Who can elect a Pope? (Fr Ricossa)

Fr Francesco Ricossa IMBC discusses who has the right to take part in a papal election and a General Council – and who does not.

By U.S. Department of State from United States - A Swiss Guard Outside of the Sistine Chapel, Public Domain. As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Shop.

The rule of fasting and abstinence that Catholic should follow is a controverted question. Fr Ricossa explains why the law of the 1917 Code is still in force.

Editors’ Notes

This question of papal elections has become topical since January 2026, following Bishop Pierre Roy’s call for a meeting of bishops. Bishop Roy has referred to such a meeting as an “imperfect general council,” which is how theologians have referred to a council of bishops that might meet to deal with the problem of a heretical pope, and to proceed to the election of a new Pope.

This is a controversial idea. But Mgr Roy stated explicitly in an interview with Stephen Kokx:

“I want the debate to be open. I want people to to discuss this this topic.”

In the furtherance of such a debate and discussion, we previously published John Daly’s article on the subject:

• A valid papal election without cardinals? John Daly

We are now publishing translations of Fr Francesco Ricossa IMBC’s two articles on The Election of the Pope, with the permission of the Mater Boni Consilii Institute (IMBC) and their outstanding Sodalitium magazine.

In these articles, Fr Ricossa considers the question of who can elect the Pope – and related matters, such as General Councils and the involvement of the laity. These articles also explain why, contrary to the very lazy rhetorical point sometimes made, almost no one who has held the See to be vacant believed that it fell to them to elect a man to fill it.

They similarly provide answers to this who have suggested that opposition to an election carried out by “traditionalist bishops” is rooted in a love of an supposedly “comfortable” status quo.

• The first article – The Election of the Pope itself – has been newly translated by The WM Review

• The second article – a follow-up to the first, published about a year later in response to some objections – had already been translated into English and published by Sodalitium.

It should be obvious that neither our publication of this text, nor the IMBC’s gracious permission for us to do so, represents a wholesale endorsement or acceptance of each other’s positions. The IMBC, and Fr Ricossa himself, adhere to the Cassiciacum Thesis of Mgr Guérard des Lauriers – and this is apparent throughout his essay. I neither adhere to the Cassiciacum Thesis, nor to all the points made by Fr Ricossa. Where necessary, I have provided notes to clarify a few points made about “totalists” or “sedevacantists simpliciter”, lest it be assumed that such points apply to us. All such additions are clearly marked: my notes (made with Roman numerals) follow the second essay, with Fr Ricossa’s footnotes at the very end.

I have also added a few links to relevant resources when they were available. In general, I have used existing English versions of texts where possible (e.g., Bishop Sanborn’s original text, or English version of Journet).

The WM Review would like to thank Fr Ricossa, the IMBC and Sodalitium for permission to translate and publish these articles.

S.D.Wr.

---

The Election of the Pope

Fr Francesco Ricossa IMBC

Extracts from Sodalitium (French Edition) n. 54, December 2002 (pp. 5-17), translated by The WM Review and published with the permission of the Mater Boni Consilii Institute.
Some line breaks added for ease of reading online.
Links to sources added by The WM Review.

---

Introduction

Periodically, Bishop Marc Pivarunas C.M.R.I. (a bishop consecrated by Bishop Carmona) sends his faithful a letter entitled Pro grege.¹ The one dated 19th March 2002 particularly attracted my attention. In it, the American prelate (U.S.A.) – who holds to the thesis of the vacant see – responds (on p. 5) to two objections from the local district superior of the Society of Saint Pius X, Fr Peter Scott. Fr Scott writes:

“It is however absurd to say, as the sedevacantists do, that there has been no Pope for more than 40 years, for this would destroy the visibility of the Church, and the very possibility of a canonical election of a future Pope.”

The objections are not new²; more interesting is Bishop Pivarunas’s response.

Regarding the first difficulty (the fact that the apostolic vacancy is prolonged), Bishop Pivarunas responds by citing the historical example of the Great Western Schism. Fr Edmund James O’Reilly SJ,³ in his 1882 book The Relations of the Church to Society, wrote on this subject:

“We may now cease to enquire what was said at that time of the position of the three claimants and their rights with respect to the papacy. In the first place, since the death of Gregory XI in 1378, there has always been a Pope – naturally excepting the vacancies between deaths and elections. I think that at every moment there was a Pope truly invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, even if opinions differ as to his legitimacy; not in the sense that an interregnum covering the entire period would have been impossible or irreconcilable with Christ’s promises, because this is evident, but in the sense that, in fact, there was no such interregnum”

“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope—with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.” (Pivarunas, p. 5). [i]

The thing is so evident that it is useless to insist upon it.

It is more difficult, however, to respond to the second difficulty. Let us see what Bishop Pivarunas writes on this subject.

“As for the second ‘difficulty’ proposed by the Society of Saint Pius X against the sedevacantist position, namely the impossibility of electing a future Pope if the see has been vacant since Vatican II, here is what can be read in Archbishop Charles Journet’s The Church of the Word Incarnate:

“‘During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Card. Cajetan OP, De comparatione…, cap. XIII, n. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power ‘of applying the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.’”⁴

With this citation, Bishop Pivarunas thinks he has sufficiently responded to Fr Scott: in the absence of cardinals – and only in that case⁵ – the Pope can be elected, by devolution⁶, by the Church.

But in reality the difficulty merely changes object: what is meant, in fact, in this context by “universal Church”?

In his letter, Bishop Pivarunas does not specify. Neither does Journet in the place cited. But since Journet adopts Cardinal Cajetan’s position⁷, citing his work De comparatione auctoritatis Papæ et Concilii cum apologia eiusdem tractatus⁸, we can easily establish the meaning of this expression by consulting Cajetan himself.

By the term ‘universal Church,’ Cardinal Cajetan means the general Council

We have seen that, in extraordinary cases, the Pope can, in the absence of cardinals, be elected by the “universal Church”; but what then does Cardinal Cajetan mean by this term?

It suffices to leaf through the De comparatione to find the answer – the indubitable answer – to our question. Already the title indicates it to us: De comparatione auctoritatis Papæ et Concilii, seu Ecclesiæ universalis (n° 5) (On the comparison of the authority of the Pope and of the Council, that is to say of the universal Church): the universal Church and the Council are one. But it is in chapter V (n° 56) that Cajetan proceeds to an explicit definition of the terms:

“After having examined the comparison between the power of the Pope and that of the apostles by reason of their apostolate, we must now compare the power of the Pope and the power of the universal Church (in other words of the universal Council); first from a general point of view; then, as we have announced, in certain (particular) cases and events. And as opposites, when confronted, become clearer, I will bring first of all the principal reasons in which is found the value (of the arguments) by which it is proved [by the adversaries] that the Pope is subject to the judgment of the Church – that is to say of the universal Council. And so that [I no longer have to] put together Church and Council, [I specify that] they are taken as synonyms, for the only distinction between them is that one represents and the other is represented.”⁹

Moreover, the general context of the work clearly indicates to us that Cajetan by “universal Church” means general Council; in fact, the De comparatione responds to the objections of the conciliarists according to whom the Pope is inferior to the Church – that is to say to the Council.(⁹) But there is more. Precisely when he speaks of the election of the Pope, Cajetan uses indifferently the terms “Church” and “Council”: “in Ecclesia autem seu Concilio” (n° 202). And even when it comes to presenting the concrete case of the extraordinary election of a Pope, Cajetan does not speak so much of “universal Church” but rather of general Council:

“[S]i Concilium generale cum pace Romanæ ecclesiæ eligeret in tali casu Papam, verus Papa esset ille qui electus sic esset” (n° 745)

(“[I]f in this case the General Council elected the Pope with the peace [peaceful acceptance] of the Roman Church, he who would be elected in this manner would truly be Pope”).

It is therefore evident that, for Archbishop Journet and Cardinal Cajetan, it is the imperfect general Council¹⁰ which, in the absence of cardinals, has the charge of electing the Sovereign Pontiff.

Residential bishops, as members by right of this general Council, could elect the Pope

It being established that, in the absence of cardinals, the members of the general Council are the extraordinary electors of the Pope, it remains to see who can participate, by right, in the general Council. The Code of Canon Law – treating of the ecumenical Council – enumerates the members by right of the Council with deliberative vote:

Canon 223

§ 1. The following are called to a Council and have the right of a deliberative vote:

1.° Cardinals of the H. R. C. (Holy Roman Church), even if they are not Bishops;
2.° Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, [and] residential Bishops, even if they are not yet consecrated;
3.° Abbots and Prelates [nullius] [ii]
4.° Abbots Primate, Abbots Superior of monastic Congregations, and supreme Moderators of clerical exempt religious [institutes], but not other religious [institutes], unless it is decreed otherwise in the convocation;

§ 2. Also, titular Bishops called to the Council obtain a deliberative vote, unless it is expressly determined otherwise in the convocation.

§ 3. Theologians and experts in the sacred canons might be invited to the Council, but they have no vote, unless consultative.

This canon expresses not only positive law but also the very nature of things. Let us note, in fact, that titular Bishops, deprived of jurisdiction, may not be convoked to the Council or may not have the right to vote. On the contrary, Cardinals, residential Bishops, Abbots or prelates nullius¹¹ even if not consecrated bishops participate by right in the Council, because they have jurisdiction over a territory.¹² This means that in itself the criterion for being a member of the Council is to belong to the hierarchy by reason of jurisdiction and not of sacred order (for this distinction, of divine right, see can. 108§3).

Things being what they are, it seems to us that Bishop Pivarunas (and with him, all the sedevacantists simpliciter – those consequently who do not follow the thesis of Fr Guérard des Lauriers) have not sufficiently answered the difficulty posed by the Society of Saint Pius X. Indeed, in a strictly sedevacantist position [viz. that of those who do not adhere to the Cassiciacum Thesis], one does not see where the Catholic residential bishops are who could and would want to elect a Pope, given that all the residential bishops (and other prelates who would have jurisdiction) have either been appointed invalidly by the antipopes or are in any case formally heretical and outside the Church – adhering to the errors of Vatican II – or are in any case in communion with John Paul II, head of the new “conciliar Church”. The hierarchical Church would have, in sum, totally disappeared, not only in act and formally, but also in potency and materially.¹³ [v]

Bishops without jurisdiction cannot elect the Pope

We have seen that in abnormal circumstances the election of the Pope – according to the thought of the theologians who have dealt with the question – falls to the imperfect general Council; in other words to the Bishops and prelates who enjoy, in the Church herself, jurisdiction.

The Pope is, in fact, Bishop of the universal Church: it is therefore normal that [in the exception case at hand] he should be elected by the prelates of the universal Church who, like him and below him, are governing a portion of the flock. We have also seen that by the very nature of things, and in consequence of what has been said, the titular bishops – bishops consecrated with the Roman mandate but deprived of jurisdiction in the Church – are excluded from the number of per accidens electors of the Pope.

All the more excluded from the number of electors – precisely because excluded from the general Council – are Bishops consecrated without the Roman mandate, in the exceptional conditions of the current (formal) vacancy of the Apostolic See. These Bishops have in fact been consecrated validly and even, in our opinion (at least in certain cases) licitly; but nevertheless they are – in the most absolute way – deprived of jurisdiction by the fact that the Bishop receives jurisdiction from God only through the intermediary of the Pope, an intermediary excluded in our case.¹⁴ Being deprived of jurisdiction, they do not belong to the Church’s hierarchy of jurisdiction, which is why they are not members of the Council by right, and are therefore not qualified to validly elect the Pope – not even in extraordinary cases.

This point of doctrine, already established in itself, is confirmed by the practical impossibility of electing a sure and undoubted Pope by following this path. Who will be able to establish with certainty, among the numerous Bishops who have been and will yet be consecrated in this manner, those who have the right to participate in the election and those who do not? Who has the right to convoke a Conclave and who does not? Who can be considered legitimately consecrated and who cannot?

In the absence of a criterion of discernment (e.g., the Roman mandate, or a residential see) there are no per se limits to these consecrations – neither on the part of who can authorize them (the Pope), nor concerning the portion of territory to be governed (the diocese). The number of electors can therefore grow immoderately without any guarantee of their Catholicity, as has concretely occurred. And in fact various elections have already been carried out which have led to nothing, not even among the partisans of “conclavism”, always ready to “take the step”, but only in theory.

For even greater reason, the laity cannot elect the Pope

If titular Bishops, though appointed by the Pope, cannot elect the Pope, and if Bishops merely consecrated, without Roman mandate, cannot do so either, then even less can simple priests do so. As for the laity, they are excluded in an even more radical way from any ecclesiastical election.

This conclusion is confirmed by the positive law of the Church, both with regard to any ecclesiastical election in general, and with regard to the election of the Pope.

Regarding any ecclesiastical election, Canon 166 stipulates that

“If laity in any way involve themselves against the canonical liberty of the ecclesiastical election, the election is invalid by law.” (Dr Peters’ translation)

(Si laici contra canonicam libertatem electioni ecclesiasticæ quoque modo sese immiscuerint, electio ipso iure invalida est).

For the papal election, it is the constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica (25^th December 1904), promulgated to this effect by St Pius X, which is authoritative. The general principle is expressed in n. 27:

“The right to elect the Sovereign Pontiff belongs uniquely and exclusively (privative) to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, the intervention of any other ecclesiastical dignitary or lay power of whatever grade or order being absolutely excluded and rejected.”

In n. 81, St Pius X renews the condemnation of the so-called right of Veto or Exclusive of lay power already sanctioned by himself in the Constitution Commissum nobis (20^th January 1904), and he concludes:

“This prohibition, we wish to be extended to any intervention, intercession or other means by which lay authorities, of whatever order or grade they may be, would wish to interfere in the elections of the Pontiff.”

The holy Pontiff alludes to what happened during the Conclave which elected him to the Sovereign Pontificate, when Emperor Franz Joseph, through the intermediary of the Cardinal Archbishop of Krakow, put his veto on the election of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro, former Secretary of State of Leo XIII. In the Constitution Commissum, St Pius X affirms that this presumed right of “Veto” already condemned by his predecessors Pius IV (In eligendis), Gregory XV (Æterni Patris), Clement XII (Apostolatus officium) and Pius IX (In hac sublimi, Licet per Apostolicas and Consulturi) is contrary to the freedom of the Church. His office, writes St Pius X, is to ensure that:

“[T]he life of the Church proceeds in an absolutely free manner, all external intervention being removed, as its Divine Founder willed, and as its sublime mission absolutely requires. Now, if there is one function in the life of the Church which requires this freedom more than any other, one must consider without any doubt that it is that concerning the election of the Roman Pontiff; indeed “it is not a matter of a member, but of the whole body, when it concerns the head” (Gregory XV, Æterni Patris).”

The exclusion of the intervention of civil authorities naturally includes that of any member of the laity whatsoever:

“We establish that it is not licit for anyone, not even heads of state, on whatever pretext, to interpose themselves or to interfere in the grave questions of the election of the Roman Pontiff.”

As can be seen, the exclusion of any lay intervention is considered by St Pius X not as a transitory provision, but as absolutely necessary for the Church to be as its Founder, Jesus Christ, willed it.

What is established by the Code of Canon Law and by Saint Pius X is perfectly in conformity with the entire tradition. The Code itself refers to the Corpus Iuris Canonici (the ancient ecclesiastical law) where the decretals of Gregory IX (book I, title VI, de electione et electi potestate) provide for the invalidity of an election made by laymen. Chapter 43 cites the Fourth Council of the Lateran of 1215:

Constitution XXV. “Whoever consents to his own election made abusively by secular power, against canonical freedom, loses the election and becomes ineligible…”

In chapter 56 is cited a document of Gregory IX from 1226, which declares invalid the election of a bishop made by laymen and canons – according to a custom better called a “corruption.”

We could cite other ecclesiastical documents on this subject, including those from various ecumenical Councils: the Second Council of Nicaea (787 AD, DS 604), the Second Council of Constantinople (870 AD, DS 659), and the First Lateran Council, against lay investitures (1123 AD, DS 712).

If, in the past, the Church had to defend her liberty from the influence of Princes in elections, she had to defend it from the democratic pretension of having Bishops elected by the people during the Revolution. Thus Pope Pius VI, by the Brief Quod aliquantulum (10^th March 1791), condemned the Civil Constitution of the Clergy voted by the National Assembly. It was no accident that Pope Braschi connected the decisions of the French revolutionaries in this matter with the most ancient errors of Wyclif, Marsilius of Padua, John of Jandun and Calvin (cf. Enseignements Pontificaux – l’Eglise, 81-82, and Pius VI, Ecrits sur la Révolution française, Pamphilian Ed., pp. 16-20).

What, then, was the value of popular participation in certain ancient elections? It is again Journet who reminds us:

“At different times and with various qualifications [titles] the following have taken part in the election: the Roman clergy (whose right seems to be primary and direct), the people (but only in so far as it consents to and approves the election made by the clergy), the secular princes (whether licitly by simply giving their consent and their support to the person elected, or by an abuse, as when Justinian forbade the elect to be consecrated before the Emperor’s approbation), and lastly the cardinals who are the first of the Roman clergy, so that to-day it is to the Roman clergy that the election of a Pope is once again confided.” (op. cit., p. 977)¹⁵

Therefore, for the people of the faithful, there was only a consultative or approbative vote; and it was so by a dogmatic requirement based on the distinction and subordination that exist in the Church between clergy and faithful – a distinction which is of divine right. This is what, among others, the Roman theologian Cardinal Mazzella reminds us:

“In the third place, from the same documents emerges both the distinction between Clerics and Laics, and the fact that the hierarchy, constituted in the clerical order, is of divine right; and consequently that, by the same divine right, the democratic form is excluded from the government of the Church. This democratic form subsists when the supreme authority is found in the entire multitude; not in the sense that the entire multitude commands and governs in act, which would be impossible; but in the sense that – as Bellarmine says (de Rom. Pont. L. 1, c. 6, trans. by Fr Baker)

“‘Where there is a popular government, the magistrates are constituted by the people themselves, and they get their authority from the same; for, when the people per se cannot make judicial decisions, they must at least establish others, who can act in their name.’

“But, a hierarchy divinely constituted in the clerical order being supposed, it is to that order and not to all the people that authority has been communicated by Christ; and consequently it is by Christ’s institution that the right to constitute rulers does not reside in the people, and that they do not govern the Church in the name of the people. For a better understanding of this, let us observe:

1. As Bellarmine says (de mem. Eccles. L. 1 c. 2), ‘in the creation of Bishops are contained three things: election, ordination and vocation or mission; election is nothing other than the designation of a determined person to the ecclesiastical prelature; ordination is a sacred ceremony by which, by means of a determined rite, the future Bishop is anointed and consecrated; the mission or vocation confers jurisdiction, and thereby makes the pastor and the prelate’.

2. Also, the act of electing, and the acts of requesting or giving testimony, are very different things. Indeed, neither giving testimony in favour of someone, nor requesting that such a one be elected is to confer upon him a right to obtain a dignity; he who does either plays only the role of a person who praises and requests. He who elects, on the contrary, calls canonically to the dignity, and confers a true right to receive it (…).”¹⁶

In summary, in ecclesiastical elections, the people can give testimony of the qualities of a subject (testimonium reddere) and request his election (petere), but they absolutely cannot vote in a canonical election, and therefore elect a candidate to an ecclesiastical office by giving him the right to receive – as an elected person – this office. And this conclusion is based on a principle which belongs to the faith and to the will of the Lord: namely the fact that the Church is not a democratic society, but hierarchical (and even monarchical¹⁷) founded on the distinction – of divine right – between Clergy and Laity. The “traditionalists” who attribute to persons who are not part of the hierarchy of jurisdiction, and even to simple faithful, the power to elect even the Sovereign Pontiff, are paradoxically polluted by the heresy of a democratic Church very widespread among “modernists” of the “Basic Ecclesial Community” or “We are the Church” style.[iii]

The Roman Clergy and the election of the Pope

We have excluded from the power to elect the Pope the laity and Bishops without jurisdiction (and all the more so simple priests). It remains for us to see a particular subject of the right to elect the Pope: the Roman clergy. Journet writes on p. 977:

“If the power to elect the Pope belongs, by the nature of things, and therefore by divine law, to the Church taken along with her Head, the concrete mode in which the election is to be carried out, says John of St. Thomas, has been nowhere indicated in Scripture; it is mere ecclesi­astical law which will determine which persons in the Church can validly proceed to election.”

The current ecclesiastical law (and this since 1179) provides that only the Cardinals can validly elect the Pope. Thus is maintained the most ancient ecclesiastical tradition which requires that the Bishop be elected by his clergy and the neighbouring Bishops. In fact, the Cardinals are the principal members of the Roman Clergy (deacons and priests), united with the Bishops of the neighbouring dioceses, called the “suburbicarian dioceses” – and they, too, Cardinals. Cajetan writes that it is normal that the Pope be elected by his church – which is the Roman Church and the universal Church, because the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of the Catholic Church (n° 746).

Cajetan even foresees that “all the Cardinals being dead, their successor [in the power to elect the Pope] is, in an immediate way, the Roman Church, by which [Pope Saint] Linus was elected before any provision of human law known to us” (n° 745). “The Roman Church,” in fact, “represents the universal Church in electoral power” (n° 746). As we have done with regard to the “universal Church,” we must now ask ourselves: Who are the members of the “Roman Church” that could elect the Pope in default of the Cardinals, the principal members of this Roman Church?

Cajetan explains (n° 202): The fact that the election falls to such-or-such a deacon or priest of the Roman churches called the Cardinals – rather than to others (such as for example the canons of Saint Peter’s or of Saint John Lateran) or to such-or-such other suburbicarian Bishop, rather than to others – is a provision of positive ecclesiastical law and not of divine law. The Church [in the absence of the Pope] cannot change these provisions of ecclesiastical law (n° 202) – but in case of the disappearance of all the cardinals, one can suppose that the other members of the Roman clergy could elect their own Bishop.[iv]

It is evident that to be members of the Roman clergy it is not sufficient to be born or to reside in Rome! One must be incardinated in the diocese, and probably have pastoral charge of the Roman people or of the neighbouring dioceses. Even in this case, it is easy to realise that one does not see who could, concretely, be able or willing to elect the Pope, given that the Roman clergy (parish priests, neighbouring bishops, etc.) is currently in communion with John Paul II.

The Pope cannot be designated directly by Heaven (because God does not will it)

Faced with the very grave situation through which the Church is living, and which has led to the deprivation of Authority, some have thought that the solution could only come from an – exceptional – intervention of God. This thought is based on a true intuition: history and the Church are in God’s hands, and “nothing is impossible for God” (Lk 1.37). Some among them have thought of an intervention by Enoch and Elijah, identified (wrongly, in my opinion) with the two witnesses of the Apocalypse. Others have put forth the hypothesis of the survival of the Apostle John. Still others have imagined a papal election made directly by Christ and by the Apostles Peter and Paul.¹⁸ And there is no lack of people who have published prophecies of Saints in favour of this opinion.¹⁹

Bishop Guérard des Lauriers, in his interview with Sodalitium (n° 13, p. 22) affirms regarding “complete sedevacantism”:

“The physical or moral person who has, in the Church, the quality to declare the total vacancy of the Apostolic See is identical to that which has, in the Church, the quality to provide for the provision of the same Apostolic See. Whoever currently declares ‘Bishop Wojtyla is not pope at all’ [not even materialiter], must: either convoke a Conclave [!] or show the letters of credence that institute him directly and immediately Legate of Our Lord Jesus Christ [!!].”

We have demonstrated up to now the impossibility, rebus sic stantibus, of convoking a Conclave; let us see in the present chapter whether it is possible for someone to present himself with the letters of credence that would constitute him Legate of Jesus Christ or his Vicar.

Beyond the factual improbability of such an event, underlined by the two exclamation marks affixed by Bishop Guérard after his exposition of this hypothesis, it seems to me that concerning its theological possibility, Bishop Sanborn has given a correct response:

The second solution proposed by totalists is that Christ Himself will choose a successor by a miraculous intervention. If Our Lord did such a thing, and certainly He could, the man He chose to be pope would certainly be His Vicar on earth, but he would not be the successor of St. Peter. Apostolicity would be lost, because such a man could not trace his lineage, by an uninterrupted line of legitimate succession, back to St. Peter. Rather, like St. Peter, he would be chosen by Christ. In effect, Our Lord would be starting a new Church.

Q. But would not Our Lord be a legitimate elector? Why could not He select a pope, who would be at the same time the successor of St. Peter?

A. Yes, obviously, Our Lord could select a pope, just as He selected St. Peter. But a divine intervention, of the type that the totalists imagine, would amount to a new public revelation, which is impossible. All public revelation is closed with the death of the last Apostle. This is an article of faith. Any revelations which take place after the death of the last Apostle are in the category of private revelation. Hence, in the totalist system, a private revelation would reveal the identity of the pope.

It is needless to say that such a solution destroys the visibility of the Catholic Church, [as] well as its legality, and makes the very existence of the Catholic Church dependent on seers. It is also needless to say that it opens the papacy to the lunatical world of apparitionists.

The very purpose of the Church is to propose divine revelation to the world. If the nomination of the pope, who is the very one who proposes revelation, were to come from a private revelation, the whole system would fall apart. Then the highest authority in the Church would be the seer, who could make or break popes. And there would be no authoritative way in which to determine whether the seer were a hoax or not. Ultimately everyone’s act of faith would be dependent on the veracity of some seer.

Rather, the Catholic Church is a visible society, and has a legal life. Our Lord is the Invisible Head of the Church. The Church could no longer claim visibility, if the selection of its hierarchy is made by an invisible person, even our Lord Himself.

But if for a moment we should admit this possibility, we still must assert that Our Lord’s selection would not be a legitimate successor of St. Peter. Legitimate succession happens according to the dictates of ecclesiastical law or of established custom. But a succession by divine intervention happens according to neither of these things. Therefore he would not be a legitimate successor of St. Peter.²⁰

Jesus could therefore (by his “potentia absoluta”) choose a Pope again; but He will never do so²¹ (it is impossible by his “potentia ordinata”), because it is He Himself who established that His Church, founded on Peter, would be indefectible; “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” And this truth of the indefectibility of the Church already gives us the fundamental reason for what we maintain in the title of the following chapter.

The Church cannot remain totally deprived of electors of the Pope

The First Vatican Council solemnly defined:

“Therefore, if anyone says that it is not according to the institution of Christ our Lord himself, that is, by divine law, that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or if anyone says that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.” (D.H., 3058, Dogm. Const. Pastor Æternus, canon of chap. 2).

That there will “perpetually” be a successor of Peter is therefore a truth of faith; this truth is an integral part of that concerning the indefectibility of the Church: if the Church were deprived of a Pope, it would no longer exist as Jesus founded it. To return to Cardinal Cajetan,

“Christus Dominus statuit Petrum in successoribus perpetuum:

“The Lord Jesus Christ established (that) Peter (be made) perpetual in his successors” (n. 746).

Naturally, this definition cannot and must not be understood in the sense that there will always be, at every instant, and in actu, a Pope seated on the Chair of Peter: this is not so during the vacancy of the See (for example, in the period between the death of a Pope and the election of his successor). In what sense, then, must the Vatican definition be understood? It is again Cajetan who explains it to us:

By anticipation:

“Impossibile est Ecclesiam relinqui absque Papa et potestate electiva Papæ.

“It is impossible that the Church be left without a Pope and without the power to elect the Pope.” (n. 744)

Consequently, during the vacancy of the See, there must remain in some way the moral person who can elect the Pope:

“Papatus, secluso Papa, non est in Ecclesia nisi in potentia ministraliter electiva, quia scilicet potest, Sede vacante, Papam eligere, per Cardinales, vel per seipsam in casu.

“The papacy, once the Pope is removed, is found in the Church only in a ministerially elective power, for she [the Church] can, during the vacancy of the See, elect the Pope through the intermediary of the Cardinals or, in (accidental) circumstance, of herself.” (210)

It is therefore absolutely necessary that – during the vacancy of the See – there still subsist the possibility of electing the Pope: it is the indefectibility and apostolicity of the Church which require it.²²

The election of the Pope in the current situation of the Church

This is precisely the objection raised by Archbishop Lefebvre against the sedevacantists, and taken up by Fr Scott against Bishop Pivarunas. Certainly, an objection cannot cancel a demonstration, and Bishop Pivarunas is right (and Fr Scott wrong) about the fact that the See is currently vacant. But we have seen that if “sedevacantism simpliciter” is capable of demonstrating the vacancy of the See, it cannot, on the other hand, explain how the power to elect a successor still subsists today. Of all the various attempts at explanation analyzed so far, none is conclusive: neither the simple faithful, nor simple priests, nor even the non-residential Bishops can elect the Pope. Moreover, in the strictly sedevacantist perspective, there would no longer currently be either cardinals or Catholic residential Bishops, since all those who exist have adhered to the “conciliar Church,” thus becoming formally heretical.[v]

The only possible solution to this difficulty comes, in our opinion, from the so-called Thesis of Cassiciacum, expounded by Fr Guérard des Lauriers – a Thesis which the sedevacantists persist in refusing, without realizing that it is the only one which permits a true defence of the thesis of the vacant See.

According to this Thesis, in the current situation of authority in the Church, the power to elect the Sovereign Pontiff still subsists in the Church: not in act, formally – but in potency, materially; and this is sufficient to ensure the continuity of Apostolic Succession and to guarantee the indefectibility of the Church.

For the moment, an election of the Pope is impossible both because the See is still occupied materially and legally by John Paul II, and because, as we have demonstrated in this article, there are not, in actu, electors capable of proceeding to this election.

However, the election is possible in potency: on the one hand because in principle it cannot be otherwise, as we have seen; on the other hand because, in fact, the electors canonically qualified to elect the Pope exist materially. In fact, according to the Thesis, the Cardinals created by “popes” materialiter retain the power to elect the Pontiff, just as the Bishops, appointed by “popes” materialiter to the various episcopal sees, occupy them materially and could, once returned to the public and integral profession of the Faith, be electors of the Pope in the absence of Cardinals. The “pope” himself who occupies the See only materially, could, anathematizing all errors and professing the Faith integrally, become Pope in all respects formally. As can be seen, the Thesis of Cassiciacum responds to the objections raised against sedevacantism by the “modernists” and by the “Lefebvrists,” whereas the other sedevacantist theses are not capable of doing so.

For the demonstration of this point of the Thesis, we refer the reader to what we have already written on this subject.²³

The duty of Catholics

Having arrived at the end of this exposition, obviously in summary form, of the question of the election of the Pope in the current situation of the Church, we can draw some conclusions.

What are the duties of Catholics at this time? First of all, to preserve the faith. This duty (to preserve the faith) immediately implies (in itself) another: that of not recognizing the “authority” of John Paul II and of the Second Vatican Council. To recognize the “authority” of John Paul II and of the Second Vatican Council in fact implies adhesion to their teaching which – on certain points – is in contradiction with the Catholic faith, infallibly defined by the Church.

But the simple Catholic cannot and must not go beyond this. It is not for the simple faithful (not even for priests and bishops without jurisdiction) to declare with authority, officially and legally, the vacancy of the apostolic See and to provide for the election of an authentic Pontiff. The duty of the Catholic is to pray and to work, each in his place and according to his abilities, so that this official declaration – by the college of cardinals or by the imperfect general council – becomes possible. The tragedy of our time – which dictates the gravity of the present crisis – consists precisely in the fact that, to this day, not one of the members of the hierarchy has fulfilled this role. Currently, it seems impossible that the bishops or the cardinals will come to condemn the errors of Vatican II and to put the occupant of the apostolic See in the position of also having to anathematize these errors himself, under pain of being declared formally heretical (and thus deposed, also materially, from the See); but, let us remember, what is impossible for men is possible for God. And as for our question, we know that God cannot abandon His Church, since the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and that He will be with it until the end of the world.

---

Appendix

There remain two problems, still regarding the election of the Pope, which not directly related to our question (the possibility of electing a Pope in the current state of things):

1. That of the certainty of the election’s validity, because of the Church’s peaceful acceptance of this election of the Pope

2. That of the holiness of the election.

Journet speaks of them in the cited work. I will say a few words about them as well, because there are two arguments here that could serve as objections to our position (i.e., the formal vacancy of the apostolic See).

Peaceful acceptance as certainty of the validity of the election of the pope

An election, even if it be the election of the Pope, can be invalid or doubtful. In the line of John of Saint Thomas, Journet himself reminds us of this. He writes:

“The Church has the right to elect the Pope, and therefore the right to certain knowledge as to who is elected. As long as any doubt remains and the tacit consent of the universal Church has not yet remedied the possible flaws in the election, there is no Pope, papa dubius, papa nullus. As a matter of fact, remarks John of St. Thomas, in so far as a peaceful and certain election is not apparent, the election is regarded as still going on.” (The election of the Pope, (5), “Validity and certainty of the election,” p. 978).

However, all uncertainty about the validity of the election is dissipated by the peaceful acceptance of the election made by the universal Church:

“But the 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 pre-requisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled.)” (pp. 977-978).

What Journet affirms is found in almost all theologians.

This doctrine includes a very serious objection against all forms of sedevacantism (including our Thesis). Fr Lucien did not hide this difficulty when he wrote:

“Without answering our argument, some have declared that it [our Thesis] is certainly false, for according to them, its conclusion is contrary to the faith, and at least proximate to heresy.

“They remind us that the legitimacy of a Pope is a dogmatic fact, and they add that the infallible sign of this legitimacy is his acceptance (lit. the adhesion of) by the universal Church. Or else they argue that for several years after December 7, 1965 [the date from which Paul VI was certainly no longer Pope formally], no one in the Church publicly raised any question about the legitimacy of Paul VI, and hence they conclude that since the universal Church continues to recognize him, it is impossible that he should have ceased to be Pope as of that date.

“These same individuals also claim that the universal Church continues to recognize John Paul II, since no member of the magisterial hierarchy has challenged him: and this hierarchy (the resident bishops in union with the Pope) authentically represent the universal Church.”²⁴

I refer the reader to the masterful response that Fr Lucien gives to this objection. On one side, he recalls that the Constitution Cum ex apostolatus of Pope Paul IV – which, even if it no longer has juridical value, remains always an act of the magisterium – teaches a contrary doctrine; therefore the thesis (that the peaceful acceptance of the Church is certain proof of the validity of an election) is only theological opinion. Moreover, he emphasizes that this opinion is based on the fact that it is impossible that the entire Church follow a false rule of faith, to adhere to a false pontiff: this would be in contradiction with the indefectibility of the Church. Now, in our case, among those who recognize the legitimacy of Paul VI and of John Paul II, there are many who do not adhere to the novelties of Vatican II; in fact, they do not recognize Paul VI and John Paul as a rule of faith and therefore, in fact again, they do not recognize their legitimacy (cf. pp. 108-111). In brief, the fact that numerous Catholics, whether implicitly or explicitly, have not accepted Vatican II, removes the demonstrative force from the thesis (of the peaceful acceptance of the Church), as applied to the legitimacy of the one who promulgated the Council.

The holiness of the election

While the preceding objection is indeed important, that which is based on the holiness of the election is not at all. But since many faithful have raised it with me, it seems opportune to respond, and with the very words of Journet. In fact, many people wrongly believe that the Holy Ghost inspires the cardinals, and thus guarantees the election – which is why (they believe) the man elected by the Conclave would have been chosen directly by God. Journet recalls that, when one speaks of the holiness of the papal election…

“These words do not mean that the election of the Pope is always effected with an infallible assistance since there are cases in which the election is invalid or doubtful, and remains therefore in suspense. Nor does it mean that the best man is necessarily chosen.

“It means that if the election is validly effected (which, in itself, is always a benefit) even when resulting from intrigues and regrettable interventions (in which case what is sin remains sin before God) we are certain that the Holy Spirit who, overruling the Popes, watches in a special way over His Church, turning to account the bad things they do as well as the good, has not willed, or at least permitted, this election for any but spiritual ends, whose virtue will either be manifest, and sometimes with small delay, in the course of history, or will remain hidden till the revelation of the Last Day. But these are mysteries that faith alone can penetrate.” (pp. 978-979).

In brief, divine Providence watches in a very special manner over the Church; but this does not prevent the possibility that the election of the pope can sometimes be null or doubtful – or else, if it is valid, that it has as object a person less worthy of this charge than another. Therefore, and for impenetrable motives, God could have permitted subjects to be elected at the recent conclaves, who did not objectively have the habitual will to procure the good and the end of the Church – and who consequently, while being the one elected by the Conclave (“popes” materialiter), have placed and still place an obstacle to receiving from God the divine assistance and pontifical authority (they are not “popes” formaliter).

Without this obstacle, this authority would have been conferred on the one elected by the conclave, who really accepts the election.

---

‘The Election of the Pope’ – Reactions and comments on one of our [viz. Sodalitium’s] articles

From Sodalitum (French Edition) n. 55, November 2003 (pp. 28-30). This subsequent article was already translated, and available at Sodalitium. Reproduced with permission here, with minor typesetting edits (line breaks) for clarity. Links to sources added by The WM Review.

---

We publish below some observations concerning the article on the election of the Pope and the current situation in the Church.

Sodalitium

Errata

In the last issue of Sodalitium (no. 55, p. 18), in Don Ricossa’s article entitled L’elezione del Papa, a quotation from Jesuit Fr Edmund James O’Reilly is reported, a quote adopted by Bishop Mark Pivarunas against the objections to sedevacantism made by Fr Scott of the Society of Saint Pius X.

Unfortunately - following the report of some readers - we realized that Fr O’Reilly’s quote was poorly translated by us from the English original, hence the thought of the author (and also that of Don Ricossa) is difficult to understand.

We had in fact translated it like this:

“non nel senso che un interregno che coprisse l’intero periodo [del Grande Scisma d’Occidente, N.d.R.] sarebbe stato impossibile o inconciliabile con le promesse di Cristo, perché questo è evidente, ma che di fatto non ci fu questo interregno”

[“not in the sense that an interregnum covering the entire period [of the Great Schism of the West, Sodalitium’s note] would have been impossible or irreconcilable with the promises of Christ, because this is evident, but that in fact there was no such interregnum”].

The phrase, however, was translated like this on the site internet by Bishop Pivarunas (www.CMRI.org):

“… non che un interregno che fosse durato per l’intero periodo sarebbe stato impossibile o incoerente con le promesse di Cristo, poiché questo non è in alcun modo manifesto, ma che, come dato di fatto, non ci fu tale interregno”

[“… not that an interregnum lasting the entire period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is not in any way manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was no such interregnum”].

For greater clarity, we report the English original text in the part that interests us:

“… not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum”.

We apologize to the readers and to Bishop Pivarunas for the unintentional inconvenience.

We also point out that this error has absolutely no influence on the thesis supported by Don Ricossa in his article. In fact, Don Ricossa totally agrees with Bishop Pivarunas regarding his response to the first objection of Fr Scott and Archbishop Lefebvre to sedevacantism: the sole fact that the Apostolic See has been vacant for more than 40 years does not go against the visibility and indefectibility of the Church, as the quote from Fr O’Reilly confirms. On the other hand, Don Ricossa thinks that Bishop Pivarunas’ response to the second objection of Fr Scott and Archbishop Lefebvre (the one concerning the need to always have electors of the Pope) is insufficient, and must be completed by the clarifications adduced by the “Thesis of Cassiciacum”. This was what we wanted to demonstrate and we demonstrated in the article L’elezione del Papa, which therefore retains all its value.

An article by Professor Tello

Professor Tomás Tello Corraliza (from Mérida, Spain) sent us a very kind letter on January 22, 2003 regarding the article “L’elezione del Papa”, accompanied by one of his essays (in Spanish and English) dating back to 1994, on the same topic. Professor Tello is an absolute sedevacantist, and therefore supports the possibility and necessity of a papal election. His writing, previously unpublished, has since then been published in a German translation by the magazine Einsicht (n. 1, February 2003, pp. XXXIII-15-23). We will limit ourselves to brief observations.

The Author, after having posed the problem (the impossibility of an election by the college of cardinals, and the need for a supplementary law to proceed with the election of the Pope), presents to the reader, following contemporary authors who have already dealt with this subject, quotes from seven “classical” authors: Cajetan, Vitoria, Saint Robert Bellarmine, John of Saint Thomas, Dom Grea, Billot and Journet.

We have already seen - in our article “L’elezione del Papa” – what to make of Cajetan’s doctrine taken up by Journet. Dom Gréa thinks that only the Cardinals, or the Roman Church, can elect the Pope. Bellarmine thinks that this is up to the General Council in agreement with the Roman Church (clergy of Rome, suburbicarian bishops: after all this is also Cajetan’s position). The other authors attribute the supplementary power to elect the Pope to the imperfect General Council (imperfect because it is, precisely, without a Pope).

The most interesting quotes made by Tello (following Johas) are those of the theologian Francisco de Vitoria (1483-1546), taken from his work De potestate Ecclesiae: Tello says he follows Vitoria’s position. After having established that – in the absence of Cardinals – the election of the Pope belongs to the entire Church, Vitoria specifies however that it is necessary to exclude from this right the simple faithful (n. 19) and the clergy inferior to the episcopate (n. 20); which is what we wrote in our own article.

At n. 21 Vitoria then explains his thesis: in this supposed extraordinary case (lack of Cardinals) the electors would be the Bishops gathered in the Council. Prof. Tello thinks he has thus proved his thesis: the electors of the Pope still exist (in act): they are the “faithful” Bishops. It is here, however, that Prof. Tello, and others with him, are wrong. In our article (pp. 19-21) we have amply demonstrated that not all Bishops can participate by divine right in a Council – and therefore in a possible papal election – but only Bishops with jurisdiction.

This is what Cajetan says. But it is also what Vitoria states in the quotes cited by Tello, when he explains that the Bishops could elect the Pope because “they are the Shepherds of the flock” under the Supreme Pontiff, which is true only and exclusively the Residential bishops who govern – with a diocese – a portion of the flock. Having excluded the titular bishops from the election (even more so the “sedevacantist” bishops consecrated without a Roman mandate), the conclavists find themselves without electors, unless they accept as such the materialiter bishops (or cardinals), which instead they refuse to do.

An interesting novelty in the position of La Tour de David

La Tour de David is the sedevacantist magazine edited by Abbé Xavier Grossin. In their January edition (n. 20, pp. 6-8), Abbé Grossin talks about our article, supporting among other things the same position as Don Paladino (and L. H. Remy): election of the Pope through Saint Peter the apostle. Apparently, Abbé Grossin’s article is violently contrary to ours (Don Ricossa is incorrigible, sins against the Holy Spirit, resists grace, becomes increasingly stupid, writes nonsense, definitively condemns himself to the absurd, is in bad faith, etc.). In reality, upon a dispassionate reading, one realizes that Abbé Grossin concedes much to our position, to the point that one can ask him if – without realizing it – he himself does not actually adopt the abhorred Thesis of Cassiciacum!

His admissions can be reduced to two. In the context of the “apparitionist” thesis, he admits that the person chosen by St. Peter should then be canonically elected by the imperfect General Council:

“[T]he designation on the part of St. Peter strictly takes nothing away from apostolicity. The imperfect General Council could ratify the choice made by St. Peter and regulate things canonically. The designated man would necessarily be a bishop or should be consecrated bishop, which would make him the legitimate successor of the Apostles. I don’t see where the problem is.” (p. 8)

In this way it turns out that, in the final analysis, it is the Council that elects the Pope, and not Saint Peter. And that’s our position.

But who has the right to be part of the imperfect General Council? On this point, Abbé Grossin makes an important concession:

“Nous avons admis que des vrais évêques pouvaient abjurer et se réunir en concile général imparfait”

“We admitted that true bishops could abjure and meet in an imperfect general council.” [tr.] (p. 8)

Very good! But perhaps he doesn’t realize that – with this statement – he essentially accepts the Thesis that he claims to reject.

Exposing our position (“[E]stablishing that it is to the imperfect General Council, i.e. to the residential bishops, who possess ordinary jurisdiction over a territory, that the legal right to elect a pope belongs in the event of the absence of the Sacred College”) the Abbé Grossin can only approve of it, writing: “very good” “trés bien” (p. 6). Not only this. He clearly admits that these Bishops would be those who currently belong to what he calls the “conciliar sect”. Naturally he imposes conditions on it: the abjuration of conciliar heresies, the rejection of the conciliar sect, having been validly consecrated.

As for the first two (which then constitute a single condition) we are substantially in agreement, regardless of what Abbé Grossin says. As for the fact that said Bishops must be validly consecrated, we would like to point out the following: per se, the Bishop (and even the Bishop of Rome) enjoys jurisdiction even before receiving the sacrament of orders (even more so episcopal consecration). Pius XII, among other things, expressly recalled this in the case of the election of a layman to the papacy. It would therefore not be necessary for said Bishops – after recanting their errors – to be already consecrated: it is sufficient that they want to be consecrated (at least conditionally). In any case, Abbé Grossin reminds us that Eastern Bishops are validly consecrated. But enough of this: with regard to the solution proposed by Sodalitium, La Tour de David, writes: “we do not reject this possibility at all” (p. 6). But if we agree, why so many insults?

(P.S. According to Abbé Grossin, Sodalitium would identify the conciliar sect and the Church, therefore the Institute would be “the extreme right of the conciliar sect”. Naturally this identification exists only in the imagination of Abbé Grossin. We note among other things that if, for Abbé Grossin, a validly consecrated Bishop of the “conciliar sect” could, after abjuration, become by the very fact a Bishop of the Catholic Church, this means that he himself does not believe much in the juridical existence of the “conciliar sect”).

---

The WM Review’s Notes to The Election of the Pope

[i] In the second article included in this piece, Sodalitium noted that the original article used an incorrect translation of the above text, which was corrected in the subsequent issue. We have used the corrected version, and included the note after the translation of this entire essay.

[ii] Dr Edward Peter’s translation of the CIC 1917 reads “of no one”, which we replaced with “[nullius]” at the request of the IMBC.

[iii] For more on the “Basic Ecclesial Community”, see here: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095449794

[iv] Cajetan’s text is as follows:

“n. 202: But this authority does not reside in the Church or in the council without the Pope; this is verified by the fact that the entire Church [without the Pope] cannot authoritatively change a law made by the Pope.

“For example, the Church cannot make it so that the election does not belong to the true and indisputable cardinals, nor that the pope be elected by less than two-thirds of the cardinals, nor that the election belong to such prelates and to such among the prelates, and not to those who are called cardinals: because to revoke belongs to that very one to whom it belongs to establish with authority in what pertains to positive law, as for example when it is a matter of deciding that the election belongs to the priests and deacons of such churches of Rome, who are called cardinals, rather than to the regular canons of the Lateran and of Saint Peter, and rather to the bishops of Ostia, of Sabina, of Palestrina, of Tusculum, of Albano and of Porto rather than to the other bishops.

“Indeed, it is clear that this matter is neither of divine law nor of natural law. For if this power to assign functions were found in the Church without the Pope, the Church without the Pope could modify what the Pope has decided to regulate the attribution of these powers.”

[v] Not all non-adherents to the Cassiciacum Thesis agree that “sedevacantism simpliciter” (or “totalism”) entails the extinction of ordinaries and residential bishops; nor do they agree that verbal adherence to the Vatican II religion and the “Conciliar/Synodal Church” constitutes formal heresy. As such, prescinding from the truth of the Cassiciacum Thesis, we do not agree with the subsequent conclusion that it is “the only possible solution”. (Emphasis added.) Cf. also our comment on fn. 13 below.

---

HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!

As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.

Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.

A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.

You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.

And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.

(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)

Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!

---

Read Next:

A valid papal election without cardinals? John Daly

Fake conclave, true pope?

Papal elections without the cardinals? – Journet & Cajetan

---

Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:

• Twitter (The WM Review)

• The Father Coleridge Reader

• YouTube

• Telegram

1. It is possible to obtain the letter Pro grege at the following address: Most Rev. Mark A. Pivarunas, Mater Dei Seminary, 7745 Military Avenue, Omaha, NE 68034-3356, U.S.A.

2. Fr Peter Scott merely takes up the two objections already adopted by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1979:

“The question of the visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for God to be able to omit it for decades. The reasoning of those who affirm the non-existence of the Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us where the future Pope is? How will he be able to be designated since there are no more cardinals?”

3. Fr O’Reilly was professor at the Catholic University of Dublin.

4. Bishop Pivarunas does not give the references for the citation from Journet. It is Excursus VIII, The election of the pope, from the work The Church of the Word Incarnate, Vol. I, The Apostolic Hierarchy, p. 976, St. Augustine Ed., Saint-Just-la-Pendue 1998. The italicised characters are Bishop Pivarunas’.

5. After having convoked the First Vatican Council, Pius IX, by the Apostolic Constitution Cum Romani Pontificibus of December 4, 1869, took care to specify the conditions of the pontifical election, in case he died during the Council. Following the example of Julius II (during the fifth council of the Lateran) as well as Paul III and Pius IV (on the occasion of the Council of Trent), he established that the election was the exclusive responsibility of the College of Cardinals, with explicit exclusion of the Council Fathers (Enseignements Pontificaux, L’Église, n° 326). This prescription was taken up by Saint Pius X (Vacante Sede Apostolica, n. 28) and by Pius XII (Vacantis Apostolicæ Sedis, of December 8, 1945, n. 33). The prescription is not only disciplinary, it also has a foundation in the rejection of conciliarist theories.

6. Journet explains:

“In a case where the settled conditions of validity have become inapplicable, the task of determining new ones falls to the Church by devolution, this last word being taken, as Cajetan notes not in the strict sense (devolution is strictly to the higher authority in case of default in the lower) but in the wide sense, signifying all transmission even to an inferior.” (op. cit. pp. 975-976).

7. Tommaso de Vio, called Gaetano (Cajetan) from the place of his birth Gaeta, 1468-1533, entered the Dominicans in 1484, began teaching in 1493. He was Master General of the order from 1508 to 1518, participated in the Fifth Council of the Lateran, and was appointed Cardinal in 1517. In 1518 he was appointed legate of the Holy See to proceed against Luther, and worked on the redaction of Leo X’s bull, Exsurge Domine, against the heresiarch. Bishop of Gaeta in 1519, he was again legate from 1523 to 1524, this time in Hungary. He was buried in Rome in the church of Santa Maria Sopra Minerva.

“Cajetan is famous for his classic commentaries on the entire Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas, commentaries to which remain linked both his name and his imperishable reputation… Particularly attached to the Apostolic See, Cajetan profoundly defended its prerogatives and with brilliance in his famous treatise De auctoritate Papæ with the Apology of the same treatise which broke the conciliarist velléités of Pisa (1511) and prepared in advance the condemnation of the Gallican error. […] Saint Robert Bellarmine defines him as a ‘man of superior intelligence and of no less great piety’” L’Enciclopedia cattolica, entry ‘De Vio.’

8. On Cajetan’s two works:

“The first opuscule entitled De comparatione auctoritatis Papæ et Concilii, was composed by Cardinal Cajetan – who finished it on October 12, 1511 – in the space of two months. It was composed on the occasion of the schismatic Council of Pisa, induced at that time by some cardinals against Pope Julius II; this is why the author strives to refute the so-called Gallican theses, sustained since the 15th century on the occasion of the Council of Constance; and especially the thesis of Ockham and of Gerson affirming the superiority of the Council over the Pope. Against (this thesis), Cajetan demonstrates […] that as the successor of Peter, the Pope enjoys the primacy – that is to say full and supreme ecclesiastical power with all the prerogatives annexed to it. The King of France Louis XII submitted this work to the examination of the University of Paris which entrusted the defence [of its own position] to the young and eloquent author Jacques Almain. To the opuscule composed by the latter, ‘De auctoritatæ Ecclesiæ, seu sacrorum Concilium eam représentantem, contra Thomam de Vio, Dominicanum’ (Paris, Jean Granjon, 1512), Cajetan responded by another opuscule, the Apologia de comparata auctoritate Papæ et Concilii, finished on November 29, 1512.”

(Translation from the Latin made by [Fr Ricossa] from the introduction of Fr Pollet, OP, to the reissue of the two opuscules of Cajetan, made by the Angelicum, in Rome, in 1936).

9. Cajetan writes :

“Examinata comparatione potestatis Papæ ad Apostolos ratione sui apostolatus, comparanda modo est Papæ potestas Ecclesiæ universalis seu Concilii universalis potestati, nunc quidem absolute, postmodum vero in eventibus et casibus, ut promisimus. Et quoniam opposita iuxta se posita magis elucescunt, afferam primo rationes primarias in quibus consistit vis, quibus probatur Papam subesse Ecclesiæ seu Concilii universalis iudicio. Et ne contigat sæpius Ecclesiam et Consilium iungere, pro eodem sumantur, quoniam non nisi sicut repræsentans et repræsentatum distinguuntur”.

“Having examined the comparison of the power of the Pope to the Apostles by reason of their apostolate, the power of the Pope must now be compared to the power of the universal Church or of the universal Council; first indeed in an absolute manner, then afterwards in [particular] events and cases, as we promised. And since opposites, when placed together, become more clear, I will bring forward first the principal reasons in which consists the force [of the arguments] by which it is proved that the Pope is subject to the judgment of the Church or of the universal Council. And lest it happen that I must repeatedly join together Church and Council, let them be taken as the same, since they are distinguished only as the representative and the represented.”

10. We say “imperfect” because in the absence of the Pope, a general Council is precisely imperfect (cf. De comparatione, n° 231, where it is spoken of the Council of Constance which met for the election of Martin V), in that it is deprived of its Head, who alone can convoke, direct and confirm an ecumenical Council (Can. 222; Cajetan, op. cit., chap. XVI). We recall that – according to Cajetan – the charge of deposing the heretical Pope falls to this imperfect general Council (n° 230).

11. Can. 319 reads:

“The prelates who are at the head of a proper territory, separated from any diocese with clergy and people, are called Abbots or Prelates ‘nullius,’ (that is to say not belonging to any diocese…” (can. 319).

Prelates or Abbots nullius must have the same qualities as those required in the bishop (Can. 320§2), and have the same ordinary power and the same obligations as the residential bishop (Can. 323§1), and they wear the habit and the liturgical insignia as him (Can. 325), even if they are deprived of the episcopal character.

12. Other Abbots and superiors of exempt clerical religious orders, though without jurisdiction over a territory, have jurisdiction over persons (their own subjects) independently of the diocesan Bishop. They are therefore Ordinaries, even if not Ordinaries of place (can. 198). In this case as well, the criterion for participating in the Council is jurisdiction and not episcopal order.

13. Given that this position refuses the material succession on episcopal sees, admitted on the contrary by the “‘formaliter” but not “materialiter” sedevacantism” of Fr Guérard des Lauriers.

---

The WM Review’s Note: Fr Ricossa is correct in attributing this to many “sedevacantists simpliciter” but we should note that, even if the arguments are deemed insufficient, a minority of “sedevacantists simpliciter” (including ourselves) recognise this problem, and have offered arguments as to account for it. This does not in itself exclude or run contrary to the Cassiciacum Thesis, as the editor of this website has agreed in discussion with Fr Aedan Gilchrist RCI.

14. As [the author] has already proved elsewhere (Fr Ricossa, Les consecrations épiscopales, C.L.S. Verrua Savoia 1997), the Church teaches that it is not through the intermediary of episcopal consecration that the Bishop receives from God jurisdiction, but only through the intermediary of the Pope – even if Vatican II teaches the contrary. It is useless to object against this doctrine – taught on several occasions by the ordinary magisterium – by giving historical examples of episcopal elections (and consecrations) during the vacancy of the see. These elections only demonstrate the non-illicitness – for example, in the case of the vacant see – of episcopal consecrations; but they do not demonstrate that the elected enjoyed episcopal jurisdiction, which they received, in fact, with the confirmation of their canonical election, only from the Pope. This does not prevent them from having been able to believe in good faith that they had jurisdiction already before papal confirmation, given that the doctrine we defend (according to which episcopal jurisdiction comes from the Pope and not from consecration) was specified by the magisterium in periods later than these historical facts, while it was still being discussed at the Council of Trent. I note among other things that Cajetan’s doctrine on this subject – in this also a faithful disciple of Saint Thomas – is the one we have just recalled (cf. n° 267).

15. Journet concludes by pointing to the Dictionary of Catholic Theology, under the entry “Election of Popes”, for “a historical exposition of the diverse conditions in which popes have been elected.” I take this opportunity to note how disappointing the DTC is on the question we are dealing with (and this is not an isolated case). In fact, the writer of the rubric “Election of Popes” limits himself to a historical exposition, omitting on the contrary the theological and dogmatic points of view which are much more important: a point of view which has led many readers and researchers into error by omission.

16. Camillo Card. MAZZELLA, De Religione et Ecclesia, Prælectiones Scolastico-Dogmaticæ, Rome 1880. I thank Bishop Sanborn who pointed out this citation to me years ago (while all the fault for the errors of [French] translation is mine).

17. Cf. SAINT PIUS X, E.P. Ex quo nono, 26/12/1910, Ds 3555, where the opposite error, professed by the Oriental schismatics, is condemned. Recently Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has on the contrary denied that the Church is a monarchy.

18. This was the case – among others – of the “seer” of Palmar de Troya, Clemente Dominguez, who would have been elected Pope directly by Heaven after the death of Paul VI.

19. For example, the publisher Delacroix who published the Visions de la Vénérable Elisabeth Canori Mora sur l’intervention de Saint Pierre et Saint Paul à la fin des temps, and who presents the book as a confirmation of the conclusions of Fr Paladino’s book, L’Église éclipsée?, published by the same publisher, where allusion is made (p. 274) to these visions and to other prophecies.

20. To be complete, I report the response that Bishop Sanborn gives to sedevacantists who – implicitly or explicitly – consider, on the contrary, as possible the solution of the Conclave:

Q. Why is not totalism a viable solution?

A. Because it deprives the Church of the means to elect a legitimate successor of St. Peter. It ultimately destroys its apostolicity. Totalists try to solve the problem of lineage in two ways. The first way is by conclavism. They argue that the Church is a society which has an inherent right to elect its leaders. Therefore the remnant faithful could get together and elect a pope.

Even if this task could ever be accomplished, it is fraught with problems. First, who would be legally designated to vote? How would they be legally designated to vote? Second, what principle would oblige Catholics to recognize the winner of such an election as the legitimate successor of St. Peter? Conclavism is simply a fancy name for mob rule, where the ones that shout the loudest carry the rest of the mob. The Catholic Church is not a mob, but a divinely constituted society with rules and legality.

Third, and most importantly, one cannot make the jump from the natural right of men of choosing for themselves heads of government to their right to vote for a pope. The Church is not a natural institution, as civil society is. There is no inherent natural right in the members of the Church to choose the Roman Pontiff. The choice of Roman Pontiff was originally made by Christ Himself in St. Peter, and the mode of choice thereafter was regulated by law.

BISHOP DONALD J. SANBORN, Explanation of the Thesis of Bishop Guérard des Lauriers, 29/06/2002. Address to the author: Most Holy Trinity Seminary 2850 Parent Warren, Michigan 48092 USA; bpsanborn@catholicrestoration.org.

21. What we have affirmed is not in contradiction with what Bishop Guérard des Lauriers wrote in the same interview published in n° 13 of Sodalitium:

“For lack of M. [that is to say of the moral person, therefore of the residential Bishops qualified to convoke an imperfect general Council where the canonical monitions would be addressed to John Paul II], no ‘canonical’ resolution! Jesus alone will put the Church in order, in and through the Triumph of His Mother. And it will be evident to all that salvation came from on High” (p. 33).

This divine intervention will not in fact be contrary to the divine constitution of the Church as it was established by Jesus Himself. A return of the Bishops and/or of the “pope” materialiter to the public profession of the Faith would be (will be) moreover a miracle of a moral order so extraordinary that it would be to be placed on the same level as the conversion of Saint Paul. In what circumstances this will happen, we do not know.

22. On the subject, the reader will be able to read with profit what Fr Goupil SJ. wrote (The Church, 5th ed., Laval 1946, pp. 48-49) and the commentary made of it by B. Lucien (La situation actuelle de l’autorité dans l’Église, Brussels 1985, p. 103, n° 132). See also F. Ricossa, Fr Paladino and the Thesis of Cassiciacum, Verrua Savoia, pp. 12-22).

---

The WM Review addition:

The text from Fr Lucien cited above, which includes that of Fr Goupil, is as follows:

This uninterrupted succession is demanded by the divine institution:

“If anyone says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema” (Const. “Pastor Aeternus,” Denz. 1825).

This uninterrupted succession obviously does not mean that there will always be a functioning pope. It demands the continuity and the permanence of the institution, according to the nature of things in a human society, such as the Church is.

As Fr Goupil, S. J. said, (L’Église, 5th ed., 1946, Laval, pp. 48-49):

“Let us not forget that this formal and uninterrupted succession should be understood morally, and such is of the very nature of things where there is a succession of persons who are elected, as Christ wished and which has been practiced since times of ancient Christianity. This perpetuity does not require that there be no lapse of time between the death of a predecessor and the election of a successor; nor that in a series of such pastors there never be one who is dubious; but one understands by this a succession of legitimate pastors, such that the pastoral See, even when vacant, even when occupied by someone whose title is dubious, cannot really be thought to have ceased to exist. This is to say that the government of the predecessors virtually perseveres in the law of the See which remains always in force and always recognized; and that it will also always persevere in its solicitude for electing a successor.” (Cf. Antoine, De Eccl.)

As the reader sees by these theological explanations written before the present crisis, the material occupation of Sees corresponds very well to the need for the continuity of the hierarchy.

23. B. LUCIEN, La situation actuelle de l’autorité dans l’Église, Brussels 1985, chap. X. D. SANBORN, De Papatu materiali, Verrua Savoia, 2001. The review Le sel de la terre contests, in its n° 41, the demonstration given by Bishop Sanborn. We will return to the question in the next issue.

24. B. LUCIEN, op. cit., p. 107.