List of authors who taught the doctrine.
1) Fr. E. Sylvester
Berry, The Church of Christ (1927),
Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009, pp. 288-290.
3) Monsignor G. Van
Noort, Christ’s Church, Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957, p. 153 (emphasis added).
4) Louis Cardinal
Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, (1909),
"Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi", I, Editio quinta, apud aedes Universitatis
Gregorianae, Romae, p. 623
5)
Cardinal Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate (1955), (London and New York: Sheed and
Ward, 1955), pp. 481-482
6)
Monsignor G Van Noort, Sources of Revelation
(Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957),
p. 265
7)
Ludwig Van Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Fourth
Edition, May 1960 (Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974).
8)
Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology (1959) vol I, (New York; Tournai; Paris; Rome: Desclee Company,
1959), p. 146.
9) F. Dominico a SS.ma Trinitate Carmelita Discalc, Bibliotheca theologica: Septem Libris Distincta Prouincia, ROMAE; Typographia Philippi Matiz Mancini, 1668, lib III, Sectio IV, caput X
10) Abbot Guéranger,
O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, pg. 188 1875
11) Rev. James Kavanagh, D.D., A Reply to Mr. Gladstone’s
Vaticanism, Dublin, James Guffy, 1895, p. 54
12) Hervé,
Hervé, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, (1952)
Berche et Pagis, Editores, Parisiis, 1952) Vol. I.500 (b), I.514.
13) Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B (1955), On The Church of Christ, On Holy
Scripture, 3rd ed., translated by Kenneth Bakker S.J., (Keep the Faith, Inc. 2015), bk II, ch. III, a. II., N. 812.
14) Rev. Louis Farris, Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica. Iuridica Moralis Theologica, Romae:
S. C. De Propaganda Fide, (1764)
15) Billuart, Rene’, Summa S. Thomae Hodiernis Academiarum Moribus Accommodata (Everardum Kints, Leodii, Liege), Tract: De Regulus Fidei, 1754, p. 99
16) Hurter, S.J.
Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium (1885)
17) Fr.
Sydney Smith, S.J., The Tablet (1895)
18) American Ecclesiastical Review, Fr. O’Connor’ Q&A
(December 1965)
19) Sixtus Cartechini S.J. On the Value of Theological
Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them (Rome, 1951)
20) John of St. Thomas CURSUS THEOLOGICUS, Tome 6. Questions 1-7 on Faith. Disputation 8. 1640 1 2 3 4 5
21) Dr. Boni, Professor
of Canon Law at the University of Bologna, and Advisor of the Pontifical
Council for Legislative Texts. “Beyond a Resignation. The Decision of Pope
Benedict XVI and The Law,” Bologna, 2015.
22) Franciscus Xav. Wernz, Petrus Vidal, "Ius
canonicum", II, "De personis", apud aedes Universitatis
Gregorianae, Romae, 1943, pp.
520-521
23) St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Doctor of the Church, Verita
Della Fede', Part III, Ch. VIII, p. 720. 1767
25) Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, 1418
27) Schmier, Benedict; Grimm, Georg; Merck, Aemilianus; Schmier, Benedict, Ecclesia Christi In Terris Militans: Seu Catholica Religio, Cum Fide, Spe Et Charitate Theolocica, Gratia Habituali, Iustificatione, Et Merito. Tractatus de Ecclesia Militante Questio XX, SALISBURGI: Typis Joannis Josephi Mayr, (1732)
31) Arnaldo De Salveria, L’Ordo Missae de Paul VI: Qu’en penser?, Paris, 1980, p. 72
32) Archbishop Lefebvre, The New Mass and the Pope, The Angelus, January 1980
33) Rev. Donald Sanborn (Sedevacantist Bishop), Explanation of The Thesis Of Bishop Guérard Des Lauriers, (2002)
34) Fr.
Joseph Mariae de Turre , O.P., Institutionum ad verbi Dei scriptiintelligentiam Tractatus tertius, Typis Pauli Montii, (1711), Tract.
III, Quaest V, App., q. 4., p. 176.
35) Fr. Francisco, Palanco Tractatus De Fide Theologica. In 2. 2.
Div. Thom. Ad illustrissimum d. d., Tract De Fide, Disp. III, Quaest. XI, Ad
hac proposition Innocent XII, (1701) pp. 313-329.
36) Fr. Antonio De Alvalate, Cursus Theologicus...juxta
mentem Doct. Joanni Dunsii Scoti, Tract II de Vera Relig., Disp III, Quaest
III. (1757)
42. Fr. Vidal,
Ius Decretalium, 1906, Papa Dubius, p. 356-7, n. 184.
43. R.P.F. Francisci Henno
Theologia dogm. moral et Scholast, : tomus II, (1795) (Refs Martin V)
47.
Cardinal de Lugo, Joannis de Lugo... Opera Omnia Theologica, Quibus Nunc Primum
Accedunt Una Cum Auctoris Vita, Tom. I, (Pariis, Martin-Beaupre 1868). p. 173-5 (Refs Martin V) 48. Cano, Melchior, De Loci Theologicis, (1562) lib. VI, cap. III (Refs Martin V);
49. Kirsch,
Leopold, S.J., Tractatus Theologicus De Virtutibus Theologalibus Fide, Spe,
Charitate, (Vetero-Pragae, 1767), Pars I De Fide Divina, Quaes IV, Cap II, Prob IV, p 108 (Martin V)
53. Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, IV, ch. X
Fr. E. Sylvester Berry - The Church of Christ (1927)
"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; 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." Berry, The
Church of Christ, (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009, previously
published by Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary, 1955, pp. 288, 289, 290, originally
published in 1927)
Cardinal Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate
1955
"[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. The Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to
certain knowledge as to who is elected." (Cardinal Journet, Church of the
Word Incarnate (London and New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955, pp. 481-482.)
Sylvester Hunter, S.J., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology,
(1894)
“Dogmatic Facts: - But besides these
speculative truths, there are certain matters of fact concerning which the
Church can judge with infallibly certainty. These are called by many writers
dogmatic facts [.]
“First, then, the Church is
infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope; for if the
person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in
communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved
hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the
function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the uncertainty
could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and
Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified,
which is impossible.
“This
argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic
facts. Also, it affords an answer to
a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by
writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a
certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by
Cardinals who owed their appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it
is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant since that time. A volume might be occupied if we attempt
to expose all the frailness of the argument which is supposed to lead to this
startling conclusion; but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in
recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the
body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine
constitution of the Church would be ruined.” (Hunter, Outlines of DogmaticTheology, Volume I (New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, Benzinger Brothers, 1894)
ch. VI, N. 211.
W. Wilmers, A
Handbook of the Christian Religion (1891):
“The difficulty is sometimes raised that
it is impossible at times to know whether a pope is lawfully elected or not,
and, consequently, whether he has the power to rule the Church or not. The
answer is simple. If the whole Church once acknowledges any one as its
lawful head, though the election may have been for some cause invalid, he
thereby receives the sanction of the Church, which is equivalent to a second
and valid election; whereupon he succeeds to all that power vested in the
head of the Church. Hence no secret flaw can practically invalidate a papal
election, and every defect in the election is removed by the ratification of
the Church, so that any pope, universally acknowledged by the Church, is
necessarily the true successor of St. Peter (W. Wilmers, ‘A Handbook of the
Christian Religion,’ 3rd ed., Benziger Bros., New York, New York.
1891, page 95.)
Van Noort – Christ’s Church 1957
"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 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 recognized as supreme
ruler of the universal Church." (Van Noort, Christ’s Church, (Westminster,
Maryland: Newman Press, 1957, p. 153.)
Van Noort – Sources of Revelation 1957
“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 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.” (Van Noort,
Sources of Revelation (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957, p. 265.)
Cardinal Billot - De Ecclesia Christ (1909)
"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.” (De Ecclesia Christi, Quaestio XIV - De Romano Pontifice, Thesis XXIX, §3 1909.)
Hervé,
Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (1952)
A. Tanquerey – Synopsis
theologiae dogmaticae fundamentalis: Ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis – (1896)
“All admit that the Church enjoys
infallibility with regard to the legitimacy of a Holy Pontiff, and therefore
that it cannot err when it unanimously recognizes that Pope as legitimate.
Otherwise, the Church’s body would be separated from its head. That would be contrary to its indefectibility
and unity.” (Tanquerey, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae fundamentalis: Ad mentem
S. Thomae Aquinatis, 1897, Caput II, No. 197, p. 482.; 1896, No. 195, p. 523)
Abbot Guéranger,
O.S.B., The Liturgical Year - 1875
“The inevitable play of human passions,
interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while
[i.e., “for a certain time”] render uncertain the transmission of spiritual
power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put
in possession of her liberty, acknowledges in the person a certain Pope, until
then doubtful, as the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is
a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the
Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself.” (Abbot Guéranger,
O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, 1875, pg. 188.)
St. Alphonsus
Ligouri - 'Verita Della Fede' 1767
'It is of no importance that in the past
centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the
Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterward by the whole
Church as Pope, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But
if for a certain time, he was not accepted universally and truly by the Church,
during that time then, the pontifical see would be vacant, as it is vacant at
the death of a Pope.” (Verita
Della Fede', Part III, Ch. VIII, p. 720.)
Tanquerey - Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology (1959)
“The Church is infallible in regard to
dogmatic facts. A dogmatic fact is one which is so
much connected with a doctrine of the Church that knowledge of it is necessary
in order to understand the doctrine and to preserve it safely.
“Dogmatic facts can be threefold:
historical, doctrinal and hagiographical.
Thus, dogmatic facts are the legitimacy of the Holy Pontiff, the
ecumenical (universal) nature of a Council.
“That the Church is infallible in
regard to dogmatic facts in certain.
For if the Church could make
mistake concerning the authority of the Holy Pontiff or of a Council,
then there would always be grounds for doubting whether their decisions were
infallible and accordingly for rejecting these decisions.” Tanquerey, Dogmatic
Theology, vol I, (New York; Tournai; Paris; Rome: Desclee Company, 1959), p.
146.
Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B (1955)
“Dogmatic facts can be ether formally
revealed, like the divine institution of the Church, the resurrection of
Christ, etc., or necessarily connected
with revealed truths, that is, truths which if they are not held, revelation
itself cannot be protected or proposed.
We are speaking only about these or about facts connected with
revelation. But these are of two kinds:
a) some are simply such, like the legitimacy of the Council of Trent [or of a
Roman Pontiff], without which certitude about the dogmas defined by it would be
called into doubt; b) but others are doctrinal like the orthodox or heterodox
meaning of a human text.” (p. 261).
“In the decree of Vatican I, which had
been prepared, the doctrine of the thesis was directly and explicitly defined;
hence the thesis is proximate to a definition:
Vatican
I draft, Canon IX:
“If any one says that the infallibility of the Church I restricted only to
those things which are contained in divine revelation, and does not also extend
to other truths which are required
necessarily in order to safeguard the whole deposit of revelation [i.e.,
dogmatic facts], let him be anathema.” (Mansi 51,543,552).
Canon IX. Si quis dixerit, Ecclesiae
infallibilitatem ad ea tantum restringi, quae divina revelatione continentur,
nec ad alias etiam veritates extendi, quae necessario requiruntur, ut
revelationis depositum integrum custodiatur; anathema sit.
Vatican I, c. 9 approved, draft: “If
anyone say that the Church of Christ can fail in the true faith, or certainly
is not immune from error in no other matters except in those which per se are
contained in the word of God, let him be anathema.” (Mansi 53,313,316. (Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa 1B, On
The Church of Christ, On Holy Scripture, 3rd ed., translated by
Kenneth Bakker S.J., Keep the Faith, Inc. 2015.
Fr. Wernz (Doubtful Pope - see footnote)
“The ancient authors everywhere admitted
the axiom, ‘A doubtful pope is no pope’ and applied it to solve the
difficulties which arose from the Great Western Schism. Now this axiom could be understood in several
ways. For instance, a ‘doubtful pope’ can be understood not negatively, but positively
- i.e., when, after a diligent examination of the facts, competent men in the
Catholic Church would pronounce: 'The validity of the canonical election of
this Roman pontiff is uncertain’.
Moreover, the words 'No pope' are not necessarily understood of a
pope who has previously been received as certain and undoubted by the whole
Church, but concerning whose election so many difficulties are
subsequently brought to light that he becomes 'a doubtful pope' so that he
would thereby forfeit the pontifical power already obtained. This understanding of the axiom concerning 'a
doubtful pope' should be reproved because the whole Church cannot entirely
fall away from a Roman pontiff who has been legitimately elected, on account of
the unity promised to His Church by Christ.
“But the other part of this axiom could
have the meaning that a Roman pontiff whose canonical election is uncertain and
remains subject to positive and solid doubts after studious examination,
absolutely never did acquire also the papal
jurisdiction from Christ the Lord. For this reason the bishops gathered
together in a general council, in the event that they subject to examination a
doubtful case of this kind, do not pronounce judgement on a true pope, since
the person in question lacks the papal jurisdiction. Now if the axiom be
understood in this last sense, the doctrine which it contains is entirely
sound.
“Indeed this is what is deduced in the
first place from the very nature of jurisdiction. For jurisdiction is
essentially a relation between a superior who has the right to obedience and a
subject who has the duty of obeying. Now when one of the parties to this
relationship is wanting, the other necessarily ceases to exist also, as is
plain from the nature of the relationship. However, if a pope is truly and
permanently doubtful, the duty of obedience cannot exist towards him on the
part of any subject. For the law, 'Obedience is owed to the
legitimately-elected successor of St. Peter,' does not oblige if it is doubtful;
and it most certainly is doubtful if the law has been doubtfully promulgated,
for laws are instituted when they are promulgated, and without sufficient
promulgation they lack a constitutive part, or essential condition. But if the
fact of the legitimate election of a particular successor of St. Peter is only
doubtfully demonstrated, the promulgation is doubtful; hence that law is not
duly and objectively constituted of its necessary parts, and it remains truly
doubtful and therefore cannot impose any obligation. Indeed it would be rash to
obey such a man who had not proved his title in law. Nor could appeal be made
to the principle of possession, for the case in question is that of a Roman
pontiff who is not yet in peaceful possession. Consequently in such a
person there would be no right of command - i.e. he would lack papal
jurisdiction.
"The same conclusion is confirmed on
the basis of the visibility of the Church. For the visibility of the Church
consists in the fact that she possesses such signs and identifying marks that,
when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned, especially
on the part of her legitimate officers. But in the supposition we are
considering, the pope cannot be found even after diligent examination. The
conclusion is therefore correct that such a doubtful pope is not the proper
head of the visible Church instituted by Christ. Nor is such a doubtful
pope any less compatible with the unity of the Church, which would be in the
highest degree prejudiced in the case of the body being perfectly separated
from its head. For a doubtful pope has no right of commanding and therefore
there is no obligation of obedience on the part of the faithful. Hence in such
a case the head would be perfectly separated from the rest of the body of the
Church. Cf. Suarez, De Fide, Disp.10, sect.6, n.4, 19." (Fr. Franz Xaver Wernz,
Ius Decretalium ad Usum Praelectionum In Scholis Textus Canonicisive Juris
Decretalium, , Tomus II, (Romae: De Propoganda Fide, 1898) Scholion 618). Ius Decretalium
Card. Franzelin 1.
c. p. 232. n. 4. i. f.; Camarda 1. c. p. 253. sq. 256. sq., ubi agit de
legitimis exceptionibus contra electum Rom. Pontificem recteque notat contra
Papam electum et a tota Ecclesia receptum non admitti exceptionem. Qui
consensus Eccl. non est electio nec vi sua non electum facit electum, quia
canonice electus a Cardinalibus antece denter ad acceptationem Ecclesiae est
legitimus Papa. Cfr. Franzelin l. c. p. 234. Ergo acceptatio illa Ecclesiae
non est causa, sed signum et effectus infallibilis validae
electionis. Vicissim si tota Eccl Papam electum dere linquat v. g. Petrum
de Luna sive Bened. XIII., id certum est signum illum nunquam fuisse legitimum
Papam. Cfr. Card. Hergenroether-Kirsch l. c. t. II. p. 867. sq.; Bouiae l. c.
p. 684. sq.; Billot l. c. p. 144. sq. [Therefore, the universal acceptance by the
Church is not the cause, but a sign and infallible effect of a valid election. On
the other hand, if the entire Church abandons a Pope, as in the base of Peter De
Luna (Benedict XIII) it is a certain sign that he never was a legitimate Pope.]
Hurter,
S.J. Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium (1885)
“[Dogmatic facts]
include things of this sort: that the Sacred
Scriptures we use are genuine; that the Councils of
Nicaea, Ephesus, Trent, etc. were legitimate; that Pius
IX, Leo XIII, etc. were elected
legitimately and consequently were legitimate successors to
Peter as Bishops of Rome. Just see what would result if you would let
any of these things be called into doubt. Definitions issued
during Councils would not have certainty. There would be no
sure way of determining the center of
Catholic unity. In short, what would result is the
uprooting of faith itself and the destruction of Rev- elation.
[Facta
dogmatica] “ejus modi sunt, e.g., Scripturam s., qua utimur,
esse genuinam; concilia nicaenum, ephesinum, tridentinum
etc., fuisse legitima; Pius IX, Leonem XIII etc. Iegitime fuisse
electos ac proinde legitimos Petri in episcopatu romano
successores. Sane fac quidpiam horum in dubium vocetur, illico
consequetur, editas definitiones in conciliis incertas, incertum
esse centrum unitatis catholicae, scil. consequetur
ipsius fidei excidium revelationisque pernicies. Hurter, S.J. Theologiae Dogmaticae Compendium
(1885) I.338 (Thesis LV).
John of St. Thomas
– Theological Courses, 1640
“The Church accepts the election and the
elect as a matter of faith, because as she receives him as the infallible rule
of faith, and as the supreme head to whom she is united—for the unity of the
Church depends upon her union with him.
"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 the Church (that is, the Pope) has legitimately
designated to do the electing, 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 [i.e., that he is the
legitimate 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.” (…)
"All that remains to be determined,
then, is the exact moment when the acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient
to render the proposition [i.e., that this man is Pope] 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 at 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."
Sedevacantist Bishop, Donald Sanborn (2002)
“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. (Rev. Donald Sanborn, Explanation Of The Thesis Of Bishop Guérard Des Lauriers, Jan, 2002)
Arnaldo De Salveira - 1980
Silveira: In respect to a doubtful Pope, it is necessary to make it very clear here that the peaceful acceptance of a Pope by the whole Church is ‘a sign and an infallible effect of a valid election’. This is the common teaching of the authors.” (L’Ordo Missae de Paul VI: Qu’en penser?, Paris, 1980, p. 72).
Fr. Francis
Connell – American Ecclesiastical Review - 1965
In the December 1965 issue of
The American Ecclesiastical Review, Fr. Francis Connell provides a beautiful
explanation of the doctrine and uses it to prove that Paul VI was validly
baptized (condition) and validly elected pope.
"Question: What certainty have
we that the reigning Pontiff is actually the primate of the universal Church —
that is, that he became a member of the Church through valid baptism, and that
he was validly elected Pope?
"Answer: Of course, we have
human moral certainty that the reigning Pontiff was validly elected in conclave
and accepted the office of Bishop of Rome, thus becoming head of the universal
Church. The unanimous consensus of a large group of Cardinals composing the
electoral body gave us this assurance. And we also have human moral certainty
that the reigning Pontiff was validly baptized, since there is a record to that
effect in the baptismal register of the church in which the sacrament was
administered. We have the same type of certainty that any bishop is the true
spiritual head of the particular See over which he presides. This type of
certainty excludes every prudent fear of the opposite.
"But in the case of the Pope we
have a higher grade of certainty — a certainty that excludes not merely the
prudent fear of the opposite, but even the possible fear of the opposite. In
other words, we have infallible certainty that the present Sovereign Pontiff
[Paul VI] has been incorporated into the Church by a valid baptism [condition]
and has been validly elected head of the universal Church. For if we did not
have infallible assurance that the ruling Pontiff is truly in the eyes of God
the chief teacher of the Church of Christ, how could we accept as infallibly
true his solemn pronouncements? This is an example of a fact that is not
contained in the deposit of revelation but is so intimately connected with
revelation that it must be within the scope of the Church’s magisterial
authority to declare it infallibly. The whole Church, teaching and believing,
declares and believes this fact, and from this it follows that this fact is
infallibly true. We accept it with ecclesiastical – not divine – faith, based
on the authority of the infallible Church." (American Ecclesiastical Review,
vol. 153, Dec. 1965, p. 422.)
Rev. Kavanagh D.D.
., A Reply to Mr. Gladstone’s Vaticanism, 1895
“Mr. Gladstone need not be alarmed about
the papal succession. Independently of
all previous proceedings, the acceptance of Martin V by the Universal Church as
lawful Pope proves that his election was canonical and legitimate; for the
recognition of the true Pope is a dogmatic fact in which the Universal Church
cannot err.” (Rev. James Kavanagh, D.D., A Reply to Mr. Gladstone’s Vaticanism,
Dublin, James Guffy, 1895, p. 54)
Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice
“It
happened a little afterward, that Sylverius died and Vigilius, who to that
point sat in schism, now began to be the sole and legitimate Pontiff for
certain through the confirmation and reception by the clergy and the Roman
people.” (Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, IV, chapter 10)
Fr. Edmund
O’Reilly – The Relations of the Church to Society (1892)
The following is Fr. O’Reilly’s
reply to the same article by Mr. Gladstone:
“As to Pope Martin's right to his
position, his universal acceptance by the Catholic Church settled that; and the
universality of this acceptance was not appreciably affected by the obstinate
persistence of Peter de Luna with a handful of adherents.” (Fr. Edmund O’Reilly,
S.J., The Relations of the Church to Society (London, John Hodges, 1892) p. 308
Definition of Martin V – Council of Constance
The following question was defined by the
Council to be proposed to those suspected of heresy:
“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? (Inter Cunctus, Council of Constance)
Definition of Martin V Explained by John of St. Thomas 1640
The following is John of St. Thomas’ explanation of why this definition renders the peaceful and universal acceptance of a Pope de fide:
“Martin V, in the Council of Constance, in the condemnation of the errors of Wyclif, 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 whose faith is suspect, to see whether they rightly believe, 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? These words do not speak of the truth of that proposition 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. It is of this man, whose proper name is given, that the pope is bidding the person suspect in faith to be asked, whether he believes that such a person is the successor of Peter and the Supreme Pontiff: therefore this pertains to the act of faith—not to an inference or a moral certitude; for neither of the latter two is a matter of faith.” (…)
“[W]hoever 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.”
“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; and whatever is prerequisite to, 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.”
Bull of Pope
Martin explained by Ferraris, in Prompta
Bibliotheca Canonica. – 1764
“It is
of faith that Benedict XIV [currently reigning Pope], for instance,
legitimately elected and accepted as such by the Church, is the true Pope. This is proved from the Council of Constance, sess.
ult. where Martin V. Const. Inter Cunctus, decrees that those who return
from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points, ‘Whether they
believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being, his name being
expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having supreme authority in
the Church of God.’ For thereby he supposes it to be an article of faith, since
those who abjure heresy are ‘interrogated only as to truths of faith.’ (…)
“Through
the mere fact that the Church receives him as legitimately elected, God reveals
to us the legitimacy of his election (quoque est certa, quia eo ipso quod Ecclesia ipsum recepit ut légitime electum, revelat Deus ipsius electionem esse legitimam), since Christ has promised that His Church
shall never err in a matter of faith … whereas she would err in such matter of faith if the
conclusion did not hold; since the Church by recognizing the elect the
legitimate Pope, she acknowledges him as the infallible rule of faith (whereas
if he were not the true Pope), he would be fallible. The definitions of
Benedict XIV when he speaks ex cathedra are de fide; but the assent would not
be de fide, if it were not de fide that Benedict is the true Pope. It is not valid [to say]: it’s not de fide
that Benedict XIV is validly baptized and canonically elected, since it is not
revealed; therefore, it is not de fide is that it is the true Pope. It is not
valid, I say, because although it is not explicitly revealed, it is revealed
implicitly through the peaceful and universal acceptance of the Church; since
by this fact God has revealed that he is the legitimate Pope, he thereby
implicitly revealed that all the necessary conditions for him to become Pope
were met.” Ferraris, Louis, Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica
Iuridica Moralis Theologica. (Romae: S. C. De Propaganda Fide, 1764) article
Papa, Nos. 67 – 71, p. 53.
Bull of Pope
Martin explained by Antonio Arbiol, Selectae Disputationes Scholasticae, Et Dogmaticae
- 1702.
“The Bull of
Martin V, in the Council of Constance, determine that heretics returning to the
Church are to be asked if they believe the Pope, canonically elected, reigning for a
time, his name being given, is the true successor of Bl. Peter; and if not they
are to be punished as a heretic and follower of the Heresiarch John Huss; but
that would not be the case, if it were not de fide; therefore, etc.”
The following his reply to the objection that
the legitimacy of a pope cannot be de fide, since it is not de fide that he was
canonically elected, or baptized, etc.
“… after he was
peacefully and universally accepted, as we saw above, not only is the election anonical and de fide; but also that he was baptized, as well as many
other things that were not previously de fide; for since Divine Providence will
not permit the Church cannot err [by universally accepting a false pope], all
these are implicitly revealed in the promise of Christ: ‘Behold I am with you
all days, even to the end of the world.” (…)
Therefore, after the peaceful and universal acceptance, the proposition [that
he is the true Pope] is not merely probable; it is de fide. No Catholic authors relate differently.
Indeed, all teach that by the peaceful and universal acceptance of the Church all
the related conditions also become de fide, which beforehand were not de fide.”
(Arbiol, Antonio O.F.M., Selectae disputationes scholasticae, et dogmaticae,
Caesar-Augustae: Emm. Roman Univ, 1702, Disp II, Art XII.
Explanation of the Definition of Martin V by Fr.
Smith, S.J. 1895
Fr. Sydney Smith, S.J., quotes the
renowned Italian canonist, Lucius Ferraris (Bibliotheca – 1764), who
explains why this definition renders the legitimacy of a Pope, who has been
peacefully and universally accepted, de fide:
“[The doctrine
stating that a Pope who has been peacefully and universally accepted is
infallibly the true Pope] is no mere theory, but the common doctrine of
Catholic theologians, as will appear sufficiently from the following passage in
Ferraris’ Bibliotheca [1764], a work of the highest authority. In his
article on the Pope, Ferraris says, ‘It is of faith (de fide) that Benedict
XIV, for instance, legitimately elected and accepted as such by the Church, is
the true Pope — (common doctrine among Catholics). This is proved from the Council
of Constance (sess. Ult.) where Martin V’s Constitution, Inter Cunctos, decrees
that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other
points, ‘Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time
being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter,
having supreme authority in the Church of God.’ For thereby he [Fr. Ferraris]
supposes it to be an article of faith, since those who abjure heresy are
‘interrogated only as to truths of faith’.”
Fr. Smith continues by quoting Farris’
explanation of what is required for one to be considered “canonically elected”:
“It will be said,
‘Yes, but he speaks only of a Pontiff canonically elected and as such accepted
by the Church, so his authority cannot therefore be quoted for the case of one
whose canonical election is called in question.’ This, however, is an objection
which Ferraris himself anticipates, and he meets it thus:
‘Through the mere
fact that the Church receives him as legitimately elected, God reveals to us
the legitimacy of his election, since Christ has promised that His Church shall
never err in a matter of faith. … Through the mere fact that the Church
receives him as legitimately elected, God reveals to us the legitimacy of his
election, since Christ has promised that His Church shall never err in a matter
of faith … whereas she would err in such matter of faith if the conclusion did
not hold[.]’” (Fr.
Sydney Smith, S.J., “ Dr. Littledale’s Theory of the Disappearance of the
Papacy,” Catholic Truth Society, Vol. XXVI, London, 1895.
Professor Boni - Beyond
a Resignation. The Decision of Pope Benedict XVI and The Law - 2015
“Finally,
Antonio Socci argues: ‘Even if the validity of the procedures followed that
March 13, 2013 was expressed only a doubtful judgment, it can be assumed that
the conclave must be redone because the doctrine teaches that" dubius pope
habetur pro non papa "(a doubtful pope he considers himself as not a
Pope), as the great doctor of the Church and Jesuit cardinal San Roberto
Bellarmino writes in the treatise "De conciliis et ecclesia militante’ (pp.
7, 122).
“On the contrary, even if what has been
reported had happened, the procedure followed, as demonstrated, would have been
entirely "ad normam iuris" (as provided by law): the election of Pope
Francis, having reached the expected majority in the fifth ballot (the first, I
remember, occurred on May 12), it would be valid, there would be nothing to
heal, there would be no doubt, much less "positive" and
"insoluble" (as the law postulates), on its validity.
“Given the total legal groundlessness of
these suppositions, even to want to give credit to the information on which it
claims to take root, the bogeyman - rashly agitated - of the current assidarsi
on Peter’s chair of a doubtful Pope also vanishes. However, the canonist have
constantly and generally chorus that the peaceful "universalis ecclesiae
adhaesio" is a sign and infallible effect of a valid election and a
legitimate papacy (): and the
adhesion to Pope Francis of the people of God cannot be put in any way in
doubt.” (Dr. Boni, Professor of Canon Law at the University of Bologna, and Advisor
of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. “Beyond a Resignation. The
Decision of Pope Benedict XVI and The Law,” Bologna, 2015.)
Sedevacantist Bishop, Donald Sanborn (2004)
“III. Five Errors of Opinionism
“ERROR 1: Opinionism places the identity of the Roman Pontiff, i.e., whether Ratzinger is the Vicar of Christ or not, in the category of “theological opinion.” The very term opinion indicates that it is not certain whether he is or he is not the pope. It is impossible to hold, however, that there is a lack of certitude on this subject.
“Those who hold that he is the pope point to absolutely certain signs: (1) a legal election which was universally accepted; (2) Ratzinger’s own acceptance of the election; (3) Ratzinger’s functioning as pope; (4) the universal acceptance of Ratzinger as a legitimate pope. None of these things is uncertain. If one is using these arguments as evidence of his papacy, where is there any room for doubt? (Rev. Donald Sanborn, Opinionism, 2004)
Sedevacantist Apologist, John Lane
“The adherence of the whole Church to any given claimant is in itself a proof that all of the necessary requisites for validity are present. The reason for this is the indefectibility of the Church, which cannot adhere to a false visible head. … it is certainly a powerful argument for sedeplenism, which is perhaps why most sedevacantists never mention it." (John Lane, Sedevacantist Apologist).
Archbishop Lefebvre – The New Mass and the Pope (1980)
“Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of age, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.
“The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an extricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others. (…)
"Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse-to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid. Certainly, we suffer from this continual incoherence which consists in praising all the Liberal orientations of Vatican II and at the same time straining to mitigate its effects. But all of this must incite us to prayer and to the firm maintenance of Tradition rather than to the affirmation that the Pope is not the Pope.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, The New Mass and the Pope, The Angelus, January 1980)
1 comment:
Is this comment worthy of inclusion in your list?
“ First, it must be remembered that at any time when the Church supplies jurisdiction she does so because in the person con- ferring or accepting the jurisdiction, or in the manner of its be- stowal or acceptance, some formality required by the law for validity was not observed. Hence it is erroneous to say that the omission of formalities required by law for validity is not supplied. As a matter of fact, there are no formalities of Church law which could not be supplied. Thus, for example, if a Pope were invalidly elected, once he were regarded by the world as Pope all of his jurisdictional acts would be valid.“
From “ SUPPLIED JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO CANON 209” by FRANCIS SIGISMUND MIASKIEWICZ.
Post a Comment