It’s time to address clearly and plainly this absurd notion going around traditionalist Catholic circles today that we are all bound to accept Jorge Bergoglio (a.k.a. Francis) as the validly elected Pope because we have to wait for the Church to ultimately declare otherwise.
Excuse me, but this argument, which effectively is saying you must refuse to exercise your own judgment on the identity of the Pope is NOT a Catholic idea at all.
I am very aware these same people that make such arguments also claim that if you dare suggest someone other than Francis is Pope you are no better than a protestant. Why? Because—they argue—Protestantism is all about making yourself your own authority and rejecting the authority of the Church.
Let’s just dispel this ridiculous argument right here and right now.
Canon Law Binds us to Seek the Truth
Not only are we as faithful Catholics permitted to question the identity of the man that claims the Chair of Peter, but we are bound to seek the truth in those things that concern the Church. Canon law is explicitly clear on this:
“All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.” Canon 748 §1
And not only that, but we are also “bound by the obligation” and “possess the right” of embracing the truth which we have come to know. Get that? Canon law requires us as faithful Catholics to seek out the truth regarding God and His Church and what could be more pressing and relevant to His Church than the identity of the man who claims the Chair of Peter?
If we accept Canon 748 §1 for what it says, we can make a good case that those who stick their head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge, or at least make a good faith effort to consider the Benedict is Pope position, is in violation of canon law themselves.
Saints Have Challenged the Identity of the Pope
The fact is that Antipapacies are nothing new to the Church. There have been plenty of antipopes erroneously claiming the Chair of Peter in the past. A well-known case is that of Antipope Anacletus II (Cardinal Pietro Pierleone). Antipope Anacletus II sat in Peter’s Chair from 1180 A.D. until his death eight years later.
Contrary to the opinion of the majority of Cardinals at the time, St. Bernard of Clairvaux argued that Anacletus II was not the validly elected Pope. St. Bernard took the position that Innocent II was the validly elected Pope. St. Bernard not only held the personal, private opinion that Innocent II was the Pope, not Anacletus II, but he publicly argued for and ultimately convinced the rest of the Catholic world that he was correct.
St. Bernard’s efforts to convince others all took place while Anacletus looked like, acted like and was referred to as the Pope in Rome with the support of Bishops and Cardinals. When Anacletus died, the successor Antipope Victor IV was “elected” Pope at an invalid conclave. But even Victor himself was convinced by St. Bernard, ultimately acknowledged Innocent II was and always had been Pope since 1180 A.D. and repented.
St. Bernard even had the testicular fortitude to say, referring to Antipope Anacletus II:
“That beast of the Apocalypse, to whom is given a mouth speaking blasphemies, and to make war with the saints, is sitting on the throne of Peter, like a lion ready for his prey.” -Letter to Magister Geoffrey of Loretto, Letter 37, on Antipope Anacletus II
Thus ended several years of an Antipapacy thanks to the efforts of St. Bernard.
Ahh, you may say, “St. Bernard, he was a saint, obviously he was in no danger of getting the question wrong. No chance would he have been a saint if he was wrong!” Well, you would be wrong if you say that.
St. Vincent Ferrer, well known in traditional circles for his sermons on how many souls end up in hell—not someone to mess with—openly declared support for an Antipope in his life AND turned out to be wrong.
That’s right, he backed Antipope Benedict XIII, who claimed to be the valid Pope between 1394 and 1423 A.D. until the day he died. During this time St. Vincent declared his support for Benedict. St. Catherine of Sienna disagreed with St. Vincent.
St. Vincent ultimately recognized his error. Like Anacletus II before him, Antipope Benedict XIII died claiming the Chair of Peter, and a new successor Antipope was elected at a “conclave.” Eventually, the line of Antipopes accepted they were in error, and recognized the true Holy Father, Pope Martin V.
The key here is that St. Bernard (who ended up being correct) and St. Vincent (who ended up being wrong) could exercise their own judgment and make an effort to discover the truth about the identity of the Pope, and so can we. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Reason and Logic Support the Faithful
I also propose for consideration that the use of reason and logic to analyze and draw conclusions from evidence presented, even in matters involving the faith, has always been a Catholic idea.
In his book, Liberalism is a Sin, Don Felix Sarda Y Salvany, an author often cited by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, makes it clear that while
“the Church alone possesses supreme doctrinal magistery in fact and in right…this does not exclude other judgments, less authoritative but very weighty, which cannot be despised and even ought to bind the Christian conscience.” Chapter XXXII.
Among these other types of judgment include “the judgment of simple human reason duly enlightened.”
Don Felix instructs us:
“Yes, human reason, to speak after the manner of theologians, has a theological place in matters of religion…Yes the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine, presented to them, by comparing it with doctrine already defined.” Ibid.
Now, this is a useful quote especially when refuting Modernism. But it serves us well when considering the Antipapacy of Jorge Bergoglio, which actually does not even relate to doctrine at all.
God gave us a brain and He expects us to use it, even when the topic we need to consider is one having to do with the Church. This is just common sense, consistent with canon law and our history.
Does this replace the judgment of those in authority within the Church? Absolutely not! In fact, those who consider themselves Beneplentists, or hold to the Benedict is Pope position, are literally begging someone within the hierarchy to take up this mantle and address in a formal way the obvious elephant in the room staring everyone straight in the face.
The fact is NO ONE in Rome has initiated an investigation into the validity of Pope Benedict’s 2013 purported resignation, no canonical court has been convened, and no adjudication or judgment from the Church has been rendered. As usual in this Modernist Antichurch, us sheep are left to fend for ourselves, but fend for ourselves we must, because Christ gave us the tools to do so.
Challenging the Identity of the Pope is Not Schismatic
Finally, I need to address this intellectually lazy and absurd argument that if someone dares challenge Bergolgio’s claim to the Chair of Peter that makes him no better than a wretched, schismatic protestant. Besides the fact that St. Bernard and St. Vincent were obviously not schismatic protestants, challenging the identity of the Pope is not the same thing as challenging the authority of the Papal Office itself.
If you deny that the Roman Pontiff, regardless of who holds that office, is the successor of St. Peter and holds supreme authority over the Church in matters of faith, morals and Church governance, then indeed you would be schismatic.
That is not what is happening here. On the contrary, those who hold the Beneplentist position accept the teachings of the First Vatican Council and everything that goes along with it. The argument is that those powers, duties and rights of the Supreme Pontiff remain with the person of Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) because he never validly or completely resigned the Papal office. Anything that happened after February 2013 with purported conclaves and Papal elections is simply null and void ab initio, as if it never happened, because there was no Papal conclave if a validly elected Pope already occupied the Chair of Peter.
And the contention that most, if not all, of the Cardinals and Bishops universally accepted Jorge Bergoglio as a validly elected Pope is 100%, totally irrelevant. I actually do not believe that for a second, anyway. But even if that were true, this idea of universal acceptance has no applicability to the issue at hand. Why? Because universal acceptance of a Pope, as theologian and philosopher John of St. Thomas explains it, necessarily assumes a legitimate conclave was called in the first place. And that process is now governed expressly by canon law and the Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis.
Think about how absurd the universal acceptance concept would be if it were applied to this situation. It would in effect mean that a super-majority of Cardinals and Bishops could just get together and decide to depose a validly reigning pope, and then simply recognize someone else as Pope who everyone agreed on.
Does anything like that sound remotely Catholic to you? Does anything about a group of bishops getting together and voting out a legitimately elected Pope sound like it is consistent with Vatican I?
If not, then how in the world is it relevant whether all the Cardinals and Bishops of the world think Bergoglio is Pope if the argument of the Beneplentists is that Benedict (a legitimately elected Pope) never resigned the Papacy? The legal process for choosing a new Pope was never triggered. Benedict either resigned the Papacy or he did not, but that question has nothing to do with universal acceptance. That question has to do with the validity of Benedict’s resignation, which is governed by canon law.
We Can Judge Who Is Pope
This leads me to the point of this article. You and I have the right and duty to proclaim the truth. The truth in this instance is completely governed by canon law and the evidence. That evidence, well beyond a reasonable doubt, shows Benedict’s purported 2013 resignation did not constitute a canonically valid resignation from the Petrine Office.
Does that mean the rest of the Catholic faithful must accept my opinion on the matter? Of course not. No one is claiming that. But just like St. Bernard and St. Vincent made their arguments, we need to make ours too for the sake of Truth. Ignoring the problem, and waiting for someone else to fix it, will not make it go away.
One day, we will all have to face Christ at our particular judgment. Do we really want to have that conversation with Him about how we didn’t think the identity of the Holy Father was a big deal and we were just waiting for someone else to tell us what to do while millions of souls were dragged into hell listening to man who they thought was the Pope but was, in fact, not?
St. Vincent Ferrer, pray for us. St. Bernard, pray for us.