There was obviously no love lost – in life or in death – betwixt Archbp. Carlo Maria Viganò and Francis. These days, Viganò is reported by LifeSite to be saying that cardinals created by Francis cannot legitimately elect a new Pope. According to Viganò they could only elect their own representative who would also usurp the papacy as Bergoglio did.
108 of the present 136 Cardinal Electors were created by Francis.
With respect, I think Archbp. Viganò is wrong.
I’ve written on this in the past. I believe much hinges on two points: what exactly Benedict did when he abdicated and whether or not it is possible to separate the essential element of being “Pope” (which term and parameters of office developed over time), that is being Vicar of Christ, head of the College of Bishops, from being Bishop of Rome. Both of these are “in” the person of the Successor of Peter.
However, Peter was Vicar of Christ and head of the College of Bishops before he was bishop of anywhere, for example, Antioch.
When Peter left Antioch, he was Vicar of Christ. He wound up in Rome and died in Rome, which some (most) theologians at the time of Vatican I thought “sealed the deal”, as it were, between the role of being Vicar of Christ and of being Bishop of Rome, making them inextricable.
Of course, if Rome had to be nuked because of a truly globe-threatening pandemic – as it was in Frank Herbert’s scary book The White Plague – and a telephone conclave elected the Cardinal of Tonga, then maybe the new Pope from Tonga would also be Bishop of Rome The Smoking and Irradiated Crater, in a new kind of Avignon papacy. Orrrr…. it might be simpler to say that the full universal jurisdiction and the charism of infallibility resides in being Vicar of Christ rather than being Bishop of Rome. I think Michael O’Brien dealt with this in the end of his Father Elijah / Children of the Last Days series. Anecdote: One day when I was chatting with Joseph Card. Ratzinger, he joked that he was glad Peter stopped in Rome and didn’t go to Germany: “Think of the efficiency with which we would be making our mistakes!”.
Yeah… like resigning.
I digress.
There are those who seriously doubt that Francis was duly elected because a) Benedict didn’t properly resign or he had a mistaken idea about what and why he was resigning (being “active”, being “Bishop of Rome and “Pope” while somehow remaining ontologically Vicar of Christ in a contemplative way) or b) because of irregularities of machinations of the St. Gallen Gang or c) Francis taught heresy, therefore whatever he might have been he lost it. Add variants. While there may be some room for discussion about the Benedict’s putative bifurcation of the papacy, I don’t think there was much doubt that Francis was Bishop of Rome. First, his backside was in the chair, as it were. He was accepted as such and governed as such. As a matter of fact, for the first years he didn’t call himself anything other than “Bishop of Rome” and he actively removed from himself the title “Vicar of Christ” and relegated that title to the status of “historic title”. I don’t think he referred to himself as “Pope” until after one of the Synods on… the Family?… when he was irritated that members were protesting (correctly) that procedures weren’t observed and things were being rammed through. Hence, whatever else Francis was (e.g., Successor of Peter as Vicar of Christ, Head of the College of Bishops), he certainly seems to have been Successor of Peter the Bishop of Rome.
Again, is it possible to separate the two? Auctores scinduntur. The death of Peter in Rome doesn’t seem to me to be all that compelling an argument. What if the Romans had killed Peter in, say, Ostia rather than Rome. Would the whole shootin’ match depend on Ostia? Yeah… yeah… Roma caput mundi and all that. Sure, I get it. But, hey! Peter could have decided to keep going to teach all nations as Christ commended and he might he next wound up in Carthage. He still would have been Vicar of Christ in Carthage, but someone else would have been overseeing the community in Rome.
Now we come to the issue of Cardinals.
Cardinals are appointed by the Bishop of Rome and they are, technically, Roman clergy. They obtain titular churches in the diocese of Rome, or titular dioceses in the suburbs of Rome. The case of Cardinal Patriarchs is a little different, but you can see their close association with the Roman Pontiff by their arms, which bears the tiara. It was, in antiquity, the job of the Roman clergy to elect a Bishop of Rome. That’s what they do today. NB: Not all the clergy of Rome vote, but only the designated “hinge-men” who are electors (“cardinal” comes from the Latin word for “hinge”, cardo).
If Francis was at the very least only the Bishop of Rome all these years, he could create cardinals. The College of Cardinals (divided into three orders of bishop, priest and deacon) don’t have to be consecrated as bishops. They usually are now, but not necessarily. This distinguishes the College of Cardinals from the College of Bishops, which seems more strictly related to the Successor of Peter as Vicar of Christ rather than Successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome.
Moreover, while examples don’t immediately spring to mind as I type, I believe there were cardinals created by antipopes who were later accepted as cardinals who could vote for a legitimate Pope (again, “Pope” being a complicated office that comprises Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Rome – and for a long time now the head of a state – in one person who is Successor of Peter).
All of this is to argue that, like Francis or not, think we wasn’t the legitimate POPE or that he was, it is pretty clear that he could rightly name cardinals.
It is precisely the role of cardinals to elect popes.
Ergo, we don’t have to worry about the legitimacy of the Electors. If they follow the procedure laid down in Universi dominici gregis and pick someone capable of accepting to be the Successor Peter with all that that entails, then there will be a legitimate Pope. You might dislike their choice, but they have the right to disappoint, leave us unimpressed or thrill us.
Am I wrong? Convince me.
May God grant us a Pope who is far better than we deserve.
(I’d settle for a Pope who doesn’t seem to hate me and hate what and whom I hold dear as a Catholic.)
Loading ...
Did he ever explain why he removed the title of Vicar of Christ?
Come, Holy Spirit. Illuminate the conclave with divine wisdom. Restore Your Church in truth and holiness.
I hear you on your line of thinking. But, there is a very big fly in the ointment. Can a person who is NOT Catholic be a Bishop of Rome with the power to make Cardinals and govern the Church with whom he does not share belief? Can a pagan or a heretic hold that power legitimately? To be Catholic must mean something. It does. It means to believe a certain set of things within certain set of parameters. St. Peter was given the authority over the Church right after professing Jesus was the Messiah. There is a connection between the two, authority and faith. I would not have brought Bergogolio into my home to catechize my children. To put it mildly his faith was not an example. The Church has a problem of belief in the faith. No matter how much the Cardinals and Bishops look the other way or they themselves are faithless, it does not help solve that problem. They cannot pull the wool over the laity’s eyes. We saw that the Emperor had no clothes.
Andrea Cionci is probably the man besides Vigano who I’ve most often seen proposing the idea that Francis’s Cardinals are ineligible, based on his interpretation of both Benedict’s resignation and Universi dominici gregis.
Time will eventually render an answer on this, as it eventually did on the 1958 sede position, which these days resorts to saying God will in some way unclear eventually make a new pope.
Father Z, I don’t think you are wrong. Perhaps, I can offer an explanation of why there is a dispute. There seems to be two views of the pope. The first is the idea that he is the “first among equals”. No different than other Bishops but the one who resolves disputes, and is given the task of setting policy for the church as a whole with the goal of keeping the deposit of faith. If he remembers this last bit, he can keep the church from making gross errors, such as PopePaul VI did with Humanae Vitae. The second is the view that the Pope is the holder of a mystical office which grants him great spiritual power so that whatever he does has to be the will of God, unless wayward or deceitful Cardinals manage to keep God’s will from being done during the conclave. If this happens there is no properly elected Pope, and every thing he does is suspect.
Now clearly the first view is closer to the truth, because anyone can choose to reject the guidance of the Holy Spirit. However, because the Pope is a man, he is not completely free from thinking the papacy grants him great spiritual power and he can therefore do whatever he likes. In my completely uneducated view, both Vigano and Pope Francis act and speak as if the second view is correct when it suits them (Vigano when he wants to say the seat is empty and Francis when he wants to change church teaching), but know in their hearts the Pope is just a man who can choose good or evil.
By the way, have you ever seen the research being done on the history of hand missals? This paper shows that the Popes between 1861 and 1961 granted or affirmed great authority to local Bishops to allow vernacular Masses (of a sort). It also concludes that although “everyone” seemed to like them, they did little long-term good.
https://handmissalhistory.com/dialog/
Pope Benedict / Cardinal Ratzinger taught that the election of the Roman Pontiff is a dogmatic fact, but like the acceptance of an ecumenical council is a dogmatic fact, or the canonization of a saint is a dogmatic fact. Not a dogma of faith, but a dogmatic fact. Thus, whomever the Church recognizes as Bishop of Rome is the Bishop of Rome.
If you can have a (Arch)bishop emeritus of Cold Duck A. Anas Frigida for reasons of health or advanced age or whatever, why not an emeritus of Rome? Seems to me primus inter pares is partly about the pares.
[Because the Successor of Peter is NOT ‘inter pares’. Because of Peter, no other see is ‘pares’ and because of Peter its bishop will also have the office of Vicar of Christ. The idea of “emeritus” in Rome created confusion.]
A heretic is anathema.
A heretic is not Catholic.
One must be Catholic to be a Pope.
What does that mean? It means we pray, do penance and trust in God’s providence.
God’s timing is perfect.
While splitting the papal office into separate component parts seems fairly ridiculous in that it’s an innovation with no historical precedent, separating the papal office from being Bishop of Rome seems plausible given the historical development of how they combined. The pope would still have all his papal powers and continue to be the patriarch of the Latin Rite, just not the bishop of the Diocese of Rome.
I certainly agree with everything that Father Z has written here but am surprised that he has not mentioned the major concern — whether Pope Francis was guilty of heresy or possible apostasy before or during his pontificate, and shouldn’t that be investigated before the cardinal electors vote for the next pope. Though such an investigation might not be feasible now before the election and which might modify the number of cardinal electors, it certainly needs to be addressed as soon as possible.
outstanding post. the last sentence, the Ratzinger quip, and your reply thereto will stay with me as has BXVI’s plaintive “pray for me that I may not flee for fear of the wolves”
Whether a week from now, a month from now, a year, a decade, or a century later, the Church (via the Cardinals or Bishops, i.e., the Magisterium) after a thorough investigation makes a definitive determination one way or the other… until such time, I will (begrudgingly?… that’s too strong a word, but the best I can come up with at the moment) consider Francis the Pontiff these last 12 years. I may have strong suspicions that that may not have been the case due to the various reasons that you laid out in the post (as well as other reasons). But, for the time being, I reserve judgement as it’s really not up to me to decide such a weighty issue.
In the meantime, I pray for a Sarah… or an Erdo… or a Pizzaballa… to become our next Papa.
Thank you for the explanation that it’s only primus. I understand your post much better now.
Father, the article you link in your second sentence links an earlier article about a letter by Professor Dr. Jozef Maria Seifert (which links an X post including an English version of his letter). As I write, of the 11 comments under this post, Jann takes up the point made by Dr. Seifert about the possibility of Jorge Bergoglio having been a heretic prior to his (ostensible) election, and this disqualifying him from being Pope – and therewith from his appointing Cardinals.
If two-thirds of the 28 pre-Bergoglian Cardinal Electors voted for the same candidate – whether in a Conclave of 28 or one also including some 100 putative Cardinal Electors – would that candidate (if he accepted the election) indeed be Pope? And, if in a Conclave also including some 100 putative Cardinal Electors, how would one know if he were indeed Pope? One can imagine that the votes of two-thirds of the 28 pre-Bergoglian Cardinal Electors were included among the votes of two-thirds of the men present for the same candidate, and he therefore was indeed Pope (in the terms here considered).
For those who are interested, I asked the following question in ChatGPT.
“Has there ever been a cardinal appointed by an antipope, who was accepted as a valid elector for the next pope?”
The short answer is yes. The longer answer is interesting, and worth digging into to see if the short answer is truly accurate.
I used to agree with Ms. Barnhardt’s theory, but I now have serious doubts about it. I can’t square the idea that God would allow the guarantor of the unity and orthodoxy to publicly pledge and persist in fidelity to an anti-Pope for over a decade. There is no good alternative. No matter how we make sense of it, the Pope Francis papacy did immeasurable damage to the reputation of the Church.
When Pope Silverius died, anti-pope Vigilius became Pope because he was recognized by the Roman clergy. If Pope Benedict’s abdication was invalid or even partial, historical precedent would dictate Pope Francis became pope upon his death.
Pingback: CONCLAVE THVRSDAY EDITION | BIG PULPIT
The Bishop of Rome may, as you say, Father, appoint Cardinals. However to be the Bishop of Rome must said Bishop be a Catholic and not espouse heresy? I understood that an unrepentant public heretic, automatically becomes an excommunicant.
Can heretics and apostates appoint Cardinals?
[Who makes the declaration that the Church’s Lawgiver is excommunicated?]
Here is a counter argument Father –
Your argument rests on the notion that a man can have “some” of the Papacy, instead of all of the Papacy.
Isn’t it a total office? Can one take a fragment and make from the whole which is not there?
A man must be all Pope, not “some Pope” in order for the jurisdiction to vest. Otherwise our antipopes could have been decided otherwise and all that struggle was unecessary.
[I think you may have been late to class. Ask one of your classmates for the notes for the first part about the development of the office of Pope, etc. Everyone, have a good weekend. See you on Monday.]
I haven’t posted in forever, but I’ll bite.
I wonder first and foremost the overlap between orders, office, having or lacking fait and supplied faculties in extreme circumstances.
We know a pagan can validly baptize with matter and intent. They may believe that Mumba the god of ill repute is their deity, yet they can baptize.
If I’m not mistaken, a laicized priest who “married” his boyfriend at a rave party is still a priest and if someone is dying can validly absolve if he has the intent, even if his boyfriend converted him to Mumba-ism.
How then would being a heretic affect holding office? This is not a question that is meant to give people an excuse to jump on the sede bandwagon. Its a valid question that should really be studied at a level higher than a blog comment. I mean deep academic and theological research.
As for the “first among equals” concept, I believe that is more an issue in how authority would be governed over Eastern churches. On one hand Eastern Catholics are every bit as catholic and orthodox as the Latins. Their spirituality and theology are equal. But if a Pope were an “Easternaphobic” he might be over his skis. Then again what if it was an Eastern Catholic Pope elected who didn’t like Latin tradition? [It is hard for me to imagine that an Easterner would not like the Latin Tradition. I suspect he would try to restore the Latin liturgy to its proper splendor so that it was at least as dignified as Eastern liturgy tends to be. And you raise an interesting idea: an Eastern prelate as Pope… and not Shoes of the Fisherman stuff, either.]
This entire issue is a huge rabbit hole. What’s most important during this time is keeping the Faith, period. Just as stoning couldn’t cause St. Stephen to waver, these proverbial stones of worry shouldn’t cause us to waver. Let’s just pray more.
Fr. Z, you said, “While there may be some room for discussion about the Benedict’s putative bifurcation of the papacy, I don’t think there was much doubt that Francis was Bishop of Rome” (BOR). You cited as examples of reasoning for this as:
1) Francis’s “butt was in the seat.”
2) He governed like he was BOR.
3) He was accepted as BOR.
4) He called himself BOR.
HOWEVER, if (IF!!) BXVI didn’t ever really resign, wouldn’t BXVI himself have still been Bishop of Rome (as well as pope), until his death on Dec. 31, 2022?
How would Francis then, in early 2023, have become Bishop of Rome?
I guess on the BXVI invalid resignation theory, the question is similar for the bishopric as it is for the papacy. Could Bergoglio/Francis have just sort of “absorbed” the bishopric of Rome in 2023 by some kind of osmosis because of reasons #1-4 above?
Antonia: Even if we accept that Benedict’s resignation was NOT valid, there are still historical precedents for the duly chosen Pope being alive in exile, but the guy whose “butt was in the chair” (See) was accepted as Rome’s bishop. On the death of the one in exile, one would then suppose, because of the connection of the two offices (Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Rome), both those offices would automatically inhere in the person in the See.
The legacy of Francis will be judged by history; however, it hasn’t even begun yet—we haven’t even finished the novena of Masses for his soul!
I personally regretted Benedict’s resignation, but I accepted Francis as our true Pope. Do I think Francis made mistakes? Most certainly! Can they be fixed? Yes! Meanwhile, I will continue to pray for the soul of Francis and ask God to give us a good and holy pope.
The system of Cardinals as such is only about 1000 years old. This system is merely a formalizing of a more fundamental act of acceptance by the clergy and people of Rome. Even supposing something went terribly wrong with the college of Cardinals, the acceptance of a new bishop of Rome by its clergy and people would be enough. That’s where the buck stops. The college of Cardinals is currently the legal means to get there.
Fr. Z:
I may not be posting this in the correct section but I am currently in Green Bay with a group for the Walk to Mary.
All of us are praying for the conclave to choose a suitable successor to be the 267th Pope.
Fr. Z, it sounds like an interesting and historic time to be in Rome. Unexpected circumstances arise. Glad you are currently in Rome.
Fr. Z, Very interesting! I wonder if that kind of papal transition has ever actually happened in history, where after the death of a pope in exile, someone (an antipope?) who is “in the seat” and presumed to be / accepted as the Bishop of Rome has then automatically, without an election (?), assumed the office of Pope.
Or maybe the presumed Bishop of Rome was then *elected* to the papacy? Or maybe this kind of papal transition hasn’t actually happened in history, and you were just taking the process to its next logical step.
I really need to learn more about Church history. I have several books lined up about the subject… I just hope civilization hangs in there long enough for me to read them!