Worth a gamble? Kennedy Hall’s 'Sedevacantist Wager'
Is it 'safer' to act as if the post-conciliar claimants to the Holy See really have been Popes?
Is it ‘safer’ to act as if the post-conciliar claimants to the Holy See really have been Popes?
Introduction
Originally written in 2022, updated in 2026. We have generally retained references to Francis, but the points apply equally to the claimants from Paul VI to Leo XIV.
In a Crisis Magazine article, Mr Kennedy Hall submitted a respectful “sedevacantist wager,” as an explanation as to why he thinks that it is more “fitting” to live and act as if Francis is the pope.
I’d like to offer a similarly respectful reply to this. Although both Mr Hall’s article and this reply were written in 2022, the issues remain relevant today. As such, this is about more than an article written several years ago.
In this discussion, it is customary to use the terms “sedeplenists” and “sedevacantists”, which respectively refer to those who think that the See of St Peter is or is not occupied. These terms, particularly the latter, are unfortunate due to the amount of historical and intellectual baggage accompanying them.
For the purposes of this discussion, these terms refer solely to the Pope Question, and not to the other issues which often accompany it.
Let’s have a look at the different stages and explanations of this wager.
Problems with the first prong
Mr Hall begins:
Suppose there is a pope and we have to be in the Church where he reigns in order to be saved—normally speaking. Then we ought to do just that. If we submit to the pope—in a manner properly understood—then we lose nothing ultimately and stave off the risk of losing everything.
With all due respect to Mr Hall, this contains two instances of assuming what is under discussion here. They are:
What it means “to be in the Church where he reigns”
What is the “properly understood” manner in which we must submit to the Roman Pontiff’s teaching and governing authority.
Being in the Church
In order to be in the Church, a member of the Church, one must be baptised, profess the faith, and not be separated from the body either by oneself or by authority. The last two points are sometimes summarised as being “submissive to legitimate authority.”
First, it is not possible or wise to be submissive to doubtful authority. For example, we could consider the comments made by the canonists Wernz and Vidal, who said that “it would be rash to obey such a man [as pope] who had not proved his title in law”:
“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 recognised 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.
“Lastly, a doubtful Pope contradicts the unity of the Church, as a perfectly separated body from its head. For a doubtful Pope has no right to command, and therefore the faithful are not obligated to obey; thus, the head would be perfectly separated from the rest of the Church’s body.”1
Wernz and Vidal are primarily focusing on the question of procedural problems in an election, but the general principle has wider implications.
Let’s be clear: when a man concludes that the post-conciliar claimants’ claims are even just doubtful, he is placed closer to sedevacantists than he is to those who hold that they are certainly legitimate.
Further, this conclusion does not necessarily separate him from that body of men. Disagreement over a contingent matter such as the identity of the Roman Pontiff is not, in itself, sufficient evidence of a rupture of unity – neither of faith, nor even of government.
Everyone who is a Catholic is in the Church; and being wrong about a confusing contingent matter is not, in itself, sufficient to make someone not a Catholic. If Mr Hall is a Catholic, then as far as I can see, sedevacantists are united to him, and he with sedevacantists, and each are in communion with each other. The disagreement over “The Pope Question” is not, in itself, sufficient evidence of a rupture of unity – neither of faith, nor even of government.
Contingent matter or dogmatic fact?
I deliberately say a “contingent matter” rather than a “dogmatic fact.” The proposition “this man is the pope” is a contingent matter, until such point as it becomes a dogmatic fact.
It is well known that the peaceful and universal adherence of the Church to a man as pope is a “dogmatic fact,” and constitutes a conclusive proof that he is what he appears to be.
This adherence is not a requirement of being a true pope – and its absence does not necessarily prove that a man is illegitimate or doubtful. If we look at the explanation for the proof in Cardinal Billot’s work, we find the following:
“[F]or the Church to adhere to a false pontiff would be the same thing as if she were to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact […] By all means God can permit that at some time or other the vacancy of the see be extended for a considerable time. He can also allow a doubt to arise about the legitimacy of one or another man elected.
“But He cannot permit the entire Church to receive someone as pontiff who is not a true and legitimate [pope].
“Therefore, from the time he has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, we cannot further consider the question of a possible mistake in the election or of a [possible] deficiency of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy, because the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals the mistake in the election and infallibly indicates the existence of all requisite conditions.”2
Once the universal church adheres to a man as the proximate rule of faith, there can be no doubt that he is the legitimate pontiff, however it is that he got there. But we deny that Francis and several of his recent predecessors ever were “accepted and joined to the Church” in the way that Billot describes.
It is not credible to claim that Francis – nor indeed any claimant since Vatican II – has certainly and clearly been received in this way, as the proximate rule of faith, by the entire Church. Traditionalists have followed, cited and applauded these claimants when they agree with traditional doctrine – but these claimants have by no means been their proximate rule of faith.
This applies also to conservatives, particularly those who almost insert themselves into the equation, by mediating and interpreting Francis’ words.
Similarly, liberals have followed, cited and applauded Francis et al. when they have spoken or acted in a liberal way, but otherwise disregarded them.
Aside from being obviously true, this situation – and its implications for the idea of peaceful and universal adherence – was also observed by the respected author Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, who posed these questions and left them unanswered:
“[W]ould a certain very generalized though not always well defined distrust be sufficient to destroy the apparently pacific and universal character of the acceptance of the Pope? And if this distrust became a suspicion in numerous spirits, a positive doubt in many, a certainty in some, would the aforementioned pacific and universal acceptance subsist?
“And if such distrusts, suspicions, doubts and certainties cropped out with some frequency in conversations or private papers, or now and again in published writings, could one still classify as pacific and universal the acceptance of a Pope who was already a heretic on the occasion of his election by the Sacred College?”3
In light of these questions, we can see that it is quite doubtful whether there has been a peaceful or universal adherence to these men in the relevant sense. If there had been, we would have assurance of their legitimacy.
This absence of clear, peaceful and universal adherence in our time does not prove that these men are illegitimate. But it does nullify this particular argument for the legitimacy of the recent claimants – and thus cannot provide grounds for raising their claims above the status of contingent matters.
This has been discussed at considerable length by my colleague M. J. McCusker below:
The proper manner of submitting to the Roman Pontiff
From above, we can see that the second assumption – the proper manner of submitting to the Roman Pontiff – could be the subject of a wager of its own. If those doubting or rejecting the claims of these men are right – and they take their stand on the authority of pre-conciliar theologians – then it could well be that Mr Hall and others are not submissive to the Roman Pontiff in the proper manner.
In fact, I would contend that beyond verbal claims and occasional optimism about matters like the consecration of Russia, Mr Hall is submissive to Francis in precisely the same way that most sedeplenist and sedevacantist traditionalists are – viz., not at all.
This is because Francis is not treated as the “proximate rule of faith,” which we saw Cardinal Billot mention above. Van Noort explains further:
“[T]here exists a twofold rule of faith: one remote and one proximate. The remote rule of faith is the Word of God (handed down in writing or orally), which was directly entrusted to the Church’s rulers that from it they might teach and guide the faithful.
“The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.”4
Van Noort continues:
“The Church’s preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people’s needs. For:
“(a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching?
“(b) It is a safe rule, for the Church’s teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ’s doctrine.
“(c) It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies.”5 (Line breaks added)
Wilhelm and Scannell explain further:
“The Rule of Faith was given to the Church in the very act of Revelation and its promulgation by the Apostles. But for this Rule to have an actual and permanently efficient character, it must be continually promulgated and enforced by the living Apostolate, which must exact from all members of the Church a docile Faith in the truths of Revelation authoritatively proposed, and thus unite the whole body of the Church, teachers and taught, in perfect unity of Faith.
“Hence the original promulgation is the remote Rule of Faith, and the continuous promulgation by the Teaching Body is the proximate Rule.”6 (line break added)
They continue:
“The fact that all the members of the Church actually agree in one Faith is the best proof of the efficiency of the Catholic Rule of Faith. This universality is not the Rule of Faith itself but rather its effect. Individual members are indeed bound to conform their belief to that of the whole community, but this universal belief is produced by the action of the Teaching Apostolate, the members of which are in their turn subject to their Chief.
“Hence the Catholic Rule of Faith may be ultimately reduced to the sovereign teaching authority of the Holy See.”7 (Line break added)
To return to the quote from the above, Cardinal Billot summarises succinctly:
“[T]he Pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact.”8
None of this can credibly be claimed of Francis and his recent predecessors – not as a universal fact, and certainly not on behalf of traditionalists or men like Mr Hall.
Note what is not being said here: there is no extension of infallibility to everything a pope says; nor an assertion that everything a pope says, “even at breakfast,” constitutes our rule of faith.
The point is that there is nothing like this kind of submission on the part of traditionalists or men like Mr Hall. So while we are basically all “un-submissive” to Francis, there is little scope for a wager of this kind until there is adequate agreement on the terms.
Dangers of submission to a false authority
Mr Hall continues:
If there is no pope but in our Catholic sense we act as if there is, what could we lose?
First, although Mr Hall does not suggest otherwise, let’s be clear that there can be no obligation to submit to a man who is a false or doubtful pope – and the very fact of his article and this discussion show that Francis’ claim is at least doubtful.
Second, as a traditionalist, Mr Hall should be well aware of the dangers associated with acting as if Francis is the pope. He should be well aware that confusion has reigned ever since Vatican II: there has been incredible apostasy from priestly, religious and parish life; rampant confusion; unreliable sacramental administration; the adoption of gross errors of faith and morals, including some touching matters of dogma; and so on.
He should be well aware that all this happened precisely because so many Catholics were led by Francis’ recent predecessors into errors and heresy. Without the apparent prestige of Rome, the conciliar revolution would not have been as it has been. Mr Hall and others might object that the Catholics of those generations should have known better, and not accepted errors: we agree that they should have refused to accept error, but it would be begging the question to draw further conclusions on the topic from this. It also does not prove either side of the wager.
He might object that they should have been wiser about a proper understanding of our relationship to the Roman Pontiff and the exercise of the magisterium; but again, what that proper relationship is must be established before making such an argument – especially if one is arguing for a “rethinking” of this relationship.
Third, as we’ve already seen, it would be rash to submit to a doubtful pope – which is why the axiom holds that “a doubtful pope is no pope.” If a man were to usurp this exalted office, he may or may not teach and govern in accordance with the faith – but he would not be protected by the papal prerogatives and the general doctrinal providence of the Church of Rome. It would therefore be rash to treat such a man as if he was so protected – and yet this is precisely what is entailed in acting as though Francis is the pope.
Some might believe that contemporary writers, in “rethinking the papacy,” have rediscovered lost truths about how we Catholics should really relate to the papacy, meaning that this rashness is only a danger for the uninitiated. But again, this is assuming what needs to be proved for such a wager to have any force.
Mr Hall asks what might be lost by treating Francis et al. as true popes; in fact, this “rethinking of the papacy” is itself a loss and danger arising from such a course of action. Our first duties in the current crisis are to cleave to tradition and to separate ourselves from dangerous occasions – and insofar as this represents a practical programme, it is certainly legitimate.
However, once someone tries to formulate arguments or theories to justify this practical course, it is absolutely necessary that they conform to Catholic theology. Rethinking Catholic theology is completely unacceptable, and such a phrase, to my mind – in all kindness – comes close to an admission of heretical intent.
This is not to judge or condemn anyone repeating this phrase; nor do we even need to judge a false claimant to the papacy, who might be in good faith. But again, this mode of acting is itself dangerous.
Those who are misled with regards a false pope’s claims may find themselves adopting any errors and harmful laws promulgated by this false claimant. They can only avoid this danger by either a) this abominable idea of “rethinking the papacy”; or b) withdrawing themselves from the claimant’s influence and reserving judgment on his claim. I am sympathetic towards those who do the latter, but only when it is completely consistent and is not confused with a dogmatic insistence on the impossibility of forming a judgment.
In other words, there are several dangers in submitting to a false claimant as Roman Pontiff, even for a committed traditionalist like Mr Hall. Even though this supposed submission consists, in most cases, in nothing more than calling him “Pope,” there is an ongoing danger – greater or lesser, depending on other circumstances – of being deceived or drawn into compromise.
Some simple clauses
Will we stand before God at the end of our lives and be chastised for praying too much for Francis or any other pope?
This isn’t relevant to our claims, nor does it bolster Mr Hall’s.
It is Catholic to believe and act as if there is a pope, as this is how Catholics have always lived. In a word, it is fitting to live and think as such.
On the contrary, it is Catholic and fitting to believe, act, live and think in accordance with what is true – first of all, the Catholic faith; and then, whatever else is true as well.
It is most unfitting to rethink Catholic theology for the sole reason of harmonising it with a contingent matters like Francis’ claim to be pope.
Great Risks?
Mr Hall continues:
Even if the sedevacantists were right—which I don’t believe is true—they run a great risk if they are wrong.
What risk is this, exactly? Mr Hall does not make clear. Is it perhaps the loss of salvation, as is loosely suggested earlier in the article? I cannot believe that Mr Hall would mean anything so grotesque as saying that Catholics, mistaken in good faith about the contingent matter of the identity of the Roman Pontiff, will be lost for that fact alone.
Might it be the risk of schism, by withdrawing submission from a true pope? But commonly-cited texts should dispel such fears. First, Wernz-Vidal:
“They cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation […]”9
Szal writes:
“Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a Papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.”10 (Emphasis added)
And de Lugo cites two other authors supporting his view:
“Third, he will not be a schismatic who denies submission to the Pope because he doubts probably about his legitimate election or his authority: see Sanchez, who discusses others in Book I of the Decalogue, Chapter 35, in the third and fourth numbers, in the fourth disputation, in the fifth point.”11 (Emphasis added)
Let’s note that doubts about elections are not limited to rumours of skullduggery and so on, but include the ineligibility of a non-Catholic for the papacy. Finally, from Cajetan:
“If someone, for reasonable motive, holds the person of the pope in suspicion and refuses his presence and even his jurisdiction, he does not commit the delict of schism, nor any other whatsoever, provided that he be ready to accept the pope were he not held in suspicion.”12
This latter clause – mentioning readiness to submit to an undoubted Roman Pontiff – certainly applies to us.
We could provide other such texts. Mr Hall implicitly concedes that sedevacantists do present some strong arguments, even if they think they are missing something – and strong arguments are the very essence of a “reasonable motive.”
In fact, there are no grounds for either side to be accusing each other of even “material schism” based on their attitude towards Francis’ claim. As with material heresy, such a term does not apply to this situation at all.
Another way of entering into schism
While it is not schismatic to be wrong, in good faith and with reasonable grounds, about the identity of the pope, one can also enter into schism by separating oneself from the unity of the body – in other words, by forming a sect and refusing communion with other Catholics.
The German canonist Heribert Schauf writes as follows, with the most relevant part at the end of the extract:
“Schism arises in two ways:
By someone refusing to be subject to the Pope, or
By someone refusing to maintain communion with members of the Church who live in communion with the Holy See.
“Schism consists of the deliberate and willful separation of the baptized from the unity of the Catholic Church.
“The unity of the Church consists in the unity of its members with the visible head, the Pope, and in the unity of its members with each other. Schism requires more than opposition to an individual ruling bishop. It suffices if there is opposition to the Pope, provided that this opposition is not simple disobedience, but a fundamental refusal to submit to the Pope as the head of the universal Church.
“A pure schism is not easily possible. It is often associated with heresy, the rejection of the primacy of jurisdiction and infallibility of the Pope. The establishment of an independent community is not necessary for the concept of schism. It is also not required for a schismatic to refuse submission to the Holy See. It suffices if the schismatic breaks communion with the reigning Pope as such. One can be a total or partial schismatic, depending on whether they refuse to submit to the Pope in all matters or only in some. The crime of schism is present in both cases.
“A schismatic is also someone who appeals to a General Council against decisions of the Pope without theoretically doubting the jurisdictional authority of the Pope. Schism can occur through the establishment of antipopes. National churches can deviate into schism.
“During a vacancy of the Papal See, schism in its second form, the separation from the members of the Church, is possible without denying the bond of communion and the authority of the Pope. If heresy is directed against the unity of faith and against this unity, then schism is directed against the bond and unity, against the divinely ordained order of the Body of Christ.”13 (Emphasis added)
This is a danger for many groups today, on both sides of “The Pope Question”; it is not necessitated by either conclusion, and if it can accompany either.
There may be sedevacantist sects or sectarians, but the conclusion is just that – a conclusion. One does not pass from one club to another by forming this conclusion – even if one changes where one goes to Mass, or those with whom one associates, or simply corrects previously held ideas. Similarly, there are no “tenets of sedevacantism.” It is a conclusion, to which other conclusions may be associated by independent arguments that stand or fall independently, and which are indeed held by some sedeplenists.
It is possible, however, for the verbal claims I mentioned to harden into descriptions of reality. Some come to treat their chapel, or order of priests, as if it really were the Church. This sectarian mentality is a danger for many groups today, on all sides of this question – but it is not necessitated by one conclusion, or the contrary.
Our membership of the Church is determined by the criteria already explained, and not by adherence to or mistakes about contingent matters alone, nor by merely verbal claims on one side or another. Unless someone posits some other act which separates him from the Church (viz. heresy, schism or apostasy), Catholics who remain sedeplenists are united and in communion with Catholics who are sedevacantists – whether they like it or not, and even if they don’t realise it, or verbally deny it.
This is why St Augustine said the following about St Cyprian – one of the Fathers, who happened to hold a false opinion on a doctrinal matter.
“[I]f, in common with the Church at large, I entertain any doctrine more true than his, I will not prefer my heart to his, even in the point in which he, though holding different views, was yet not severed from the Church throughout the world. […]
“[W]hen that question was yet undecided for want of full discussion, though his sentiments differed from those of many of his colleagues, yet he observed so great moderation, that he would not mutilate the sacred fellowship of the Church of God by any stain of schism, [and in this] a greater strength of excellence appeared in him than would have been shown if, without that virtue, he had held views on every point not only true, but coinciding with their own.”14
In our dealings with fellow Catholics, would it not be good for us to imitate these two saints, whose characters both appear clearly in St Augustine’s words?
The foregoing comments answer Mr Hall’s next point:
Of course, if someone is confused, that is one thing—God knows the heart; but if one lives a life of anathematizing other Catholics for an opinion they have no business to dogmatize, then this presents a grave problem.
Forming a conclusion based on Catholic theology and advancing it to those discussing the matter is not anathematizing anyone, nor is it dogmatising anything.
If some sedevacantists act in such a way, that is their affair. It has no bearing on the truth or safety of the conclusion – still less on those who hold the conclusion without behaving in this way.
The final prongs of the wager
In the end, if we wager that there is a pope, then we live as Catholics have always lived and we hope to die as Catholics ought to hope to die.
On the contrary: at best, a traditionalist who treats Francis as pope lives in a state of resistance against the legitimate authority, relying on a contested understanding of proper relations to that authority; and at worst, is led into the “Great Rethink,” which is nothing more than a rejection of Catholic authority and theology.
He must constantly scrutinise the teachings of those whom he claims have been given divine authority to teach. He must qualify almost everything he reads about the Church in pre-conciliar texts. He is in constant danger of the more subtle deceptions – deceptions which those of such a position acknowledge to be inherent in their way of acting.
He continues:
Ultimately, wagering that there is no pope offers us little if anything, other than a great risk if we aren’t careful.
First, no position is without risk – especially not sedeplenism.
Second, it is “wagering” nothing, but rather forming conclusions of reason based on pre-conciliar theology.
Finally, those who form this conclusion of a vacancy (or at least the doubt about the recenr papal claimants) can thereby attain safety and peace. On the one hand, many recent “converts” to traditionalist groups maintain one foot in what Archbishop Lefebvre called “the conciliar church” – something which he and the older generations of traditionalist faithful and priests rejected. But accepting the conclusion of an extended vacancy (or even seriously accepting its possibility) leads such persons to withdraw themselves and their dependents from the whole monstrous edifice of the new religion, from the modernists claiming to hold authority in the Church, and from any temptation to fall into their more subtle errors.
Giving all this up allows them to receive the tradition of our ancestors, and the entire doctrinal and theological patrimony of the Church, for their spiritual edification and sanctification. This is a great blessing.
Conclusion
I could end this piece with a counter-wager to Mr Hall, but I have already said that such a wager requires agreement on the nature of assent to be given to the teaching of the Roman Pontiff and the magisterium. Further, we should assent to propositions such as an extended vacancy (or doubtful claim) because reason shows them to be based on the truth, not because of wagers like this.
Further, we should assent to propositions about the crisis in the Church because they are true, discerned via reason and faith – and not out of a scrupulous attempt to minimise risk, as in “wagers” like this.
As such, while thanking Mr Hall for his contribution for the debate, I shall instead end with some observations on the results of accepting this conclusion.
If the legitimacy of the post-conciliar claimants to the papacy are doubtful, then the conclusion which follows is not that they should be “given the benefit of the doubt,” and treated as popes. Rather, the conclusion is that they should treated as though they are not popes, until such a time as the contrary becomes clear (if ever).
Both the positive claim of invalidity, and a true understanding of the implications of a doubtful claim, can seem like difficult “pills” to swallow.
But once the “pill” has been swallowed, the conclusion is a seemingly unending source of joy and peace. It is the joy, not of the bare idea of a vacant see itself, but because of what this vacant see shows us about the Church.
It is the joy of knowing that we are the members of a divinely instituted, divinely guided and guarded Church, the safe teacher of religion, the safe guide of salvation.
She is not a withered, impotent thing whom we must save by our activism.
We are not saving her – she is saving us, as the instrument of her Divine Spouse.
It has been said by one critic that this conclusion is “sugary Catholic candy, tasting sweet going down”, but ultimately “unfulfilling and unhealthy”. But everything there is backwards. It does not at all taste sweet going down – it is a struggle. But once accepted, we have all that is fulfilling and healthy ahead of us.
This conclusion opens up, at last, the theological and spiritual tradition of the Catholic Church.
Before, one can only be confused and reserved when reading about the Church in classics like Dom Guéranger’s The Liturgical Year, and all the works of traditional ecclesiology. But after, one accepts, understands – and rejoices.
Once we have seen that the Church truly is as she is described in her approved and traditional theology, we see that she does not need us to rethink anything about her at all. Rather, we can say, paraphrasing St Paul: “I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come.”
This is no mere appeal to emotion. Removing a pair of spectacles which we never needed and finally seeing clearly would make anyone happy.
But this happiness is merely a secondary result – not the primary result, nor cause, reason or proof – of clear vision.
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:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Twitter (The WM Review)
Wernz, P. F-X, and Vidal, P. Petri,. Ius Canonicum ad Codicis Normam Exactum, Universitatis Gregorianae Universitas Gregoriana, Rome, 1938. See here:
_-_The_Cardsharps_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg){kind=link}
However, it is also interesting to bear in mind the opinion of Fr Antonius Straub SJ, who objected to the phrase “A doubtful pope is no pope” and the expression of Wernz’ reasoning, but in ways which emphasise the fact that the conditions sufficient for saying that Francis etc. have been peacefully and universally accepted by the Church have been absent:
It is fitting to judge concerning that famous saying: A doubtful Pope is no Pope.
This assertion is certainly not true whenever the doubt rests upon nothing save a slight foundation. But even if, after diligent inquiry, serious doubt should meanwhile remain, the saying is not proved. Assuredly, in the first place, a Pope who is thus doubtful is not rightly compared with a law which, lacking sufficient promulgation, is null. But the Pope is constituted through the very supreme sacred power of binding, which does not yet bind of itself, since law is the use of power by which at length the will of subjects is obliged to do something. Hence law by its proper nature requires promulgation, because it can oblige the will to will this or that only through knowledge; yet legislative power can exist absolutely before its own promulgation. In reality, Christ the Lord was Lord of all men before He was manifested, nor does anything of itself prevent the Pope from establishing by his command a man present to him alone as bishop of a certain city.
Therefore, at least from the nature of the matter, the Pope himself can exist with jurisdiction divinely conferred without promulgation, although for the use of jurisdiction prior promulgation is required. Furthermore, there exists no positive law of God or of the Church whereby, beyond the election accepted by the ultimate external sign, any further promulgation of this, and the same with the effect of recognition as a necessary cause or condition for receiving the primacy, should be prescribed. Wherefore, as soon as the elected person—for example, to the legate of those rightly electing—opens his consent concerning the primacy itself, he obtains the primacy from God; nor does any fuller promulgation or recognition by the Church in any way make the pontiff, but rather presupposes him already made.
Accordingly, a positively doubtful Pope would be certainly null only to the extent that it could never come to pass that a man truly elected and consenting to the election could be subject to serious doubt; but this is incorrectly affirmed. For indeed the morally universal Church can never firmly reject a true Pope through grave error, nor can she ever firmly adhere to a false Pope; yet just as doubts can cling to revealed truths themselves, so also can doubts cling to the dogmatic fact of the Pope, even though he be true. Indeed, it may be conceded that a true Pope can be doubtful not only from the beginning, but also, having been previously sufficiently recognized—namely, when the prior consensus has been somewhat obscured, whether by fact or by dogmatic consideration—can become doubtful. For the visibility of the Church requires that the visible head be such of itself; to which it is not repugnant that the head, through disturbances being excited, may not be seen for some time by accident.
And indeed the seat of the primacy can be occupied doubtfully just as it can be plainly vacant, even for years. Nor can any other measure be rightly assigned to the duration of such doubt, equally as to the duration of vacancy, except this: that measure which, once exceeded, would mean that the at least morally perpetual continuation of the primacy of Peter, or the exercise of the primacy necessary for preserving the Church, had ceased to be—which would happen if, when the men who were to elect Peter’s successor or bishops endowed with jurisdiction died, others could not be effectively constituted by the Supreme Pontiff (since it would not be sufficiently clear who he was).
Certainly in these straits the Lord would, from His promise, bring a remedy—not indeed by permitting the Church to desert as null a doubtful pontiff, even though canonically positioned and not spontaneously renouncing, but rather by bringing it about that, the truth of the matter having been at length explored, she would follow him with the legitimate diligence owed. Wherefore it will now be fitting to banish from theological books this controverted saying, as a relic of the great Western Schism, through which, according to the mind of many authors, it was meant to settle matters.
Antonius Straub, De Ecclesia Christi, Vol. I, no. 590, Footnote 1.
Congruenter judicandum de sententia illa famosa: Papa dubius est papa nullus. Quae utique non est vera, quotiens dubium nullo nisi levi fundamento nititur. Sed etiamsi post inquisitionem diligentem dubitatio seria interim maneat, effatum non probatur. Sane primum non recte comparatur papa ita dubius cum lege, quae promulgatione sufficiente carens nulla sit. At papa constituitur per potestatem ipsam sacram supremam obligandi, quae ex se nondum obligat, cum lex sit usus potestatis, quo demum voluntas subditorum ad aliquid agendum obligetur. Hinc lex ex indole propria requirit promulgationem, quod solum media cognitione voluntatem ad hoc illudve volendum obligare valet, potestas legifera jam ante promulgationem suam simpliciter esse potest. Reapse Christus Dominus hominum omnium erat, priusquam manifestaretur, nec per se quidquam impedit, quominus papa hominem sibi soli praesentem jussu suo episcopum urbis cujusdam statuat.
Itaque saltem ex natura rei papa ipse jurisdictione divinitus collata sine promulgatione esse potest, quamvis pro jurisdictionis usu promulgatio praevia exigatur. Tum vero non exsistit jus positivum Dei vel ecclesiae, quo praeter electionem signo externo ultimo acceptatam hujus ulterior promulgatio eademque cum effectu agnitionis instar causae vel condicionis necessariae pro primatu recipiendo praescribatur. Quare simulatque electus v. g. legato hominum rite eligentium consensum suum de primatu ipso aperit, primatum a Deo obtinet, nec promulgatio amplior vel agnitio ecclesiae pontificem quomodocumque facit, sed jam factum supponit. Proinde eatenus tantum papa positive dubius esset certo nullus, quatenus fieri nunquam posset, ut homo vere electus et electioni consentiens dubitationi seriae obnoxius exsisteret; atqui hoc perperam affirmatur. Etenim utique nunquam ecclesia moraliter universa firmiter reicere papam verum errore gravi potest neque unquam firmiter adhaerere papae falso potest; at sicut de veritatibus ipsis revelatis, ita de facto dogmatico papae quamvis veri haerere dubia poterit; immo concedere licet, papam verum non solum ab initio dubium esse posse, sed prius satis agnitum, nempe jam sive facto sive momento dogmatico consensus prioris quadantenus obscurato, posse dubium evadere. Nimirum visibilitas ecclesiae postulat, ut caput visibile per se sit; cui non repugnat caput per accidens excitatis turbis aliquamdiu non videri. Et revera sedes primatus non minus dubie occupari quam plane vacare etiam per annos potest. Neque mensura alia tempori talis dubitationis pariter ac vacationis recte assignetur quam qua superata de continuatione saltem moraliter perpetua primatus Petri vel exercitii primatus necessarii ecclesiae conservandae actum esset, id quod eveniret, si decedentibus hominibus successorem Petri electuris vel episcopis jurisdictione praeditis alii satis efficaciter a pontifice summo, utpote parum comperto, constitui non possent. Certe in his angustiis ex promissione sua Dominus remedium afferret, non quidem permittendo, ut ecclesia pontificem dubium, quamvis canonice positum nec sponte renuntiantem, tamquam nullum desereret, sed potius efficiendo, ut rei veritate tandem explorata eum legitimo studio debito sequeretur. Quapropter jam praestabit, effatum controversum velut reliquias schismatis magni occidentalis, per illud scilicet ex mente auctorum multorum componendi, a libris theologicis amandare.
Louis Cardinal Billot, Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi 5th Edition, Rome: Gregorian Pontifical University, 1927. Excerpt: Thesis XXIX, translated by Novus Ordo Watch, available at https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/. Cited text from §3.
Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, Two Timely Issues: The New Mass and the Possibility of a Heretical Pope, The Foundation for a Christian Civilization, trans Spann and Schelini, Penn, 2022, p 247.
G. Van Noort, ‘Christ’s Church’, Dogmatic Theology II, Newman Press, Maryland 1957121-2
Ibid 122
Joseph Wilhelm and Thomas B. Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology Vol. I, based on Scheeben’s “Dogmatik”, Benziger Brothers, New York 1899, p 85. Cf. also Matthias Scheeben, Handbook of Catholic Dogmatics, Book One, Part One, Emmaus Academic, Steubenville, Ohio, 2019, n. 398, pp 469-70.
Wilhelm and Scannell 85-6, cf. also Scheeben n. 399, pp 470-1
Billot Ibid.
Francisco X. Wernz, Petri vidal, Ius Canonicum, Vol vii, 1937, n. 398
Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, p 2. The Catholic University of America Press, Washington DC, 1948. Available at: https://archive.org/details/communicationofcatholicswithschismaticsrev.szal/page/n11/mode/2up
Juan de Lugo: Disp., De Virtute Fidei Divinae, pp 646-7, Disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8, in Disputationes scholasticae et morales de virtute fidei diuinae, 1696. Translation by ChatGPT. Available at: https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_0SMTVLujVlUC/page/645/mode/2up
Cajetan, Commentarium, 1540, II-II, 39, 1.
Heribert Schauf, Einführung in das kirchliche Strafrecht (Introduction to the Ecclesiastical Penal Law), 1952. Published by Diocesan seminary of Aachen, p. 123. Written in German, translated by a friend of The WM Review.
St. Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book V. Translated by J.R. King and revised by Chester D. Hartranft. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14085.htm>>
Very well stated concering the position one ought to take in the case of a doubtful pope. In this matter the benefit of doubt should not be extended to the doubtful party but rather prudence would dictate that allegiance be withheld until the doubt be resolved. I find it difficult to believe that Mrr Hall doesn't harbour any doubts concerning the legal status of Prevost, not only in light of his heresy but even in the controversy surrounding the validity of his election.
I would go further and say that doubt in any spiritual matter shiukd be treated the same way, should that be sacraments or even doubt concerning the intended meaning of certain teachings where ambiguous language is employed ; especially so when it be consistently the case. It would be safer and more in line with prudence to reject such teachings that confuse rather than clarify, something that. Bergoglio and Prevost were/are experts at even moreso than their rconciliar predecessors.
It would appear that in light of good counsel from many a Church father on these matters that Mr Hall is taking the more dangerous ground with his R&R stance and could be prolonging the days of oppression from the hands of these enemies of Christ instead of using his platform to enlighten the less knowledgeable.
This article is very good, and the key issue that "Recognize and Resist" proponents don't appear to grasp, is the degree of authority of the Pope to teach and govern the Church, and the corresponding duty of the faithful to accept and submit to said teaching and authority. They have erected a theological "cardboard Pope", which they claim to recognize and submit to, while at the same time denying that this Pope has any bearing on their Catholic faith or practice.
So you are correct in stating through this article that any discussion with Mr. Hall or a like minded person would have to be preceded by a clarification of the terms in accord with Catholic doctrine.