Catholics must refuse to accept a public heretic as pope: here’s why~LSN
Catholics must refuse to accept a public heretic as pope: here’s why
The papacy is not a plaything that can be passed between 'liberal' and 'conservative' factions every time there is an election. Only men who fulfill the criteria that Our Lord established can ever occupy it. The pope must be Catholic. The pope is always Catholic.
Mon Feb 24, 2025 - 1:34 pm EST
BeyondWords
Note from LifeSiteNews: This article was endorsed by Bishop Joseph Strickland who wrote on X, “I emphatically urge all Catholics to prayerfully review this article as I believe it to be very important and extremely pertinent at this time in the Church. LifeSiteNews has done an excellent job in preparing this introduction to an outline of the Cardinals and their positions, and this introduction will be invaluable as far as a guide in assessing that information and in preparing the faithful for the next conclave. I would state also that, not only is this article useful in understanding what is to come, but it also will give much needed clarification regarding many things that have already occurred.”
This Church has had an unbroken line of succession from Peter himself; these legitimate pontiffs are the heirs and defenders of the same teaching, rank, office and power. And the Church is where Peter is, and Peter speaks in the Roman Pontiff, living at all times in his successors and making judgment, providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it. The divine words therefore mean what this Roman See of the most blessed Peter holds and has held.
For this mother and teacher of all the churches has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to it by Christ the Lord.
– Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, No. 10 -11
(LifeSiteNews) — LifeSiteNews recently reported that the health of Francis is feared to be worse than previously believed. This raises the possibility of a conclave in the near future. In any case, the day will come when the current college of cardinals will gather with the intention of electing a new pope.
There are many, coming from a variety of perspectives, who would deny or doubt that the present college has the capacity to carry out such an election. In this article, I wish to set aside those questions – as important as they are – and focus on the most important question of all – who is actually capable of being elected to the papacy. (For more detailed consideration of who can be legitimate electors see this article).
As a conclave approaches, there will be intense debate over the qualities the next pope should possess. Those who call themselves Catholic will be profoundly divided; opposing factions will each seek a pope after their own heart. Some will seek a “liberal” pope who will continue the radical revolution advanced by Francis, while others will long for a “conservative” pope who will turn the clock back to 2013, or some other period in the past. Some groups will focus on a candidate’s geopolitical vision, while others will emphasize his political views, moral conduct, liturgical preferences, and other defining qualities.
Surprisingly, few will acknowledge that the papacy is not in fact a political office – like a presidency or the head of an international NGO – but a sacred institution established by Our Lord Jesus Christ during His time on earth to fulfill specific purposes according to His divine will. The papacy is not a plaything that can be passed between “liberal” and “conservative” factions every time there is an election. Only men who fulfill the criteria that Our Lord established can ever occupy it. The pope must be Catholic. The pope is always Catholic.
To approach the election of a pope as we approach the election to a political office, or view it as a contest between “liberals” and “conservatives,” fundamentally misunderstands the true nature of the office.
Indeed, today we should fear the election of a “conservative” as much as that of a “liberal” – and perhaps even more so if the “conservative” is not a true Catholic, one who fully professes the fullness of the Catholic faith. For a man is a heretic if “he disbelieve even one article out of those which are proposed by the Church as dogmas of Faith.” [1]
If a true Catholic is elected – that is, one who makes a full profession of the Catholic faith and condemns all contrary errors, who teaches, worships, and governs as a true pope should, and who acts to resolve the pressing questions that have arisen during decades of crisis – then perhaps even from this conclave a true pope may emerge and rally true Catholics to him. In that case, heretics and schismatics will fall away or be excluded by his authority. He will clearly be what a true pope always is: “the efficient cause of the unity of the Christian Commonwealth.” [2]
If a candidate similar to Francis, or one with even more extreme views, were elected, it could have grave consequences, potentially leading many souls astray through false doctrine. At the same time, there is hope that authentic Catholic resistance will continue to grow – that more and more people will awaken to the distinction between the Catholic Church and the false church that calls itself the Conciliar/Synodal Church – and that increasing numbers will come to understand true obedience and, therefore, reject false authority.
However, if a man is elected who holds more moderate or conservative views compared to Francis, it is to be feared that many will be reassured and lower their guard, even if the new “pope” obstinately denies or doubts one of the truths that must be believed by divine and Catholic faith. In such a situation, they would be far more inclined to align with the Synodal Church, potentially becoming permanently separated from the true Catholic Church.
To understand what I mean, imagine a “pope” who on being “elected” indicated that he was not going to be radical like Francis, but who nonetheless failed to make a profession of the Catholic faith or to condemn the heresies and errors which have been apparently enshrined as “acts of the magisterium,” such as Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, as well as the amendment of the catechism that directly contradicts Catholic teaching on capital punishment. Instead, such a “pope” would subtly approve and affirm these heresies and errors as legitimate or let them stand simply by passing over them in silence. Such a pope might appear more “conservative,” but would in fact stabilize and confirm departures from Catholic orthodoxy.
A “pope” like this would be far more dangerous, leading more souls astray as opposition to him wanes. Many “conservative” and “traditional” voices would offer their support, focusing on the positive actions he takes. They would argue that we should support him for the good he does, overlook the evil, be patient, and plan for the next conclave.
In other words, they would act as though the Church of Christ was merely a political institution, which sometimes has heretical popes and sometimes orthodox popes. They would act as though “Catholics” could be reduced to just one group among many in the Catholic Church. They would acknowledge as legitimate a church whose official acts are heretical, and whose disciplines lead directly to Hell. They would view as the Mystical Body of Christ a human institution that has systematically desecrated the Body of Christ, which is precisely what Amoris Laetitia has done.
These “conservatives” and “traditionalists” would take up their places as “the Catholic wing” of the Synodal Church, just like “Anglo-Catholics” form “the Catholic wing” of the Church of England. Some will be permitted to retain their liturgy and preach their own doctrine in their churches, as long as they remain loyal to the Successor of Francis occupying the Vatican.
If the enemies of the Church are astute, they are likely already scheming to elect a “conservative” pope who would preserve, not Catholic orthodoxy, but the errors and disciplines that have been falsely presented as authentic acts of the Magisterium.
That is why we must assert with courage, clarity, and unwavering faith that the Church founded by Jesus Christ is forever One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. She is One because she is perpetually united in faith, worship, and government. She is perpetually united in faith because all Catholics, without exception, take their rule of faith from the supreme teacher of the Catholic faith, the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of St. Peter, who never has been, never will be, and never can be, a public heretic.
What is the papacy?
The pope is the Successor of St. Peter in the See of Rome. He is the visible head of the Church Militant. He is the “efficient cause of unity” in the Church, the human means by which the Church is united in faith, in worship and government. [3] The pope exercises the fullness of the threefold power of Christ in the Church – that of teaching, sanctifying and governing. To him belongs the supreme exercise of the infallible teaching authority bestowed on the Church by Christ, to which all must give assent, to him belongs the office of Supreme High Priest, in communion with whom all must worship, and to him belongs the Supreme Government of the Church, which all must obey.
In order to be validly elected to this supreme office, one must fulfill the criteria established by Jesus Christ. A candidate who does not fulfill these criteria cannot be elected, because they are of divine law, not human law. Any attempt to elect such a candidate would be utterly null and void and, therefore, no Catholic ought to give assent to it.
Who can be elected pope?
The conditions for valid election to the papacy are summarized by theologian Rev. Sylvester Berry as follows:
Any person of the male sex having the use of reason can be elected Supreme Pontiff, provided he be a member of the Church and not excluded from office by ecclesiastical law. [4]
He explains further that:
The very nature of the office makes it necessary that the Supreme Pontiff be a member of the Church and have the use of reason; the will of Christ demands that he be of the male sex. [5]
However:
Other conditions may be required by the Church, since the pope, having full authority in the government of the Church, may establish laws that would render a papal election null and void unless the prescribed conditions be fulfilled. [6]
The same doctrine is found in the commentary of canonists Fr. Francis X. Wernz and Fr. Peter Vidal:
All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics. [7]
In this article, I will set aside consideration of the conditions required by ecclesiastical law and focus attention on the three conditions which are required by divine law.
These conditions may never be altered. A candidate who does not fulfil them can never, under any circumstances, be elected pope. Any attempted election would be null and void.
These three conditions are that the candidate elected must be:
Male
In possession of the use of reason
A member of the Catholic Church
Condition 1: Male
The pope is the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, the successful candidate must be a bishop, or if he is not a bishop at the time of his election, he must intend to be consecrated as a bishop after his election.
The sacrament of Holy Orders can only be conferred on members of the male sex. Therefore, only a man can be elected as pope. Berry writes:
It is absolutely necessary that the Roman Pontiff be of the male sex, for to such only has Christ committed the government of His Church and the power of Orders… A layman can be validly elected to the office… but the power of Orders would come only through the sacrament of Orders, which he would be obliged to receive, since Christ evidently intended that His Church be governed by bishops.[8]
The attempted election of a woman to the papacy would be invalid. The election of a man who was not a bishop would also be invalid, if he lacked the intention of being consecrated a bishop.
Condition 2: The possession of the use of reason
The pope exercises the power of governance over the members of the Church. Those who govern others must do so in accordance with reason. Therefore, the one who exercises such power must possess the use of reason. As Berry writes:
[The pope] must have use of reason because the primacy consists essentially in the exercise of jurisdiction and this in itself is an act of reason. Consequently a person who is permanently insane, or a person who has not yet reached the age of discretion, cannot be validly elected to the Supreme Pontificate. [9]
The attempted election of a child below the age of reason, or of a man who was permanently insane, would be invalid.
Condition 3: Membership of the Catholic Church
The Pope is the Visible Head of the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that he be a member of that body:
He must be a member of the Church since no one can be the head of any society unless he be a member of that society. [10]
The Catholic Church can be defined as:
The society of men who, by their profession of the same faith, and by their partaking of the same sacraments, make up, under the rule of apostolic pastors and their head, the kingdom of Christ on earth. [11]
There are therefore three conditions for membership of this society:
The body or external and visible society of the Church is held to come together only with those members who converge into one assembly through a) the external profession of the same faith; b) the recognition of the same authority or governance; c) the communion in the same sacraments. [12]
In his encyclical letter Mystici Corporis Christi, “On the Mystical Body of Christ,” Pope Pius XII summarized this doctrine as follows:
Actually, only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. [13]
Those who are not members are: (i) the unbaptized (infidels); (ii) those who do not profess the true faith (heretics); (iii) those separated from the unity of the body (schismatics); (iv) those who totally abandon the Christian faith (apostates); and (v) those separated from the Church by sentence of perfect excommunication.
Condition 3, membership of the Church, can therefore be broken down into three separate conditions, (i) baptism, (ii) public profession of the faith, and (iii) obedience to lawful authorities. I will leave excommunication aside, as it is a question of ecclesiastical law, rather than divine law. I will also leave apostasy aside, because what is said of heresy, necessarily applies also to the apostate.
Condition 3.1: Baptism
Baptism is the rite by which a man becomes a member of the Church:
The Church is a visible society. But in every visible society (especially religious) there is customarily some external rite (taken at least in a broad sense) to manifest one’s admission and entrance into that society. Therefore it was necessary that Christ also, when he instituted his visible religious society, should establish some external rite, to make clear one’s entrance into his society. [14]
It is by baptism that a man comes to be able to partake of the other sacraments, and share in sacramental communion with the rest of the Church. As Pope Pius XII taught:
Through the waters of Baptism those who are born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church but being stamped with a spiritual seal they become able and fit to receive the other sacraments. [15]
If a man is not baptized, he is not a member of the Church, nor does he share in the communion of the same sacraments with other members of the Church.
The attempted election of a non-baptized man would be invalid.
Condition 3.2: Public profession of the Catholic faith
By profession of the Catholic faith, the second criterion for membership of the Catholic Church, is met:
External profession of the true faith, which is had by submission to the teaching authority of the Church. [16]
This external profession of faith is absolutely essential for membership of the Church, because if members of the Church professed different doctrines, the Church would lose the unity of faith which is one of her permanent characteristics.
Monsignor Gerard Van Noort explains further:
The unity of faith which Christ decreed without qualification consists in this, that everyone accepts the doctrines presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office. In fact, our Lord requires nothing other than the acceptance by all of the preaching of the apostolic college, a body which is to continue forever; or, what amounts to the same thing, of the pronouncements of the Church’s teaching office, which He Himself set up as the rule of faith. And the essential unity of faith definitely requires that everyone hold each and every doctrine clearly and distinctly presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office; and that everyone hold these truths explicitly or at least implicitly, i.e., by acknowledging the authority of the Church which teaches them. [17]
A heretic is someone who, after being baptized, obstinately denies or doubts one of the truths that must be believed by divine and Catholic faith. [18]
A heretic does not accept the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium of the Church, but instead adopts another rule in its place, whether he follows the teachers of another religion, or his own erroneous judgement.
Those who externally profess a rule of faith other than that proposed by the magisterium of the Church are public heretics. Public heretics do not belong to the body of the Church. This is because, as Louis Cardinal Billot S.J. explains:
[T]he unity of the profession of faith, which is dependent on the visible authority of the living magisterium, is the essential property by which Christ wanted His Church to be adorned forever… But notorious heretics are those who by their own admission do not follow the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium. Therefore they have an obstacle that prevents them from being included in the Church, and even though they are signed with the baptismal character, they either have never been part of its visible body, or have ceased to be such from the time they publicly became heterodox after their baptism. [19]
The attempted election of a public heretic would be invalid.
Condition 3.3: Public schism
As seen above, members of the Catholic Church share in “the recognition of the same authority or governance.” [20] This is because the “necessity of unity of government” follows from “the existence of the Church as a visible organized society.” [21]
As a heretic separates himself from the Church by refusing submission to the teaching authority of the Church, so does the schismatic by his refusal of submission to the governing authority of the Church or by his rejection of the bond of charity (or communion) amongst her members.
Schismatics, says St. Thomas Aquinas, “are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.” [22]
Theologian Sylvester Hunter S.J. writes:
The sin of schism specially so called is committed by one who, being baptized, by a public and formal act renounces subjection to the governors of the Church; also by one who formally and publicly takes part in any public religious worship which is set up in rivalry of that of the Church. It is not an act of schism to refuse obedience to a law or precept of the Supreme Pontiff, or other ecclesiastical Superior, provided this refusal does not amount to a disclaimer of all subjection to him. [23]
It is also not schismatic to refuse submission to a doubtful superior. Canonists Wernz and Vidal state:
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.[24]
And the theologian De Lugo writes:
Neither is someone schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power. [25]
Public schismatics are not members of the Church:
They are not members because by their own action they sever themselves from the unity of Catholic communion.[26]
And, as with heresy:
[I]t makes no difference whether a person who breaks the bonds of Catholic communion does so in good faith, or in bad; in either case he ceases to be a member of the Church. The innocence or guilt of the parties involved is purely an internal matter, purely a matter of conscience; it has no direct bearing on the question of one of the external and social bonds requisite for membership. [27]
The attempted election of a public schismatic will be invalid.
Summary of who can be elected
It is of divine law that to be elected to the Roman Pontificate a person must be:
A member of the male sex
Possessing the use of reason
A member of the Catholic Church
Consequently, the attempted election of the following individuals will certainly be invalid:
A member of the female sex (contrary to condition 1)
A boy below the age of reason (contrary to condition 2)
A man who is permanently insane (contrary to condition 2)
A man who is not baptized (contrary to condition 3)
A man who is a public heretic (contrary to condition 3)
A man who is a public schismatic (contrary to condition 3)
A man who is a public apostate (contrary to condition 3).
A public heretic cannot be elected pope
As we approach the next conclave, we have very grave reasons to be concerned that the current college will attempt the election of a man who is not a member of the Church.
Public heresy is widespread among the putative hierarchy, and amongst those who make up the putative college of cardinals. But no public heretic can validly occupy the papal office.
Public heresy can be material or formal. A formal public heretic is someone who openly and guiltily refuses submission to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium. A material public heretic is someone who openly but innocently refuses submission to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium.
It is certain that formal public heretics are severed from the visible body of Christ’s Church. It is the more common opinion that material public heretics are also severed from membership.
If a formal public heretic was elected pope, it would be certain that the election was invalid. If a man was elected pope about whom there were well-founded doubts about his orthodoxy, due to his public profession of doctrine contrary to the Catholic faith, his election would be at least doubtful. But a doubtfully elected pope ought not to be recognized as pope as, according to the ancient maxim “papa dubius est papa nullus,” a doubtful pope is no pope.
The dictum is rooted in the very nature of authority, as canonists Fr. Francis X. Wernz and Fr. Peter Vidal explain:
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.[28]
In other words, an individual only has an obligation to obey when there is someone who has the capacity to receive that obedience. One can only have the obligation to submit to a pope, when there is a pope to whom one can submit.
The exercise of authority over another person is an act of reason, and to obey is also an act of reason. This is why a man who is insane cannot be the pope.
It is contrary to reason that a person should submit to the authority of a purported superior, if there are well founded reasons for thinking that the person claiming the authority does not legitimately possess it.
An obligation to obey doubtful authorities would undermine the exercise of power by legitimate authorities, it would be fatal to authentic freedom, and it would lead to the tyrannous exercise of illegitimate power by usurpers.
This truth is of the greatest importance when it comes to the papacy. The pope has the authority to teach such that we are bound to give internal assent to his teaching, and he makes laws in matters pertaining to our eternal salvation. The consequences of assenting to false teaching, or conforming our lives to evil disciplines, would be catastrophic. Therefore, it is rash and imprudent to accept a man as pope if there are well founded doubts about his legitimacy. Wernz and Vidal state that if there are doubts about whether a man has been legitimately elected to the papacy he should not be accepted: “it would be rash to obey such a man who had not proved his title in law.”
It follows from this:
[I]f a pope is truly and permanently doubtful, the duty of obedience cannot exist towards him on the part of any subject.
This is because:
[T]he 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.
They continue:
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.
If there are doubts as to whether a man elected to the Roman Pontificate is a member of the Church, because of well-founded arguments that he is a public heretic, public schismatic, or public apostate, he ought not to be accepted as pope until such doubts have been removed.
If the man elected was a true Catholic, he would have no hesitation in removing such doubts, and this could be easily done by making a full profession of the Catholic faith and condemning the errors of which he has been suspected. Indeed, every Catholic, of every rank and station, has the obligation to make such a profession when a situation calls on him to do so.
If, on the other hand, a candidate refused to do so, or took refuge in ambiguity, they would remain, at best, a doubtfully elected pope and therefore not the pope at all.
What if a publicly heretical pope seems to be accepted?
The pope can never be a heretic, and a pope who is a heretic will never receive the full adherence of the Church. However, perhaps it will seem to many that this has taken place. Would this make the heretic pope? By no means.
On this important question we have the very clear and unambiguous teaching of Pope Paul IV in the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, promulgated on 15 February 1559.
As an instrument of positive ecclesiastical law, the Bull was superseded by the Code of Canon Law. However, there are theological principles underlying it which remain permanently valid. It is these to which I wish to draw attention.
First, let’s set the context of the document, which in many ways was similar to the situation faced by the Church in the face of the spread of Modernism in the first half of the twentieth century.
This papal Bull was promulgated at a time when Protestant ideas were rapidly gaining ground across much of Europe. England was returning to Protestantism after the accession of Elizabeth I, France was riven by religious division, and much of Germany and Scandinavia had already fallen. Worst of all, Protestant ideas seemed to be spreading among members of the hierarchy. The pope at the time, Paul IV, was worried that there were members even of the college of cardinals who secretly, or even to some degree openly, held ideas influenced by Luther and Calvin. If such a man apparently gained the office of pope, it would be disastrous for the Church.
Therefore, in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, Pope Paul IV made it clear that no heretic could ever, under any circumstances, be the pope.
He decreed that every bishop or cardinal who “have been detected, or have confessed to have, or have been convicted of having, deviated, or fallen into heresy or incurred schism or provoked or committed either or both of these” was to be deprived of every ecclesiastical office and that they must “be avoided and must be deprived of the sympathy of all natural kindness” by the Catholic faithful.
In section 6 of the text, he turned his attention to the Roman Pontificate itself. He decreed that in the following scenario:
[I]f ever at any time it shall appear that… even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy
The following consequences would follow:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
As stated above, I am not claiming that this Bull remains in force as law, but wish to draw attention to some important theological points, particularly that:
It is possible for a papal election to be “null, void and worthless” if the pope is a heretic “even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals.”
That “the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation” does not suffice to secure the claim of a heretic to the papacy.
This teaching of Paul IV makes it clear that one cannot claim that a man who has been elected “uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals,” or who has received the obedience of all, is exempt from being accused of being a false pope due to heresy.
What might happen at the next conclave?
The next conclave, as far as we can see, will attempt the election of one of the current cardinals. If any one of the above conditions is not met, we will have certainty that he is not the pope. If there are well founded doubts that one of the conditions have not been met, the election will be doubtful, and we ought to withhold our submission until the doubt has been removed.
Of course, many will try to tell you that whoever is elected must be accepted without question. And there are many who falsely claim that all that is required is that the candidate be male and baptized. However, as Catholics, we must follow the teaching of the Catholic Church.
If anyone, after the election of a doubtful pope, were to suggest that the candidate was somehow exempt from the obligation of fully professing the Catholic faith, and that the laity should just give him the benefit of the doubt, they would be displaying a monstrous and abusive form of clericalism. These clericalists would be asking the laity to take a man, whose orthodoxy has been rendered doubtful by his own public words and actions, to be the supreme teacher of the Catholic faith, to whom internal assent of intellect and will is due. To ask such a thing is a sin and to refuse it is required by our loyalty to Jesus Christ.
As laymen we have a grave obligation to profess the faith, and the importance of this profession increases, rather than diminishes, as one ascends the Catholic hierarchy. Cardinals are the clergy of the Roman Church, and they wear red to signify their willingness to die for the faith of that Church. If they wish to show themselves true members of the Church, even after years or decades of collaborating with her enemies, they must make their allegiance plain. In any case, no true Catholic would ever refuse to profess the faith. A true Catholic rejoices in the profession of the Catholic faith, and in adhering to every truth proposed to us by the Sacred Magisterium of the Church.
If a candidate refuses to make a full profession of the Catholic faith, if they remain silent over heresies and errors, if they leave evil disciplines in place, if they continue to suppress the rites of the Church, these will be clear and indisputable signs that we are dealing with the Successor of Francis, and not with the Successor of St. Peter.
In the face of such a false pope, whether “liberal” or “conservative,” every man and woman will have to do their duty and remain faithful to the teaching of the Catholic Church which tells us that the election of a public heretic, or of a pope whose election is doubtful for well-founded reasons, cannot be accepted.
Anyone who refuses submission to the Successor of Francis must be prepared to face mockery, derision, even persecution, but we may have no choice. The teaching of the Church is clear, and we must remain faithful to it, no matter what the cost.
St. Paul gave us the following injunction:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. (Gal 1:8)
If we are to refuse to receive a false gospel even from an angel of heaven, we are certainly bound to refuse to receive a false gospel from a “liberal” or “conservative” cardinal whose election is rendered doubtful by his failure to publicly profess the Catholic faith.
BeyondWords
Note from LifeSiteNews: This article was endorsed by Bishop Joseph Strickland who wrote on X, “I emphatically urge all Catholics to prayerfully review this article as I believe it to be very important and extremely pertinent at this time in the Church. LifeSiteNews has done an excellent job in preparing this introduction to an outline of the Cardinals and their positions, and this introduction will be invaluable as far as a guide in assessing that information and in preparing the faithful for the next conclave. I would state also that, not only is this article useful in understanding what is to come, but it also will give much needed clarification regarding many things that have already occurred.”
This Church has had an unbroken line of succession from Peter himself; these legitimate pontiffs are the heirs and defenders of the same teaching, rank, office and power. And the Church is where Peter is, and Peter speaks in the Roman Pontiff, living at all times in his successors and making judgment, providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it. The divine words therefore mean what this Roman See of the most blessed Peter holds and has held.
For this mother and teacher of all the churches has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to it by Christ the Lord.
– Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, No. 10 -11
(LifeSiteNews) — LifeSiteNews recently reported that the health of Francis is feared to be worse than previously believed. This raises the possibility of a conclave in the near future. In any case, the day will come when the current college of cardinals will gather with the intention of electing a new pope.
There are many, coming from a variety of perspectives, who would deny or doubt that the present college has the capacity to carry out such an election. In this article, I wish to set aside those questions – as important as they are – and focus on the most important question of all – who is actually capable of being elected to the papacy. (For more detailed consideration of who can be legitimate electors see this article).
As a conclave approaches, there will be intense debate over the qualities the next pope should possess. Those who call themselves Catholic will be profoundly divided; opposing factions will each seek a pope after their own heart. Some will seek a “liberal” pope who will continue the radical revolution advanced by Francis, while others will long for a “conservative” pope who will turn the clock back to 2013, or some other period in the past. Some groups will focus on a candidate’s geopolitical vision, while others will emphasize his political views, moral conduct, liturgical preferences, and other defining qualities.
Surprisingly, few will acknowledge that the papacy is not in fact a political office – like a presidency or the head of an international NGO – but a sacred institution established by Our Lord Jesus Christ during His time on earth to fulfill specific purposes according to His divine will. The papacy is not a plaything that can be passed between “liberal” and “conservative” factions every time there is an election. Only men who fulfill the criteria that Our Lord established can ever occupy it. The pope must be Catholic. The pope is always Catholic.
To approach the election of a pope as we approach the election to a political office, or view it as a contest between “liberals” and “conservatives,” fundamentally misunderstands the true nature of the office.
Indeed, today we should fear the election of a “conservative” as much as that of a “liberal” – and perhaps even more so if the “conservative” is not a true Catholic, one who fully professes the fullness of the Catholic faith. For a man is a heretic if “he disbelieve even one article out of those which are proposed by the Church as dogmas of Faith.” [1]
If a true Catholic is elected – that is, one who makes a full profession of the Catholic faith and condemns all contrary errors, who teaches, worships, and governs as a true pope should, and who acts to resolve the pressing questions that have arisen during decades of crisis – then perhaps even from this conclave a true pope may emerge and rally true Catholics to him. In that case, heretics and schismatics will fall away or be excluded by his authority. He will clearly be what a true pope always is: “the efficient cause of the unity of the Christian Commonwealth.” [2]
If a candidate similar to Francis, or one with even more extreme views, were elected, it could have grave consequences, potentially leading many souls astray through false doctrine. At the same time, there is hope that authentic Catholic resistance will continue to grow – that more and more people will awaken to the distinction between the Catholic Church and the false church that calls itself the Conciliar/Synodal Church – and that increasing numbers will come to understand true obedience and, therefore, reject false authority.
However, if a man is elected who holds more moderate or conservative views compared to Francis, it is to be feared that many will be reassured and lower their guard, even if the new “pope” obstinately denies or doubts one of the truths that must be believed by divine and Catholic faith. In such a situation, they would be far more inclined to align with the Synodal Church, potentially becoming permanently separated from the true Catholic Church.
To understand what I mean, imagine a “pope” who on being “elected” indicated that he was not going to be radical like Francis, but who nonetheless failed to make a profession of the Catholic faith or to condemn the heresies and errors which have been apparently enshrined as “acts of the magisterium,” such as Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, as well as the amendment of the catechism that directly contradicts Catholic teaching on capital punishment. Instead, such a “pope” would subtly approve and affirm these heresies and errors as legitimate or let them stand simply by passing over them in silence. Such a pope might appear more “conservative,” but would in fact stabilize and confirm departures from Catholic orthodoxy.
A “pope” like this would be far more dangerous, leading more souls astray as opposition to him wanes. Many “conservative” and “traditional” voices would offer their support, focusing on the positive actions he takes. They would argue that we should support him for the good he does, overlook the evil, be patient, and plan for the next conclave.
In other words, they would act as though the Church of Christ was merely a political institution, which sometimes has heretical popes and sometimes orthodox popes. They would act as though “Catholics” could be reduced to just one group among many in the Catholic Church. They would acknowledge as legitimate a church whose official acts are heretical, and whose disciplines lead directly to Hell. They would view as the Mystical Body of Christ a human institution that has systematically desecrated the Body of Christ, which is precisely what Amoris Laetitia has done.
These “conservatives” and “traditionalists” would take up their places as “the Catholic wing” of the Synodal Church, just like “Anglo-Catholics” form “the Catholic wing” of the Church of England. Some will be permitted to retain their liturgy and preach their own doctrine in their churches, as long as they remain loyal to the Successor of Francis occupying the Vatican.
If the enemies of the Church are astute, they are likely already scheming to elect a “conservative” pope who would preserve, not Catholic orthodoxy, but the errors and disciplines that have been falsely presented as authentic acts of the Magisterium.
That is why we must assert with courage, clarity, and unwavering faith that the Church founded by Jesus Christ is forever One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. She is One because she is perpetually united in faith, worship, and government. She is perpetually united in faith because all Catholics, without exception, take their rule of faith from the supreme teacher of the Catholic faith, the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of St. Peter, who never has been, never will be, and never can be, a public heretic.
What is the papacy?
The pope is the Successor of St. Peter in the See of Rome. He is the visible head of the Church Militant. He is the “efficient cause of unity” in the Church, the human means by which the Church is united in faith, in worship and government. [3] The pope exercises the fullness of the threefold power of Christ in the Church – that of teaching, sanctifying and governing. To him belongs the supreme exercise of the infallible teaching authority bestowed on the Church by Christ, to which all must give assent, to him belongs the office of Supreme High Priest, in communion with whom all must worship, and to him belongs the Supreme Government of the Church, which all must obey.
In order to be validly elected to this supreme office, one must fulfill the criteria established by Jesus Christ. A candidate who does not fulfill these criteria cannot be elected, because they are of divine law, not human law. Any attempt to elect such a candidate would be utterly null and void and, therefore, no Catholic ought to give assent to it.
Who can be elected pope?
The conditions for valid election to the papacy are summarized by theologian Rev. Sylvester Berry as follows:
Any person of the male sex having the use of reason can be elected Supreme Pontiff, provided he be a member of the Church and not excluded from office by ecclesiastical law. [4]
He explains further that:
The very nature of the office makes it necessary that the Supreme Pontiff be a member of the Church and have the use of reason; the will of Christ demands that he be of the male sex. [5]
However:
Other conditions may be required by the Church, since the pope, having full authority in the government of the Church, may establish laws that would render a papal election null and void unless the prescribed conditions be fulfilled. [6]
The same doctrine is found in the commentary of canonists Fr. Francis X. Wernz and Fr. Peter Vidal:
All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics. [7]
In this article, I will set aside consideration of the conditions required by ecclesiastical law and focus attention on the three conditions which are required by divine law.
These conditions may never be altered. A candidate who does not fulfil them can never, under any circumstances, be elected pope. Any attempted election would be null and void.
These three conditions are that the candidate elected must be:
Male
In possession of the use of reason
A member of the Catholic Church
Condition 1: Male
The pope is the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, the successful candidate must be a bishop, or if he is not a bishop at the time of his election, he must intend to be consecrated as a bishop after his election.
The sacrament of Holy Orders can only be conferred on members of the male sex. Therefore, only a man can be elected as pope. Berry writes:
It is absolutely necessary that the Roman Pontiff be of the male sex, for to such only has Christ committed the government of His Church and the power of Orders… A layman can be validly elected to the office… but the power of Orders would come only through the sacrament of Orders, which he would be obliged to receive, since Christ evidently intended that His Church be governed by bishops.[8]
The attempted election of a woman to the papacy would be invalid. The election of a man who was not a bishop would also be invalid, if he lacked the intention of being consecrated a bishop.
Condition 2: The possession of the use of reason
The pope exercises the power of governance over the members of the Church. Those who govern others must do so in accordance with reason. Therefore, the one who exercises such power must possess the use of reason. As Berry writes:
[The pope] must have use of reason because the primacy consists essentially in the exercise of jurisdiction and this in itself is an act of reason. Consequently a person who is permanently insane, or a person who has not yet reached the age of discretion, cannot be validly elected to the Supreme Pontificate. [9]
The attempted election of a child below the age of reason, or of a man who was permanently insane, would be invalid.
Condition 3: Membership of the Catholic Church
The Pope is the Visible Head of the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that he be a member of that body:
He must be a member of the Church since no one can be the head of any society unless he be a member of that society. [10]
The Catholic Church can be defined as:
The society of men who, by their profession of the same faith, and by their partaking of the same sacraments, make up, under the rule of apostolic pastors and their head, the kingdom of Christ on earth. [11]
There are therefore three conditions for membership of this society:
The body or external and visible society of the Church is held to come together only with those members who converge into one assembly through a) the external profession of the same faith; b) the recognition of the same authority or governance; c) the communion in the same sacraments. [12]
In his encyclical letter Mystici Corporis Christi, “On the Mystical Body of Christ,” Pope Pius XII summarized this doctrine as follows:
Actually, only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. [13]
Those who are not members are: (i) the unbaptized (infidels); (ii) those who do not profess the true faith (heretics); (iii) those separated from the unity of the body (schismatics); (iv) those who totally abandon the Christian faith (apostates); and (v) those separated from the Church by sentence of perfect excommunication.
Condition 3, membership of the Church, can therefore be broken down into three separate conditions, (i) baptism, (ii) public profession of the faith, and (iii) obedience to lawful authorities. I will leave excommunication aside, as it is a question of ecclesiastical law, rather than divine law. I will also leave apostasy aside, because what is said of heresy, necessarily applies also to the apostate.
Condition 3.1: Baptism
Baptism is the rite by which a man becomes a member of the Church:
The Church is a visible society. But in every visible society (especially religious) there is customarily some external rite (taken at least in a broad sense) to manifest one’s admission and entrance into that society. Therefore it was necessary that Christ also, when he instituted his visible religious society, should establish some external rite, to make clear one’s entrance into his society. [14]
It is by baptism that a man comes to be able to partake of the other sacraments, and share in sacramental communion with the rest of the Church. As Pope Pius XII taught:
Through the waters of Baptism those who are born into this world dead in sin are not only born again and made members of the Church but being stamped with a spiritual seal they become able and fit to receive the other sacraments. [15]
If a man is not baptized, he is not a member of the Church, nor does he share in the communion of the same sacraments with other members of the Church.
The attempted election of a non-baptized man would be invalid.
Condition 3.2: Public profession of the Catholic faith
By profession of the Catholic faith, the second criterion for membership of the Catholic Church, is met:
External profession of the true faith, which is had by submission to the teaching authority of the Church. [16]
This external profession of faith is absolutely essential for membership of the Church, because if members of the Church professed different doctrines, the Church would lose the unity of faith which is one of her permanent characteristics.
Monsignor Gerard Van Noort explains further:
The unity of faith which Christ decreed without qualification consists in this, that everyone accepts the doctrines presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office. In fact, our Lord requires nothing other than the acceptance by all of the preaching of the apostolic college, a body which is to continue forever; or, what amounts to the same thing, of the pronouncements of the Church’s teaching office, which He Himself set up as the rule of faith. And the essential unity of faith definitely requires that everyone hold each and every doctrine clearly and distinctly presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office; and that everyone hold these truths explicitly or at least implicitly, i.e., by acknowledging the authority of the Church which teaches them. [17]
A heretic is someone who, after being baptized, obstinately denies or doubts one of the truths that must be believed by divine and Catholic faith. [18]
A heretic does not accept the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium of the Church, but instead adopts another rule in its place, whether he follows the teachers of another religion, or his own erroneous judgement.
Those who externally profess a rule of faith other than that proposed by the magisterium of the Church are public heretics. Public heretics do not belong to the body of the Church. This is because, as Louis Cardinal Billot S.J. explains:
[T]he unity of the profession of faith, which is dependent on the visible authority of the living magisterium, is the essential property by which Christ wanted His Church to be adorned forever… But notorious heretics are those who by their own admission do not follow the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium. Therefore they have an obstacle that prevents them from being included in the Church, and even though they are signed with the baptismal character, they either have never been part of its visible body, or have ceased to be such from the time they publicly became heterodox after their baptism. [19]
The attempted election of a public heretic would be invalid.
Condition 3.3: Public schism
As seen above, members of the Catholic Church share in “the recognition of the same authority or governance.” [20] This is because the “necessity of unity of government” follows from “the existence of the Church as a visible organized society.” [21]
As a heretic separates himself from the Church by refusing submission to the teaching authority of the Church, so does the schismatic by his refusal of submission to the governing authority of the Church or by his rejection of the bond of charity (or communion) amongst her members.
Schismatics, says St. Thomas Aquinas, “are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.” [22]
Theologian Sylvester Hunter S.J. writes:
The sin of schism specially so called is committed by one who, being baptized, by a public and formal act renounces subjection to the governors of the Church; also by one who formally and publicly takes part in any public religious worship which is set up in rivalry of that of the Church. It is not an act of schism to refuse obedience to a law or precept of the Supreme Pontiff, or other ecclesiastical Superior, provided this refusal does not amount to a disclaimer of all subjection to him. [23]
It is also not schismatic to refuse submission to a doubtful superior. Canonists Wernz and Vidal state:
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.[24]
And the theologian De Lugo writes:
Neither is someone schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power. [25]
Public schismatics are not members of the Church:
They are not members because by their own action they sever themselves from the unity of Catholic communion.[26]
And, as with heresy:
[I]t makes no difference whether a person who breaks the bonds of Catholic communion does so in good faith, or in bad; in either case he ceases to be a member of the Church. The innocence or guilt of the parties involved is purely an internal matter, purely a matter of conscience; it has no direct bearing on the question of one of the external and social bonds requisite for membership. [27]
The attempted election of a public schismatic will be invalid.
Summary of who can be elected
It is of divine law that to be elected to the Roman Pontificate a person must be:
A member of the male sex
Possessing the use of reason
A member of the Catholic Church
Consequently, the attempted election of the following individuals will certainly be invalid:
A member of the female sex (contrary to condition 1)
A boy below the age of reason (contrary to condition 2)
A man who is permanently insane (contrary to condition 2)
A man who is not baptized (contrary to condition 3)
A man who is a public heretic (contrary to condition 3)
A man who is a public schismatic (contrary to condition 3)
A man who is a public apostate (contrary to condition 3).
A public heretic cannot be elected pope
As we approach the next conclave, we have very grave reasons to be concerned that the current college will attempt the election of a man who is not a member of the Church.
Public heresy is widespread among the putative hierarchy, and amongst those who make up the putative college of cardinals. But no public heretic can validly occupy the papal office.
Public heresy can be material or formal. A formal public heretic is someone who openly and guiltily refuses submission to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium. A material public heretic is someone who openly but innocently refuses submission to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium.
It is certain that formal public heretics are severed from the visible body of Christ’s Church. It is the more common opinion that material public heretics are also severed from membership.
If a formal public heretic was elected pope, it would be certain that the election was invalid. If a man was elected pope about whom there were well-founded doubts about his orthodoxy, due to his public profession of doctrine contrary to the Catholic faith, his election would be at least doubtful. But a doubtfully elected pope ought not to be recognized as pope as, according to the ancient maxim “papa dubius est papa nullus,” a doubtful pope is no pope.
The dictum is rooted in the very nature of authority, as canonists Fr. Francis X. Wernz and Fr. Peter Vidal explain:
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.[28]
In other words, an individual only has an obligation to obey when there is someone who has the capacity to receive that obedience. One can only have the obligation to submit to a pope, when there is a pope to whom one can submit.
The exercise of authority over another person is an act of reason, and to obey is also an act of reason. This is why a man who is insane cannot be the pope.
It is contrary to reason that a person should submit to the authority of a purported superior, if there are well founded reasons for thinking that the person claiming the authority does not legitimately possess it.
An obligation to obey doubtful authorities would undermine the exercise of power by legitimate authorities, it would be fatal to authentic freedom, and it would lead to the tyrannous exercise of illegitimate power by usurpers.
This truth is of the greatest importance when it comes to the papacy. The pope has the authority to teach such that we are bound to give internal assent to his teaching, and he makes laws in matters pertaining to our eternal salvation. The consequences of assenting to false teaching, or conforming our lives to evil disciplines, would be catastrophic. Therefore, it is rash and imprudent to accept a man as pope if there are well founded doubts about his legitimacy. Wernz and Vidal state that if there are doubts about whether a man has been legitimately elected to the papacy he should not be accepted: “it would be rash to obey such a man who had not proved his title in law.”
It follows from this:
[I]f a pope is truly and permanently doubtful, the duty of obedience cannot exist towards him on the part of any subject.
This is because:
[T]he 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.
They continue:
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.
If there are doubts as to whether a man elected to the Roman Pontificate is a member of the Church, because of well-founded arguments that he is a public heretic, public schismatic, or public apostate, he ought not to be accepted as pope until such doubts have been removed.
If the man elected was a true Catholic, he would have no hesitation in removing such doubts, and this could be easily done by making a full profession of the Catholic faith and condemning the errors of which he has been suspected. Indeed, every Catholic, of every rank and station, has the obligation to make such a profession when a situation calls on him to do so.
If, on the other hand, a candidate refused to do so, or took refuge in ambiguity, they would remain, at best, a doubtfully elected pope and therefore not the pope at all.
What if a publicly heretical pope seems to be accepted?
The pope can never be a heretic, and a pope who is a heretic will never receive the full adherence of the Church. However, perhaps it will seem to many that this has taken place. Would this make the heretic pope? By no means.
On this important question we have the very clear and unambiguous teaching of Pope Paul IV in the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, promulgated on 15 February 1559.
As an instrument of positive ecclesiastical law, the Bull was superseded by the Code of Canon Law. However, there are theological principles underlying it which remain permanently valid. It is these to which I wish to draw attention.
First, let’s set the context of the document, which in many ways was similar to the situation faced by the Church in the face of the spread of Modernism in the first half of the twentieth century.
This papal Bull was promulgated at a time when Protestant ideas were rapidly gaining ground across much of Europe. England was returning to Protestantism after the accession of Elizabeth I, France was riven by religious division, and much of Germany and Scandinavia had already fallen. Worst of all, Protestant ideas seemed to be spreading among members of the hierarchy. The pope at the time, Paul IV, was worried that there were members even of the college of cardinals who secretly, or even to some degree openly, held ideas influenced by Luther and Calvin. If such a man apparently gained the office of pope, it would be disastrous for the Church.
Therefore, in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, Pope Paul IV made it clear that no heretic could ever, under any circumstances, be the pope.
He decreed that every bishop or cardinal who “have been detected, or have confessed to have, or have been convicted of having, deviated, or fallen into heresy or incurred schism or provoked or committed either or both of these” was to be deprived of every ecclesiastical office and that they must “be avoided and must be deprived of the sympathy of all natural kindness” by the Catholic faithful.
In section 6 of the text, he turned his attention to the Roman Pontificate itself. He decreed that in the following scenario:
[I]f ever at any time it shall appear that… even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy
The following consequences would follow:
(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;
(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;
(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;
(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;
(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.
As stated above, I am not claiming that this Bull remains in force as law, but wish to draw attention to some important theological points, particularly that:
It is possible for a papal election to be “null, void and worthless” if the pope is a heretic “even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals.”
That “the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation” does not suffice to secure the claim of a heretic to the papacy.
This teaching of Paul IV makes it clear that one cannot claim that a man who has been elected “uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals,” or who has received the obedience of all, is exempt from being accused of being a false pope due to heresy.
What might happen at the next conclave?
The next conclave, as far as we can see, will attempt the election of one of the current cardinals. If any one of the above conditions is not met, we will have certainty that he is not the pope. If there are well founded doubts that one of the conditions have not been met, the election will be doubtful, and we ought to withhold our submission until the doubt has been removed.
Of course, many will try to tell you that whoever is elected must be accepted without question. And there are many who falsely claim that all that is required is that the candidate be male and baptized. However, as Catholics, we must follow the teaching of the Catholic Church.
If anyone, after the election of a doubtful pope, were to suggest that the candidate was somehow exempt from the obligation of fully professing the Catholic faith, and that the laity should just give him the benefit of the doubt, they would be displaying a monstrous and abusive form of clericalism. These clericalists would be asking the laity to take a man, whose orthodoxy has been rendered doubtful by his own public words and actions, to be the supreme teacher of the Catholic faith, to whom internal assent of intellect and will is due. To ask such a thing is a sin and to refuse it is required by our loyalty to Jesus Christ.
As laymen we have a grave obligation to profess the faith, and the importance of this profession increases, rather than diminishes, as one ascends the Catholic hierarchy. Cardinals are the clergy of the Roman Church, and they wear red to signify their willingness to die for the faith of that Church. If they wish to show themselves true members of the Church, even after years or decades of collaborating with her enemies, they must make their allegiance plain. In any case, no true Catholic would ever refuse to profess the faith. A true Catholic rejoices in the profession of the Catholic faith, and in adhering to every truth proposed to us by the Sacred Magisterium of the Church.
If a candidate refuses to make a full profession of the Catholic faith, if they remain silent over heresies and errors, if they leave evil disciplines in place, if they continue to suppress the rites of the Church, these will be clear and indisputable signs that we are dealing with the Successor of Francis, and not with the Successor of St. Peter.
In the face of such a false pope, whether “liberal” or “conservative,” every man and woman will have to do their duty and remain faithful to the teaching of the Catholic Church which tells us that the election of a public heretic, or of a pope whose election is doubtful for well-founded reasons, cannot be accepted.
Anyone who refuses submission to the Successor of Francis must be prepared to face mockery, derision, even persecution, but we may have no choice. The teaching of the Church is clear, and we must remain faithful to it, no matter what the cost.
St. Paul gave us the following injunction:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. (Gal 1:8)
If we are to refuse to receive a false gospel even from an angel of heaven, we are certainly bound to refuse to receive a false gospel from a “liberal” or “conservative” cardinal whose election is rendered doubtful by his failure to publicly profess the Catholic faith.
Views: 51
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dawn Marie
-
They did their homework on this one. Well done LSN.
-
-
Should add that sadly most so called Catholics will accept whoever they trott out even one draped in LGBT actual garb. Too many so called Catholics just like to be comfy.
-
Permalink Reply by Gloria
-
January 18, 2024, Ancient Feast of the Chair of St. Peter in Rome
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
Prayer for Imploring Holy Popes
Kyrie Eleison! Christe Eleison! Kyrie Eleison! Lord Jesus Christ, You are the Good Shepherd! With your almighty hand you guide Your pilgrim Church through the storms of each age.
Adorn the Holy See with holy popes who neither fear the powerful of this world nor compromise with the spirit of the age, but preserve, strengthen, and defend the Catholic Faith unto the shedding of their blood, and observe, protect, and hand on the venerable liturgy of the Roman Church.
O Lord, return to us through holy popes who, inflamed with the zeal of the Apostles, proclaim to the whole world: “Salvation is found in no other than in Jesus Christ. For there is no other name under heaven given to men by which they should be saved” (see Acts 4:10-12).
Through an era of holy popes, may the Holy See—which is home to all who promote the Catholic and Apostolic Faith— always shine as the cathedra of truth for the whole world. Hear us, O Lord, and through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mother of the Church, grant us holy Popes, grant us many holy Popes! Have mercy on us and hear us! Amen.
© 2025 Created by Dawn Marie.
Powered by
