. Before reading them, we should note that when
John of St. Thomas refers to the Pope as “the rule of faith,” this is true
insofar as the Pope defines a doctrine to be held by the Church, not when he is
giving press interviews on an airplane or even when writing in an encyclical.
Non-definitive teachings of
the Pope are not owed the assent of faith. Hence the Pope acts as the rule of faith only when he defines a doctrine to be believed by
faith.
With this point clarified, let
us read the three arguments John of St. Thomas uses to prove the above thesis:
"The evidence for
this conclusion rests upon three principal headings.
"THE FIRST is
that he who is chosen to be Pope is chosen to be a rule of faith, in such wise
that, even as a canonical book of Scripture is a written rule of faith, so the
person chosen to be Pope is a living rule of faith.
"THE SECOND is
that Christ the Lord entrusted it to the Church to choose for herself a man
who, for a certain period of time, would be the sort of rule of faith just
described; and, consequently, the Church also received the commission to
determine, by her own act of acceptance, that this man was canonically and
legitimately elected. For, just as it pertains to the Pope and the Church to
determine which books are canonical, so it pertains to the Church to determine
which man has been chosen to be the norm and living rule of the faith.
"THE THIRD is
that this matter—namely, whether a particular man has been lawfully elected and
canonically established as the rule of faith—is something that the Church can
determine as a truth of faith."
Efficient
Cause
In line with the method of the Angelic Doctor, John of St. Thomas then
proceeds to present and refute various objections to the doctrine. The first
objection pertains to the conditions
requires for the efficient cause of
the election – namely, the electors – and runs thus:
"Objection: We
cannot know with certainty of faith that the particular electors have a valid
intention of election, nor that they are true and legitimate Cardinals, nor
that they observed the form of election required by law, such as the
requirement that the Pope be elected by two-thirds majority of the cardinals,
as well as the other conditions without which the election is null."
He responds by saying that because we have infallible certitude that a
man elected Pope and recognized as such by the Church is, in fact, a true Pope,
it follows that we have certitude that the requisite conditions were met. From the de
fide truth (i.e., the man is a true Pope), it follows as a theological
conclusion that the electors met the necessary prerequisite conditions. We will
quote him at length. A little later we will discuss the definition he refers to
from Pope Martin V:
"Answer: The
acceptance and definition of the Church, inasmuch as it gives the certitude of
faith [concerning the legitimacy of the Pope], does not touch upon the
conditions of the election, or the intention and genuine identity of the
electors, without intermediary, but rather mediately, and as a logical
consequence of what it immediately touches upon: namely, that whoever is
elected by the persons that the Church designates to choose a Pope in her name,
by the very fact that he is accepted by the Church as legitimately elected, is
in fact Pope. This latter is what the definition of Martin V, related
above, as well as the acceptance of the Church, is really about. Now, from
the de fide truth that this man is
Pope, it follows as a consequence that all the requisite conditions must have
been observed. For, faith does not
concern itself primarily with the conditions that must be realized in the
electors, but only afterwards with the person elected [i.e., the object of
faith is the legitimacy of the one elected, not whether the conditions required
for a valid election were met]. It is
the same with the definitions of Councils. Faith is not concerned with the
prerequisites of the definition—for instance, that the definition was preceded
by diligent investigation, or a disputation about the propositions to be
defined—for this is not the subject-matter of faith. Nevertheless, once the
definition has been given [which is the object of faith], one rightly infers as
a theological conclusion that all the things necessary for the definition were
in place, and consequently that there was a discussion preceding it. (…)
"Likewise, because
it is de fide that this man in
particular, accepted by the Church as canonically elected, is the Pope, the
theological conclusion is drawn that there were genuine electors, and a real
intention of electing, as well as the other requisites, without which the de fide truth could not stand.
"Therefore, we
have the certainty of faith, by a revelation implicitly contained in the Creed
and in the promise made to Peter, and made more explicit in the definition of
Martin V, and applied and declared in act (in exercitio) by the acceptance of
the Church, that this man in particular, canonically elected according to the
acceptance of the Church, is Pope. The certainty of faith touches this alone
[i.e., his legitimacy]; and whatever is prerequisite to it [i.e., the
conditions], or else follows upon the fact of the election, is inferred as a
theological conclusion drawn from the proposition that is de fide, and is believed mediately.
What this shows is that Catholics do not investigate whether the
conditions were satisfied in order to know if the man is a legitimate
Pope. On the contrary, the fact that a
Pope has been peacefully elected and accepted as Pope by the Church proves that the necessary conditions
were met.
Material
Cause
Next he addresses objections concerning the conditions necessary for a person to be elected Pope (the material
cause). He writes:
"Objection 3: The
third objection is in the line of material causality. The material cause is the
subject [the person] that, by being elected, receives in itself the papal
dignity. We do not have the certitude of faith that this subject is susceptible
of this dignity; neither, then, do we have the certitude of faith that he has,
in fact, received this dignity."
This is the objection raised by Fr Cekada in defense of his “new
argument” – namely, that the recent Popes were all “public heretics” prior to
their election and therefore could not be validly elected to office. And to be clear, Fr. Cekada does not claim
his new argument only applies to Pope Francis, but to all of the Popes since
Vatican II. We see this, for example, in the following reply from Fr. Cekada to an article by Robert Siscoe that was published in Catholic
Family News:
"In April 2014,
Robert Siscoe published an article entitled 'Bellarmine and Suarez on the
Question of a Heretical Pope.' Mr. Siscoe attempted to reconcile Bellarmine and
Suarez’ teaching on loss of office for a Pope who became a public heretic. And thus, so Mr. Siscoe thought, to refute
the Sedevacantist position. The problem, as I pointed out in an article the
following month, is that Sedevacantists no
longer believed that Bergoglio, Ratzinger, JP2 and the rest, ever became
true Popes in the first place. These men were public heretics, and canonists
taught that as a matter of divine law, a public heretic could not be validly
elected Pope."[7]
Here is John of St. Thomas’ reply to this objection of Fr. Cekada:
"The answer here
is similar to the preceding. Prior to the election, there is a moral certainty
that all these conditions required in the person [to become Pope] are actually
met. After the fact of the election and its acceptance, the fulfillment of
these conditions is known with the certainty of a theological conclusion, since
they have, per se, a logical implication with a truth that is certain, and
certified by faith. (…)
"When a truth is
defined that has a necessary connection with another truth, investigation need
not be made into that other, conjoined truth, but only into the truth that is
itself the object of the definition.
Now, the truth that is defined and accepted by the Church is not that
this man is baptized or ordained, etc., but that this man is truly pope, and is
the rule of faith. That he is baptized and meets the other requirements
[i.e., that he is not a public
heretic] is not held as de fide or
defined by the Church, but is inferred as a consequence; and that something be
inferred as a consequence does not require any preceding investigation. (…)
the truth that this man has been ordained, and has the power of order (that is,
of the priesthood or episcopate), is certain in the same way as the truth that
he is baptized is certain; namely, not as a truth immediately de fide, but as a theological conclusion
necessarily connected with the truth that he is the Pope and the rule of faith
in the Church."
As we see, if a man “is lawfully elected and accepted by the Church” as
Pope, his legitimacy is de fide. Consequently, it is also certain that he
possessed the necessary conditions to become Pope. What this obviously means is
that it is not possible for the Church to elect and accept, as Pope, one who
does not meet the required conditions. In other words, it is not possible for the Church to elect and
accept, as Pope, a “public heretic,” which is precisely what Fr. Cekada claims
occurred during the past six conclaves, and what he uses as the basis of his
“new argument.”
And if we consult the actual definition of public heretic, which, for some reason, Fr. Cekada never provides, we find that it does not apply to any of the recent popes. Here is the definition given by one of the Sedevacantists favorite theologians, Salaverri:
And if we consult the actual definition of public heretic, which, for some reason, Fr. Cekada never provides, we find that it does not apply to any of the recent popes. Here is the definition given by one of the Sedevacantists favorite theologians, Salaverri:
“A public heretic is someone who openly adheres to some heretical sect.”
(Sacrae Theologia Summa 1B, bk 3, ch, 2, art. 3)
A public heretic is a public member of a heretical sect (e.g. a member of the Baptist Church), or a baptized non-Catholic that belongs to not church or sect, not a Catholic who Fr. Cekada believes to be guilty of the sin of heresy.
Another 'material cause' for a pope to be validly elected is that the papal office (munus) is vacant at the time of the election. If we apply this to the controversy surrounding Benedict's resignation, the fact that Francis was universally accepted as Pope following his election provides infallible certitude that the papal office was vacant prior to his election, and hence that Benedict's abdication of the Pontificate was valid.
Vacant Papal Office
Another 'material cause' for a pope to be validly elected is that the papal office (munus) is vacant at the time of the election. If we apply this to the controversy surrounding Benedict's resignation, the fact that Francis was universally accepted as Pope following his election provides infallible certitude that the papal office was vacant prior to his election, and hence that Benedict's abdication of the Pontificate was valid.
The following syllogism will help to clarify this point:
Major: Francis' acceptance as pope by the entire Church following his election, provides infallible certitude that he became the legitimate Pope.
Minor: One of the conditions required for Francis to have become Pope is that the Chair of Peter was vacant at the time, and hence that Benedict’s abdication was valid.
Conclusion: Since Francis was accepted as Pope by the entire Church, this proves infallibly that the Chair of Peter was vacant and hence that Benedict’s abdication was valid.
If number 1 is true, number 3 is also true. If the Papal See was not vacant at the time of the election, Francis would not have been accepted as pope by the Church. Since he was, it not only proves that he became Pope, it proves that the Papal office was vacant, and hence that Benedict’s election was valid.
What this shows is that every argument that has been proposed, or that can be proposed in an attempt to prove that Benedict is still the Pope, is proven to be false by the universal acceptance of Francis in the months following his election. And as we will see below, the universal acceptance occurs as soon as the Church learns of the election and passively accepts it. If the election is not at once contested, it is infallibly certain that the man has become Pope, and hence that all the requisite conditions were satisfied. This certainly occurred in the case of Pope Francis.
What this shows is that every argument that has been proposed, or that can be proposed in an attempt to prove that Benedict is still the Pope, is proven to be false by the universal acceptance of Francis in the months following his election. And as we will see below, the universal acceptance occurs as soon as the Church learns of the election and passively accepts it. If the election is not at once contested, it is infallibly certain that the man has become Pope, and hence that all the requisite conditions were satisfied. This certainly occurred in the case of Pope Francis.
Cardinal
Electors Represent the Church Proposing
John of St. Thomas goes on to explain that the Cardinal electors
represent the Church itself in proposing the man to the faithful as Pope. Consequently, their judgment represents the
public judgment of the Church that the man is Pope. If there is not an immediate rejection of the
one elected, this judgment of the Cardinal alone suffices for the universal
acceptance. And if there was any defect in the election, it is “healed in the
root,” as Cardinal Billot said, by the fact that the universal Church (the
bishops, priests and faithful) accepts the man as Pope.
"To the objection
that there must be someone to propose this truth to the Church as de fide, I respond that the election and
the one elected are proposed by the Cardinals, not in their own person, but in
the person of the Church and by her power—for she it is who committed to them
the power of electing the Pope and of declaring him to have been elected. Wherefore
they, in this respect and for this task, are the Church herself
representatively. Thus the Cardinals, or whoever else are electors
legitimately designated by the Church (that is, by the Pope), represent the
Church in all that concerns the election of her head, the successor of Peter.
Just as the Pope gathers the bishops together in a Council, and yet its
confirmation and the ultimate sentence in matters of faith depend upon him, so
the congregation of Cardinals elects the Pope, and declares that he has been
elected, and yet it is the Church, whose ministers they are, that by its acceptance
ultimately confirms as a truth of faith the fact that this man is truly the
highest rule of faith and the supreme pontiff. Wherefore, if the Cardinals
elect him in a questionable manner, the Church can correct their election, as
the Council of Constance determined in its 41st session. Hence, the
proposition [that the one elected is a true Pope] is rendered de fide, as already has been explained,
by the acceptance of the Church, and that alone, even before the Pope
himself defines anything. It is not [just] any acceptance at all of the Church,
but the acceptance of the Church in a matter pertaining to the faith,
since the Pope is accepted as a determinate rule of faith."
Definition
of Pope Martin V
The definition of Pope Martin V that John of St. Thomas referenced earlier
is found in the Bull Inter Cunctas
(Feb. 22, 1418), which was written after the last sessions of the Council of
Constance. The Bull condemns the errors
of John Wycliffe and Hus, and contains questions to be asked of those who are suspected
of heresy, in order to determine “whether they rightly believe.”
Since
these heretics refused to accept the legitimacy of a Pope unless they personally approved of him, one of the questions that was
definitively formulated to detect them, is whether they believe the Pope who is
reigning at the time (whose name is to be included in the question), is the
Successor of St. Peter and possesses the supreme authority in the Church.
As John of St. Thomas and others point out, the question is not if they believe a Pope who passes
their test for legitimacy is the successor of St. Peter and possesses supreme
authority, but if they believe the man the
Church presently recognizes as Pope is the Successor of Peter, etc.. Here is the explanation of this point given
by John of St. Thomas:
“Martin V, in the Council of Constance, in the condemnation
of the errors of Wycliffe (which is to be found after the fourth, fifth, and
last sessions of the Council), in the interrogations that are to be made of
those who are suspected in faith, in order to determine whether they believe
rightly, puts this question.
‘Also, whether he believes that
the Pope canonically elected, who is reigning at the time (his proper name
being given), is the successor of Blessed Peter, having supreme authority in
the Church of God?’(Denz 674)
“These words do not
refer to the truth of that proposition [i.e., whether he is the legitimate
Pope] as understood in a general sense—namely, that whoever is lawfully elected is the Supreme Pontiff, but in the
particular, concerning whoever is Pope at
the time, giving his proper name, for instance, Innocent X [who was Pope
when he was writing]. It is of this
man, whose proper name is given, that
Pope Martin is bidding the person suspect in faith to be asked, whether he
believes that he is the successor of
Peter and the Supreme Pontiff: therefore this pertains to the act of faith—and
not [merely] to an inference or a moral certitude.”
The way
this question would be asked today is: “Do you believe Francis is the successor
of Blessed Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.” Anyone who answered “no” would fail in their
“profession of faith” and be marked as a heretic.
John of St. Thomas further explains that it would be contrary to the
special providence of God for a man, who does not meet the required conditions,
to be accepted as Pope by the Church. He wrote:
[I]t is not
merely a pious belief, but a theological conclusion (as we have stated), that
God will not permit one to be elected and peacefully accepted by the Church who
in fact does not meet the conditions required; this would be contrary to the
special providence that God exercises over the Church and the assistance that
she receives from the Holy Ghost.
Cardinal Billot teaches the same:
[T]he infallible
providence of God will prevent it from ever happening that the whole Church
adhere to a false head; consequently, no one will ever be accepted as supreme
pontiff who does not meet all the conditions necessary to be a member, whatever
those conditions may be. That visibility, therefore, by which the true Church
is recognizable as such, is in no way imperiled.[8]
When
Does His Legitimacy Become Infallibly Certain?
John of St. Thomas proceeds to explain precisely when the universal
acceptance becomes sufficient to prove that the man is a legitimate Pope. He wrote:
"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."
Note that the Cardinals’ election and declaration “is similar to a
definition given by the bishops of a Council legitimately gathered, which is
then “confirmed” by the rest of the Church through its “acceptance” of the
election. The universal acceptance is considered to exist when the election
becomes known and is not contested by the Church, and is accepted by the
prelates.
In John of St. Thomas’ day, such acceptance would happen gradually as
the news spread throughout the Church and the word. But in our day, when news spreads throughout
the world almost immediately, the universal acceptance would be manifest very
quickly. This means that if a Pope’s legitimacy is not contested almost
immediately, his legitimacy is infallibly certain. And questions raised months
and years later would not change the fact.
And it is worth noting that even Fr. Cekada conceded that “everybody” accepted
Paul VI as Pope when he was elected, which is also true with the other
post-Conciliar Popes.[9]
Theological
Censure
The final issue John of St. Thomas addresses is whether those who deny
the legitimacy of a Pope, who has been accepted as such by the Church, are “only”
schismatics or also heretics. His conclusion,
along with Suarez, is that they are heretics:
"Whoever
would deny that a particular man is Pope after he has been peacefully and
canonically accepted, would not only be a schismatic, but also a heretic; for, not only
would he rend the unity of the Church… but he would also add to this a perverse
doctrine, by denying that the man accepted by the Church is to be regarded as
the Pope and the rule of faith. Pertinent here is the teaching of St. Jerome
(Commentary on Titus, chapter 3) and of St. Thomas (IIa IIae Q. 39 A. 1 ad 3),
that every schism concocts some heresy for itself, in order to justify its
withdrawal from the Church. Thus, although
schism is distinct from heresy, in most cases it is accompanied by the latter,
and prepares the way for it. In the case at hand, whoever would deny the proposition just stated would not be a pure
schismatic, but also a heretic, as Suarez also reckons (above, in the solution
to the fourth objection)."[10]
Bishop Sanborn’s Novelty
Due to the problems that universal and peaceful acceptance presents for
the Sedevacantist thesis, the Sedevacantist bishop, Donald Sanborn, came up
with a novel explanation in an effort to get around it. He claims that the
peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope means only that the he was validly
elected; and not that the man elected
actually became the Pope. You read that correctly: he attempts to make a
distinction between a valid election and the validity of the one who was
elected. Sanborn then claims that the peaceful and universal acceptance only
ensures a valid election, but not a valid Pope. The following is taken from an
article the Bishop wrote in 2002, which is still posted on his website:
“Q. Can a papal election be convalidated
by the general acceptance of the Catholic people?
"A. Yes. This is generally conceded by
Catholic theologians. The ultimate guarantee of a valid election is the
universal acceptance of Catholics that a certain man has been elected.
Note that this pertains only to election, i.e., designation, and not
to jurisdiction. For the Catholic people cannot confer jurisdiction, but
only confirm designation to jurisdiction.”[11]
Now, this is quite a novel theory that the Bishop came up with to defend
his Sedevacantist position.[12]
Unfortunately, as is the case with most novel theories, it is entirely
erroneous. The peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope does not simply
guarantee that the man was validly elected; it guarantees that he is a legitimate Pope - that is, it guarantees
that God joined the form to the matter following the election.
Bishop Sanborn’s argument was answered by John of St. Thomas, who wrote:
“There is no real difference between the
proposition, ‘This man is properly elected,’ and, ‘This man is pope,’ since to
be accepted as the supreme pontiff and to be the supreme pontiff are the same;
just as it is the same for something to be defined, and for the definition to
be legitimate.”[13]
As we saw earlier, the peaceful and
universal acceptance of a Pope is an infallible effect that the Pope is, in fact, a true Pope. The cause (true Pope) produces the effect (universal acceptance). Notice
that the cause is not only a valid election, but a valid Pope. In fact, St. Alphonsus
Liguori, Doctor of the Church, even teaches that the peaceful and universal
acceptance of a Pope means that a Pope who was not legitimately elected,
or somehow took possession of the pontificate by fraud, has nevertheless become a true Pope. Again, this shows
that the universal acceptance does not simply guarantee that an election was
valid (by curing any defects that may have existed in the election), but that the Pope is a true Pope. Here
is what St. Alphonsus taught:
“It is of no importance that 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.”[14]
The Papacy of Alexander
VI
Cardinal Billot applied the teaching of
the universal acceptance of a Pope to the scandalous papacy of Alexander VI, in
order to prove that he was a legitimate Pope, even though there were some in
Alexander VI’s day who believed him to be a public apostate. The controversial
Dominican monk Girolamo Savonarola, for example, was one who denied his
legitimacy. In a letter to the Emperor, Savonarola wrote:
"The
Lord, moved to anger by this intolerable corruption, has, for some time past,
allowed the Church to be without a pastor. For I bear witness in the name of
God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be. For quite apart
from the execrable crime of simony, by which he got possession of the [papal]
tiara through a sacrilegious bargaining, and by which every day he puts up to
auction and knocks down to the highest bidder ecclesiastical benefices, and
quite apart from his other vices - well-known to all - which I will pass over
in silence, this I declare in the first place and affirm it with all
certitude, that the man is not a Christian, he does not even believe any longer
that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety."[15]
In spite of the scandals of Alexander VI’s papacy, including the grave
accusations of heresy, apostasy, and illicit acquisition of the Papal See
through simony, leveled by his contemporaries, Cardinal Billot explains that
the universal acceptance proves certain
that Alexander VI was indeed a legitimate Pope. The Cardinal explains:
"Let this be said
in passing against those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made
in the time of Alexander VI, allege that its promoter [Savonarola] broadcast
that he had most certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of
the heresy of Alexander. Putting aside here other reasons with which one could
easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is enough to remember this: it
is certain that when Savonarola was writing his letters to the Princes, all of
Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed him as the true Pontiff. For
this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one."[16]
The same holds true for the
post-conciliar Popes, who, in spite of accusations of heresy, were accepted as
true Popes by the Church.
Objections and Answers
The following was added to the present article on
2-28-19. It provides the answers to
recent objections that have been raised against the doctrine of the universal
acceptance and its application to the papacy of Francis in particular.
(The objections in quotation marks are taken
verbatim from online sources; the others are paraphrased.)
Objection: “Benedict remains in office. Even if
the whole world is in error of fact on the invalidity of Benedict's
renunciation, the belief based on that error, i.e. that Francis has been
validly elected pope, cannot nullify the fact that there is already a pope (…).
Universal acceptance cannot validate the
election of a man who is elected while another man is still validly holding
office…”
Answer: The error in this objection is
evident. It treats a fallible personal opinion (i.e., that
Benedict’s abdication was invalid) as an infallible fact, and then uses it to
reject a truth that is infallibly
certain (i.e., the legitimacy of a Pope who has been universally
accepted).
Here is the syllogism according to this
erroneous reasoning:
Major: Francis’
election was accepted by the entire Church, which provides infallible certitude
that he became the Pope (infallible
dogmatic fact).
Minor:
Benedict’s resignation
was invalid (fallible personal
opinion).
Conclusion: Since
Benedict’s resignation was invalid, Francis never became the Pope (error).
The correct reasoning
is as follows:
Major: Francis’
election was accepted by the entire Church, which provides infallible certitude
that he became the Pope (infallible
dogmatic fact).
Minor: A
condition for Francis to have become Pope is that Benedict’s resignation was valid.
Conclusion: Since
the entire Church accepted Francis as Pope, it is infallibly certain that
Benedicts’ resignation was valid.
Objection: “Finally, as
regards the universal and peaceful acceptance of a papal election: while this
principle is certainly a valid reflex principle for troubled consciences in
the case of a valid election, there is no possibility of a valid
election when the College had no right to act, for it is contrary
not only to Canon Law but to Divine Law to elect another Roman Pontiff while
the Pope still lives and has not validly resigned. (…)”
Answer: This objection maintains that ‘the peaceful
and universal acceptance of a Pope’ only provides infallible certitude of a
Pope’s legitimacy if his election was valid, but not if it was invalid. Or to put it another way, it only guarantees
the legitimacy of a Pope if all the conditions
required for him to have become Pope were satisfied, but not if they were not satisfied.
But if that were the case, the doctrine would serve no purpose at all, since the
Church could never have infallible certainty that all the requisite conditions
were satisfied and that an election was valid.
The truth is that the universal
acceptance of a Pope is what guarantees that
all the conditions were satisfied, which is why Cardinal Billot said, “from
the moment in which the Pope is
accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts
about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever
necessary for legitimacy.”[1]
Once again, the root error of this
objection is the rejection of a truth that is infallibly certain (and de
fide) based on a fallible
personal opinion (that Benedict’s abdication was invalid).
The next objection is a continuation of
the previous one.
Objection:
“… It is also not valid, as
regards its implicit minor: namely,
that there has been a peaceful and universal acceptance of the Papal resignation.
There has not, as the preface to this disputed question demonstrates. Hence,
the application of this reflex principle to the present case is at best praeter
rem, and worse a subterfuge.”
Answer: The validity of a resignation
does not require that it be peacefully and universally accepted. All that is required is
that it be “made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone” (Can. 332 §2). Therefore, the peaceful and universal acceptance
of Benedict’s resignation is not an
implicit minor. The minor is that the Chair of Peter was vacant before Francis was
universally accepted as Pope; the implicit
minor is that Christ accepted Benedict’s abdication and stripped him of the
papal office.
Now, as the official declaratio shows, the manifest intention of Benedict was to “renounce
the ministry of the Bishop of Rome … in such a way that as from 28 February
2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome,
the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant”[2]
(Minor). The universal acceptance of
Francis as Pope two weeks later proves that Benedict accomplished his goal. (Implicit Minor)
Objection: “Though, in common law, possession is nine tenths of right, and thus,
usurpation can lead to acquisition of right; (…) it is not valid theologically
in regard to an ecclesiastical office which was established by Jesus Christ,
the Incarnate Word, by an immediate personal act. Of which kind is the office
of Pope. The theological reason is this: that no one can snatch anything out of the Hand of the Living God (John 10:28). And
thus, no usurpation of the papal office can constrain the Godhead, Who
is Infinite Justice and Omnipotence Himself, to transfer the grace of the
Papal munus to another. To hold otherwise, would be a theological
impossibility and absurdity.”
Answer: If a papal claimant usurped the papal office
illicitly, without becoming the legitimate
Pope, he would never be universally accepted as Pope by the Church. On the
other hand, if his claim to the Papacy was
universally accepted, it would provide infallible certitude that he became
the Pope. Cardinal Billot explains the
reason as follows:
“God can permit that at times a vacancy in the
Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise
about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that
the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.”[3]
Objection:
The idea that a man is Pope just because everyone accepts him as Pope is
“BS”. “I don’t care if it is completely unanimous”
since “if the entire world is proclaiming
something that is false, it does not make
that falsehood true.”
Answer: This objection errs 1) by reversing
the cause and effect, and 2) by a faulty comparison. The universal acceptance of a Pope does not cause a man to become Pope (“it does not
make” him the Pope), but rather
confirms that he has already become Pope.
As the canonists Wernz-Vidal explain,
the practically unanimous acceptance of a Pope is an “infallible effect”[4]
of his legitimacy – or “an infallible sign
of his legitimacy,”[5] in the words of Cardinal Billot. The effect is the universal acceptance; the cause is a legitimate Pope. If the effect
(universal acceptance) exists, it provides infallible certainty of the presence
of the cause (a legitimate Pope). If the cause
is not present, neither will be the effect. The following shows how this objection erred
by reversing the cause and effect:
“If
the entire world is proclaiming (cause) something that is false, it does not make (effect) that falsehood
true.”
Here is the
correct understanding of the doctrine:
If
the entire Church proclaims a man as Pope (effect), it is because he is
the legitimate Pope (cause).
It should also be noted that even if
there were a causal relationship
between the Church’s acceptance of a Pope and his legitimacy as Pope, the Church’s
universal acceptance “would not make a falsehood true”. Rather, Christ (the efficient cause) would make a
non-Pope the true Pope by conferring upon him the Pontifical dignity, which
the Church’s acceptance of him as Pope would dispose him to receive (the universal acceptance being the dispositive cause). Simply put, if a non-Pope became Pope as he was gradually universally
accepted by the Church, it would be due to Christ making him the Pope, not man proclaiming
him so.
Objection: Vatican I defined that the Pope is
infallible and therefore cannot lose the faith or teach heresy. Francis clearly does not have the Faith and
he has taught heresy. This proves that
he lacks the protection of the Papal office, and therefore is a sign that he is not the Pope.
Answer:
Nowhere did Vatican I define that a Pope
is unable to lose the Faith or personally teach heresy. What it defined is that he is unable to err
when he defines a doctrine, ex cathedra. Cardinal Camillo Mazzella,
who held the chair of theology at the Gregorian in the decade following the First
Vatican Council, wrote the following in De
Religione et Ecclesia (1905):
“[I]t is one thing that the Roman Pontiff cannot teach a
heresy when speaking ex cathedra
(what the Council of the Vatican defined); and it is another thing that he
cannot fall into heresy, that is, become a heretic as a private person. On
this last question the Council said nothing (De hac questione nihil dixit Concilium); and the theologians and
canonists are not in agreement among themselves concerning it.”[6]
More than a
century after Vatican I, Cardinal Stickler wrote:
“No theologian today, even if he accept
unconditionally the infallibility of the Roman pontiff, asserts thereby that
the pope, speaking in the abstract, cannot
personally become a heretic….”[7]
Objection: Even if Francis became Pope after his
election, he clearly does not have the faith now so he can’t be the Pope. St. Robert Bellarmine said a heretic is ipso facto deposed.
Answer:
In De Ecclesia Militante,
Bellarmine shows what his true position is concerning the loss of office for
heresy. He explains that a Pope who
falls into heresy does not lose the
pontificate unless 1) he publicly separates himself from the Church, or 2) is
convicted of heresy by the Church:
“It is certain, whatever one or another might think, an
occult heretic, if he might be a Bishop, or even the Supreme Pontiff, does not lose jurisdiction, nor dignity, or
the name of the head in the Church, until
either he separates himself publicly from the Church,[8] or
being convicted of heresy, is separated against his will” (Bellarmine, De
Ecclesia Militante, Chapter X).
Francis has not publicly separated
himself from the Church, nor has he been convicted of heresy. Therefore,
according to Bellarmine he has not lost his office. And the fact that he
remains Pope is confirmed by the infallibility
of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which continues to recognize him as Pope, thereby providing “clear-cut
witness to the legitimacy of his succession” (Van Noort)[9],
as was discussed in Part I.
Objection:
I know a lot of Catholics who reject
Francis as Pope, so I deny that he is “universally accepted” as Pope.
Answer: Even if someone denies that Francis is
‘universally accepted’ now, they
can’t deny that he was universally accepted in the weeks and months following his
election, and that alone suffices to prove he became Pope. As Cardinal Billot explains, the legitimacy of
a Roman Pontiff is infallibly certain “from the moment in which the Pope
is accepted by the Church”.[10]
John of St. Thomas teaches the same: “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."[11]
Objection: Francis might be ‘universally
accepted,’ but he hasn’t been ‘peacefully’ accepted.
Answer: The ‘peaceful’ aspect refers to the
election not at once being contested;
the ‘universal’ aspect refers to the entire Church learning of the election and
not at once contesting it. No one
contested Francis election until many months after the entire Church had
accepted it.
Objection: The papal bull of Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus, says pre-election
heresy renders null the promotion or elevation of a Bishop, Patriarch, or even
the Roman Pontiff, and goes on to say the elevation or promotion does not
become valid even if obedience had been “accorded to such by all.” Therefore, universal acceptance does not
prove the legitimacy of a Pope.
Answer: The first thing to note is that the penal
sanctions contained in Cum ex Apostolatus were considered so manifestly unjust
and problematic, that at the time of Vatican I the opponents of Papal
Infallibility presented it as evidence that the Pope is not infallible. And the defenders of the dogma did not
disagree with them concerning the problematic nature of the contents of the
document, but instead defended Papal Infallibility by proving that the bull
itself did not meet the conditions for infallibility. Second, Cum ex Apostolatus has been derogated
and hence is no longer in force. Third, saying a Pope whose election is null
and void to be pre-election heresy, will not acquire validity if obedience
accorded to him by all, does not mean it
can actually happen that an invalidly
elected Pope can be universally accepted as Pope by the Church. Lastly, the legitimacy of a Pope who has been
universally accepted is qualified as “theologically certain.” This would not be the case if the Church
interpreted the aforementioned teaching of the problematic, and now obrogated,
papal bull, Cum ex Apostolatus, as
meaning an illegitimate Pope can be universally accepted as Pope by the Church. For more in this, see here:
Objection: Even if Benedict’s abdication was
valid, the election of Francis was null and void due to the conspiracy of the
St. Gallan’s Mafia, which is forbidden by Universi
Dominici Gregis, n. 81.
Answer: The canonist Ed Peters has provided a
canonical reply to this and other canonical objections.[12]
Theologically, all such objections are proven
to be false by the universal acceptance of Francis, which would not have taken
place if any illicit acts of the Cardinals had invalidated the election. Also relevant here is the following teaching
of St. Alphonsus:
“It
is of no importance that 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 in light of such
acceptance he has already become the legitimate and true Pope (attesoché per tale accettazione già si è
renduto legittimo e vero pontefice).”[13]
It should also
be noted that the election is merely the mechanism by which the Church chooses
a Pope, but it is always Christ who makes the man pope by conferring upon him
the Pontifical authority. Now, Christ is
not restricted by human law or hindered from acting due to illicit or
fraudulent acts of man. While it is
certain that Christ will act by
joining the man elected (matter) to the Pontificate (form) when the election
laws are followed, He is not hindered from doing so due to a defect in the
election. This explains why some men who were illicitly elected became
legitimate Popes.
This would logically apply in reverse as
well. For example, if a Pope pretended to resign from the papacy and
deceived the Church into believing he did so (which is essentially what those
who deny the validity of Benedict’s resignation are attributing to him), there
is no doubt that Christ would strip such a one of the Pontificate. This is implicitly confirmed by the historical
examples of true Popes who were illicitly
deposed, yet nevertheless lost the papal office when they acquiesced to it.
Now, since it is certain that only Christ can authoritatively remove a
true Pope from the Pontificate, if He has done so in cases of Popes who were illegally deposed yet acquiesced to it, would He not do
the same in the case of a Pope who pretended
to resign, by orchestrating his own illegal
abdication and acquiescing to it? No
doubt He would, and if the next Pope was universally accepted, it would prove
it.
Objection:
If a man is elected by a conclave, that
by itself does not mean he’s the Pope, or even a member of the Church. He is guilty until proven innocent, and the
burden of proof is on him to
demonstrate that he is Catholic before the faithful accept him as Pope. [14]
Answer: This objection is virtually identical
to the following error of Wycliffe and Huss, which was formally condemned at
the Council of Constance:
“The vocal (viva voce) agreement of the
electors, or of the greater part of them, according to human custom, does not
mean by itself that the person has been legitimately elected, or that by this
very fact he is the true and manifest successor or vicar of the apostle Peter,
or of another apostle in an ecclesiastical office. It is rather to the works of the one elected
that we should look (…). For, the more plentifully a person acts meritoriously
towards building up the church, the more copiously does he thereby have power
from God for this” – CONDEMNED.[15]
The faithful do
not decide for themselves if the elect is a member of the Church before
accepting his as Pope. The election laws
provide that the elect becomes the “true pope and Head of the College of
Bishops” immediately upon his
acceptance of the election (Universi
Dominici Gregis, n. 81). The universal acceptance simply confirms his legitimacy and prevents
future doubts from calling it into question.
Objection: The peaceful and universal acceptance of
a Pope doesn’t prove he is the true Pope. This is proven from the case of Antipope
Anacletus II who “was backed by a majority of Cardinals and the entirety of
Rome with the exception of the Corsi family and illegitimately ruled EIGHT
YEARS until his death. (…) You
can read the long versions at NewAdvent.org.”
Answer: Anacletus II’s election was not uncontested (‘peaceful’), nor was he ever
‘universally accepted’ as Pope by the Church.
“The long version at Newadvent.org” refers to his election as “the contested papal election of the year
1130.”[16]
The reason it was contested is because it took place 3 hours after the election of
the true Pope Innocent II – who was proclaimed
to be the true Pope by three synods held later same year. The usurper may have won over the majority of
the population of Rome for a time, but that doesn’t suffice for a ‘universal’
acceptance.
Objection: The doctrine of the peaceful and
universal acceptance is nothing but a theological opinion that any Catholic is
free to reject.
Answer:
This doctrine is far more than a mere
opinion, and no Catholic who wishes to save his soul can reject it. In his book ‘On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning
Them’ (which was drafted for use by the auditors of the Roman
Congregations), Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J., noted that the rejection the
legitimacy of a Pope who has been universally accepted is a “mortal sin against
the Faith”.[17]
John of St. Thomas qualifies it as heresy:
"Whoever would deny that a particular man is
Pope after he has been peacefully and canonically accepted, would not only be a
schismatic, but also a heretic; for, not only would he rend the unity of
the Church… but he would also add to this a perverse doctrine, by denying that
the man accepted by the Church is to be regarded as the Pope and the rule of
faith. Pertinent here is the teaching of St. Jerome (Commentary on Titus,
chapter 3) and of St. Thomas (IIa IIae Q. 39 A. 1 ad 3), that every schism
concocts some heresy for itself, in order to justify its withdrawal from the
Church. Thus, although schism is
distinct from heresy, in (…) the case at hand, whoever would deny the proposition just stated would not be a pure schismatic,
but also a heretic, as Suarez also reckons."[18]
Foornotes for the Q&A
[1] Op. cit.
[2] Benedict XVI, Declaratio,
February 10, 2013.
[3] Op.cit.
[4] Wernz-Vidal, Ius Can., II. p. 520, note 171,
[5] Op. cit.
[6] Mazzella, C. De Religione et Ecclesia, 6th ed. (Prati:
Giach. Filii., 1905), p. 817.
[7] The Catholic Historical Review,
Vol. 60, No. 3.
[8] By ‘separating himself publicly
from the Church,’ he means leaving the Church and publicly severing communion
with the other Bishops. This is clear
from the historical example he uses (Novation) to support same teaching in De Romano Pontifice, bk. 2, ch, 30.
[9] Op. cit.
[10] Op. cit.
[11] Op. cit.
[12] https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/28/francis-was-never-pope-call-me-unpersuaded
[13] Liguori, Verita della Fede, in
“Opera…,” vol. VIII., p. 720, n. 9.
[14]
https://akacatholic.com/is-francis-catholic-the-burden-of-proof/
[15] Inter Cunctus, Council of Constance.
[16]
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01447a.htm
[17]
http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html
[18] Op. cit.
[19]
The development resulted in a distinction between the assent of faith owed to
formally revealed truths (de fide divina
et catholica), and the assent that is owed to de fide truths that comprise
the secondary object of infallibility (de
fide ecclesiastica). Today,
rejecting the former is heresy, strictly speaking (c. 751), while rejection of
the latter is a mortal sin against faith.
[1]
Wernz-Vidal, Ius Can., II. p. 520,
note 171,
[2]
The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 60, No. 3.
[3] https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/28/francis-was-never-pope-call-me-unpersuaded
[4]
https://akacatholic.com/is-francis-catholic-the-burden-of-proof/
[5] The current
legislation on papal elections provides that if the man elected by the conclave
has already received episcopal consecration, he becomes the “true pope and Head
of the College of Bishops” immediately,
upon his acceptance. (UDG. #88)
[6] http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html
[7] John of St. Thomas, Cursus Theologici II-II, Tome, Disp. 8, Art. 2.
Footnotes for the body of the article
[1] As we saw in
Chapter 1, the Siri Theory, held by some Sedevacantists, maintains that
Cardinal Siri was validly elected in the 1958 Conclave, taking the name Gregory
XVII, but through coercion was forced to resign before being presented to the
Church as Pope. They hold that a forced resignation is invalid and consequently
Cardinal Siri (who publicly recognized John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and
John Paul II as valid Popes as well as the legitimacy of the changes spawned by
Vatican II) remained the true Pope until his death on May 2, 1989.
[2] The Pope is the
rule of faith to the extent that he infallibly proposes doctrines that must be
assented to by faith. As will be explained in the next chapter, only truths
infallibly proposed are assented to with the assent of faith. Personal opinions
or non-infallible teachings of a Pope do not constitute articles of faith.
Hence, John XXII was not a “false rule” of faith when he taught his error
regarding the Beatific Vision.
[3] Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I,
pp. 612-613 (emphasis added).
[4] Cf. John of St. Thomas,
II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 2, a. 2, nos. 1, 15, 28, 34, 40; pp. 228 et seq.
[5] The Church of the Word Incarnate, pp.
481-482.
[6] John of St. Thomas:
“CLARIFICATION OF THE TERMS PER SE PRIMO
AND PER SE SECUNDO: A proposition is
said to be de fide immediately and per se primo if, under the light of God,
the assent of faith attains to it without any intermediary, as a proposition
immediately revealed. But it is said to
be held by faith mediately and per se
secundo if it is known through an inference drawn from a premise that is de fide.
The latter pertains to the light of theology, whose business is to draw
inferences from the truths of the faith.
Therefore, truths that are de fide
in the primary sense (per se primo)
are related to those that are de fide
in the secondary sense (per se secundo)
in much the same way as the axioms used in the sciences are related to the
conclusions drawn from them. But even
among those revealed truths that pertain immediately to the light of faith,
there is a difference and gradation.
Some are de fide only in themselves (quoad
se); others, both in themselves and in relation to us (quoad se, quoad nos); and among the latter some are de fide for all
(quoad omnes), while some are such only
for a few (quoad aliquos), or for the
learned (quoad sapientes). A proposition is de fide only quoad se when it has, in fact, been
revealed, and is contained in Sacred Scripture or in the tradition of the
Church, but has not yet actually been proposed as such by the Church…[S]uch
propositions coincide, for the time being, with theological conclusions—for all
the propositions that the Church defines are first theological conclusions
inferred by argumentation before they come to be defined as truths of faith. Indeed, whenever the Church defines
something, this act presupposes underlying argumentation; and this is something
peculiar to theology, that the same propositions that were once conclusions can
become axioms. But those things are of
faith quoad nos, which are, de facto,
revealed, and which are proposed as such by the Church, either by a definition
that she gives, or else because they are expressly contained in Sacred
Scripture. And among those propositions
which are of faith quoad nos, some are of faith for all (quoad omnes), and some for a few, the learned (quoad aliquos, quoad sapientes).
This last distinction arises from the fact that the definition or
revelation itself, by which propositions belong to the faith, is sometimes so
clearly expressed that all understand it the same way without any controversy,
as is the case with the proposition, “God is three and one”; but sometimes it
remains a matter of opinion or doubt whether or not the proposition has been
defined or revealed. As a result, there
can sometimes be a difference in opinion regarding the censure attached to a
proposition: is the proposition erroneous or not? No matter how true it be that the proposition
is revealed or defined, not all are certain of its definition. Hence, the following difference: with some
propositions that are de fide, their
reflex propositions are also de fide—for
instance, just as it is de fide that
Christ became incarnate, or that there is a Trinity of divine Persons, so it is
also de fide that those propositions
are de fide. With other propositions, however, although
they are themselves de fide, their
reflexes are not, because there remains some controversy concerning whether
they have been defined, or whether they are contained in Sacred Scripture, or
in the tradition and acceptance of the Church.”
[7] Fr. Anthony Cekada, “Dead on Arrival”(21:00-21:40).
[7] Fr. Anthony Cekada, “Dead on Arrival”(21:00-21:40).
[8] Billot, Tractatus
de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, Q. 7: “On the Members of the Church”.
[9]
The sedevacantist thesis arose from a need to
explain how Paul VI, whom everyone at first recognized as a true pope when
he was elected in 1963, could have used papal authority to promulgate
doctrinal errors…” (Fr.
Anthony Cekada, “Bergoglio Has Nothing to Lose”). The
answer for Fr. Cekada’s difficulty is that a Pope is only protected from erring
when he engages his infallibility, which Paul VI never did. Therefore, it was possible, and not impossible,
for Paul VI to teach errors while at the same time being a legitimate pope.
[10] John of St. Thomas
does not distinguish between ecclesiastical faith and divine and Catholic Faith,
which is a distinction that developed after is time. (See: Monsignor Joseph
Clifford Fenton, “The Question of Ecclesiastical Faith,” American
Ecclesiastical Review, April, 1953) Those who do make this distinction, and place
the universal acceptance of the Pope in the former category, hold that the
rejection of a Pope, who has been accepted as such by the universal Church, are
guilty of a mortal sin indirectly against the faith.
[11] Bishop Sanborn,
“Explanation Of The Thesis Of Bishop Guérard Des Lauriers,” June 29, 2002. See http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/Explanation%20of%20the%20Thesis
.pdf.
[12] As mentioned in
Chapter 10, Sanborn is basing his position upon the thesis of Fr. Guérard
des Lauriers (often referred to as the “Cassiciacum” thesis), which holds that
each conciliar Pope was a material
Pope (they held the papal office lawfully), but not a formal Pope (they did not receive the authority of the office).
Sanborn likewise holds that “Novus Ordo”
Catholics “are still legally Catholics” (ibid.), even though he also holds that
they are not members of the Church but of a false religion. Thus, Sanborn has
created a fictional distinction that does not exist in reality, that is, that
one can be a legal Catholic and office-holder in the Church, but not actually
enjoy the legal rights, privileges and powers which are necessarily concomitant with that legal membership (and, remember,
all this is discerned by private judgment, to boot). Needless to say, neither
the Church nor any reputable theologian has ever taught such a thing; the
theory is as false as it is novel.
[15] Schnitzer,
Savonarola, Italian translation by E. Rutili (Milan, 1931), vol. II, p. 303.
Quoted in Journet’s The Church of the Word Incarnate, p. 484
(emphasis added).
[16] Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I,
pp. 612-613 (emphasis added).