Editor’s note: This is Part II of an essay by Matt Gaspers for OnePeterFive. Part 1 can be found here. LifeSiteNews has published three essays from the other perspective that can be found here, here and here.
(OnePeterFive) — As we saw in Part I, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s current position hinges on the belief that Francis’s legitimacy is highly (if not certainly) doubtful, but is that really the case? Not according to the doctrine known as peaceful and universal acceptance, which the renowned Jesuit canonists Fr. Francis X. Wernz (1842-1914) and Fr. Peter Vidal (1867-1938) qualify as “a sign and an infallible effect of a valid election.” [1] Cardinal Louis Billot (1846-1931), another distinguished Jesuit, likewise taught:
Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis (of a Pope heretic), at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will always, in itself, be an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for the legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and, ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows.[2] As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit doubt to arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff he who is not so, truly and legitimately.
Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head of the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and prove infallibly the existence of the required conditions. [3] (Emphasis added)
As noted in Part I, it is well established that the St. Gallen Mafia did in fact form a pact and lobby for then-Cardinal Bergoglio in 2013 (again, see Julia Meloni’s book), despite John Paul II’s prohibition against such efforts in Universi Dominici Gregis. Nevertheless, as Cardinal Billot explains, “the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.” And Billot was simply repeating what St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) taught: “It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church, since by such acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff.”[4]
Cardinal Charles Journet (1891-1975), another eminent theologian, concurs with Cardinal Billot:
… 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 prerequisite to the validity of the election have been fulfilled.)
Acceptance by the Church operates either negatively, when the election is not at once contested; or positively, when the election is first accepted by those present and then gradually by the rest (cf. John of St. Thomas, II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 2, a. 2, nos. r, 15, 28, 34, 40; pp. 228 et seq.).[5] (Emphasis added)
Note that Cardinal Journet cites John of St. Thomas, the renowned Dominican theologian whom the Catholic Encyclopedia identifies as “one of the foremost interpreters” of St. Thomas Aquinas. Below is a sample of what the latter wrote concerning peaceful and universal acceptance:
It is immediately of divine faith that this man in particular, lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the Supreme Pontiff and the successor of Peter, not only quoad se (in itself) but also quoad nos (for us) — although it is much more manifest to us (quoad nos) when de facto the Pope defines something. In practice, no Catholic disagrees with our conclusion. (…) Christ the Lord entrusted it to the Church to choose for herself a man who, for a certain period of time, would be the sort of rule of faith just described; and, consequently, the Church also received the commission to determine, by her own act of acceptance, that this man was canonically and legitimately elected. For, just as it pertains to the Pope and the Church to determine which books are canonical, so it pertains to the Church to determine which man has been chosen to be the norm and living rule of the faith.[6] (Emphasis added)
And further:
All that remains to be determined, then, is the exact moment when the acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient to render the proposition de fide. Is it as soon as the cardinals propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate locality, or only when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread through the whole world, wherever the Church is to be found? I respond that the unanimous election of the cardinals and their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops of a Council legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like a confirmation of this declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. As soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him.[7] (Emphasis added)
Archbishop Viganò has criticized Bishop Athanasius Schneider for promoting this doctrine, asserting that “this thesis is called into question by historical precedent,” referring to the Great Western Schism (1378-1417):
In 1378, after the election of Pope Urban VI, the majority of Cardinals, Prelates and the people recognized Clement VII as pope, even though he was in reality an antipope. Thirteen out of sixteen cardinals questioned the validity of the election of Pope Urban due to the threat of violence from the Roman people against the Sacred College, and even Urban’s few supporters immediately retracted their election, convoking a new Conclave at Fondi which elected the antipope Clement VII. Even Saint Vincent Ferrer was convinced that Clement was the real pope, while Saint Catherine of Siena sided with Urban. If universal consensus were an indefectibly valid argument for a pope’s legitimacy, Clement would have had the right to be considered the true pope, rather than Urban. Antipope Clement was defeated by Urban VI’s army in the battle of Marino in 1379 and transferred his See to Avignon, leading to the Western Schism, which lasted thirty-nine years. Thus we see that the universal acceptance argument does not withstand the test of history. (Emphasis added)
On the contrary, the Great Western Schism occurred precisely because the Cardinals of the day chose to reject the man whom they had peacefully and universally accepted as the Pope. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains that after being elected twice by the College of Cardinals on April 8, 1378,
All the members of the Sacred College offered their respectful homage to the new pope, who had taken the name of Urban VI, and asked of him countless favours. They then enthroned him, first at the Vatican Palace, and later at St. John Lateran; finally on 18 April they solemnly crowned him at St. Peter’s. On the very next day the Sacred College gave official notification of Urban’s accession to the six French cardinals in Avignon; the latter recognized and congratulated the choice of their colleagues. The Roman cardinals then wrote to the head of the empire and the other Catholic sovereigns. Cardinal Robert of Geneva, the future Clement VII of Avignon, wrote in the same strain to his relative the King of France and to the Count of Flanders. Pedro de Luna of Aragon, the future Benedict XIII, likewise wrote to several bishops of Spain. (All of the above are clear manifestations of peaceful and universal acceptance.)
Thus far, therefore, there was not a single objection to or dissatisfaction with the selection of Bartolommeo Prignano, not a protest, no hesitation, and no fear manifested for the future. Unfortunately Pope Urban did not realize the hopes to which his election had given rise. He showed himself whimsical, haughty, suspicious, and sometimes choleric in his relations with the cardinals who had elected him. Too obvious roughness and blameable extravagances seemed to show that his unexpected election had altered his character. St. Catherine of Siena, with supernatural courage, did not hesitate to make him some very well-founded remarks in this respect, nor did she hesitate when there was question of blaming the cardinals in their revolt against the pope whom they had previously elected. … The cardinals elected Prignano, not because they were swayed by fear, though naturally they were somewhat fearful of the mischances that might grow out of delay. Urban was pope before his errors; he was still pope after his errors. The passions of King Henry IV or the vices of Louis XV did not prevent these monarchs from being and remaining true descendants of St. Louis and lawful kings of France. Unhappily such was not, in 1378, the reasoning of the Roman cardinals. (Emphasis added)
As for St. Catherine of Siena (1347-1380), she wrote the following to the schismatic Cardinals: “I know what moves you to denounce him … your self-love which can brook no correction. For, before he began to bite you with words, and wished to draw the thorns out of your sweet garden, you confessed and announced to us, the little sheep, that Pope Urban VI was true pope” (emphasis added).[8]
Similarly, despite the scandal and confusion Francis has caused on multiple fronts, it is undeniable that he was peacefully and universally accepted by the Church as the “true Pope” (UDG, 88) following his election and acceptance of office, beginning with all the Cardinal electors, who, as John of St. Thomas observes, “represent the Church in all that concerns the election of her head, the successor of Peter.”[9] Thus, as Catholics we are “obliged to believe” that Francis is the Pope, “and to accept him,” as John of St. Thomas says.
Some may object on the grounds that, according to Wernz-Vidal, “they are not to be numbered among schismatics who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they are not sure of him or hold him to be doubtfully elected because of rumors that have been spread,” but the same Jesuit canonists go on to say, “as happened after the election of Urban VI,”[10] a case which is simply not applicable to our present circumstances. In 1378, there was legitimate confusion because the Cardinals rejected the true Pope (Urban VI) and elected an antipope (Clement VII). In 2013, no such thing happened. On the contrary, not a single Cardinal or bishop publicly challenged the results of the conclave; [11] and 99.9% of Catholic prelates throughout the world, including the entire College of Cardinals (not to mention the vast majority of the laity), continue to recognize Francis as the true Pope.
In light of this fact, “it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy,” as Cardinal Billot says.
Dogmatic fact
Not only is peaceful and universal acceptance “a sign and an infallible effect of a valid election” (Wernz-Vidal), it also establishes the pontificate of the man elected as a dogmatic fact. Fr. E. Sylvester Berry (1879-1954), a professor of apologetics, explains:
A dogmatic fact is one that has not been (divinely) revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the (First) Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact. [12] (Emphasis added)
Msgr. Gerard Van Noort (1861-1946), a professor of dogmatic theology, concurs with Fr. Berry:
A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: ‘Was the (First) Vatican Council a legitimate ecumenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible? Was Pius XII legitimately elected bishop of Rome?’ One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the (First) Vatican Council are infallible, whether the Vulgate is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Pius XII (the Pope of Van Noort’s day) is to be recognized as supreme ruler of the Church. [13] (Emphasis added)
He qualifies this teaching as “theologically certain” and, in another volume, consequently observes that “one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII is the legitimate successor of St. Peter’; similarly… one must give an absolute assent to the proposition: ‘Pius XII possesses the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.’” This is so, he explains, because “when someone has been constantly acting as pope and has theoretically and practically been recognized as such by the bishops and by the universal Church, it is clear that the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession.”[14]
All of this applies to Pope Francis, no less to him than to his predecessors, which means we have infallible certitude that Francis is the Pope.
Conclusion
As I emphasized at the beginning of Part I, I continue to esteem Archbishop Viganò for everything he has done over the past six years to sound the alarm against both moral and doctrinal corruption in the Church. He has called for “a serious theological discussion,” which is the purpose of this article — to foster just such a discussion.
Regarding Pope Francis, I consider it highly likely — even demonstrable — that he holds multiple heretical views [15] and would show himself pertinacious if more members of the hierarchy pressed him to recant, as they should. But just as we cannot decide to reject his election based on private judgment, neither can we declare Francis deposed due to heresy based on private judgment.
In his treatise De Ecclesia, St. Robert Bellarmine lists six reasons “on account of which Councils are celebrated,” and “(t)he fourth reason is suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff, if perhaps it might happen, or if he were an incorrigible tyrant; for then a general Council ought to be gathered either to depose the Pope if he should be found to be a heretic, or certainly to admonish him, if he seemed incorrigible in morals.” [16]
Unless or until this happens, we must recognize Francis as the Pope and maintain communion with him, while at the same time understanding that true obedience, which is owed first and foremost to God (cf. Acts 5:29), includes the lawful resistance of human superiors, even the Pope, when the faith and souls are at stake. “It must be observed,” says Aquinas, “that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.” [17] And Bellarmine concurs when he says that “just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so it is lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more if he should endeavor to destroy the Church. I say, it is lawful to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and by blocking him, lest he should carry out his will; still, it is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing other than a superior.” [18]
Let us pray “for the health and salvation of the souls of both Pope Francis and of Archbishop Viganò, and of our own souls” (emphasis in original), as my colleague Dr. Robert Moynihan has urged all Catholics to do.
Reprinted with permission from OnePeterFive.