Objections against the Imperfect General Council
We have addressed some of the more common objections put forward against convoking and Imperfect General Council.
If you still have a serious objection unanswered, please submit in on our contact page. If we think answering your objection would be a benefit to others, we will endeavour to do so here on the Unam Sanctam website.
I. Only Bishops with Territorial Jurisdiction Can Participate in a General Council.
II. Only Cardinals Can Elect a True Pope.
III. The Election of a Pope Can Only Be Done by the Roman Clergy.
IV. The Pope Cannot Live outside of Rome. If We Are to Have a True Pope, He Has to Be the Bishop of Rome and Live in Rome.
V. Before Another Pope Can Be Elected, All Claimants Must Be Removed.
In Search of Truth
Unam Sanctam only wants to find the truth. If we are wrong, we will be the first to retract.
I. Only Bishops with Territorial Jurisdiction Can Participate in a General Council.
To answer this objection there are three points to consider:
a) A General Council is different from an Imperfect General Council (which is all we are arguing for), the role of which is only to study the grave situation affecting the head of the Church and, if necessary, to ensure the act of electing a pope is performed by the appropriate electors, and to carry out any other administrative duties necessary for the election.
b) Territorial jurisdiction cannot be absolutely necessary to participate in a Council and to take part in a papal election because in the past the Church has allowed this right to people lacking this jurisdiction.
c) The minimum necessary jurisdiction is either supplied by Christ or presumed to be the will of the pope. This is a principle that all sides already implicitly agree upon.
a) A General Council is not an Imperfect General Council
A [perfect] General Council would be one authoritatively convened by a pope under normal circumstances and it would have the power to determine both doctrines and discipline. However, an Imperfect General Council would be convened without a pope only for the purpose of providing the Church with her head. St. Robert Bellarmine explains the difference between the two types of council:
“I reply that in no case can a true and perfect council, of the kind we are here discussing, namely one that has authority to define questions of faith, be convoked without the authority of the Pontiff. For the chief authority is in the head, that is, in Peter, to whom it was commanded that he confirm his brethren; and for that reason the Lord also prayed for him, that his faith might not fail (Luke 22). Nevertheless, in those two cases an imperfect council can be assembled, which suffices to make provision for the Church with respect to the head. For the Church without doubt has authority to provide for herself with respect to the head, although without a head she cannot determine many matters which she can determine with a head, as Cajetan rightly teaches in his little work on the power of the Pope, chapters 15 and 16; and much earlier [this is taught] in the letter of the presbyters of the Roman Church to Cyprian, which is [letter] 7, Book II, among the works of Cyprian. Moreover, that imperfect council can be held, either if it is convoked by the college of Cardinals, or if the bishops themselves, coming together into one place, convene of their own accord.” [1]
Therefore, if one were to posit or even provide definitive proof that territorial Jurisdiction must be held by the bishops for a “true and perfect” General Council, this still does not directly entail that such jurisdiction is required of bishops in an Imperfect General Council, which is an emergency meeting of the Church, acting in many ways “praeter legem”.
b) Territorial jurisdiction cannot be necessary because the Church has allowed the right to vote in papal elections and to participate in councils to those who lack this jurisdiction.
This is proven in multiple ways.
Firstly, if we consider the necessary jurisdiction required to perform a papal election, this cannot be territorial Jurisdiction because past elections were performed by those who lacked territorial Jurisdiction, such as priests and deacons. [2]
Secondly, Canon Law lists multiple types of individuals who lack territorial Jurisdiction, yet have the right to have a deliberative vote in a council:
“Canon 223:
§ 1. The following are called to a Council and have the right of a deliberative vote:
1.° Cardinals of the H. R. C., even if they are not Bishops;
2.° Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, [and] residential Bishops, even if they are not yet consecrated;
3.° Abbots and Prelates nullius;
4.° Abbots Primate, Abbots Superior of monastic Congregations, and supreme Moderators of clerical exempt religious [institutes], but not other religious [institutes], unless it is decreed otherwise in the convocation;
§ 2. Also, titular Bishops called to the Council obtain a deliberative vote, unless it is expressly determined otherwise in the convocation.”
Whilst it is true that these rules apply to a General Council convoked by a pope (Canon 222), it nonetheless allows us to conclude that if territorial Jurisdiction is not necessarily required for all legitimate votes in a perfect General Council, it cannot be necessary for all legitimate votes in an Imperfect General Council, either. Nor can the possession of territorial Jurisdiction and office be the defining characteristic of a bishop participating in a Council. If this were so, 223 § 2 would be unintelligible because titular Bishops lack territorial jurisdiction by definition.
c) The minimum necessary jurisdiction is either supplied by Christ or presumed to be the will of the pope. This is a principle that all sides already implicitly agree upon.
The function of an Imperfect General Council will be to make a decision regarding the current status of the Apostolic See and to provide the Church with her head if necessary; that is to say, to elect a new, valid pope or to perform any other administrative functions that are necessary to proceed with this. For example, the council will need to perform a definitive, public declaration that the Apostolic See is indeed vacant if it is the case. Such a declaration would not make the fact so, but would be an act of judicial prudence so that the Church could proceed to go beyond automatic excommunications and tacit resignations of office (which would have occurred ipso-facto), and proceed to depositions or even degradations (if necessary). [3]
The Council might also have to determine if the legitimate electors exist today and, in the lack thereof, to appoint electors. Anything beyond such minimal necessities are beyond the scope of the council.
These are also called minimal necessities in that they are minimal requirements for the continuation of the Church. The Church has taught us that the pope will have perpetual successors [4] and has frequently impressed upon her members the importance and urgency of electing one:
“When the Apostolic See is vacant, it is a most grave and most sacred matter to choose the supreme shepherd and head of the Lord’s flock for the prudent and diligent governance of the Catholic Church, one who, succeeding to the place of Blessed Peter, bears the person of Jesus Christ on earth.” [5]
“[The election of a new pope is]... the most weighty task divinely entrusted to the Church.” [6]
If we conclude that the Church cannot elect a new pope, we deny our Faith and say that She cannot continue. If we therefore hold to our Faith and say that She can elect a new pope, it is of the utmost importance that the Church fulfil this duty. Furthermore, we must also say that the election of a true pope cannot rest but in the hands of those who are still part of the Catholic Church.
If we then ask where the necessary jurisdiction comes from in order to perform these basic, necessary actions, the answer is that it either comes immediately from Christ, or through the presumed will of the pope (or both).
We read from St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“Then indeed the General Council draws its supreme power directly from Jesus Christ, as in times of vacancy of the Apostolic See, as it was well said by St. Antoninus.” [7]
And from Cardinal Cajetan:
“In such situations, when the Pope has died or is otherwise uncertain, as seems to have happened at the beginning of the great schism under Urban VI, it must be maintained that in the Church of God there exists a power to apply the papacy to a person, provided the necessary requirements are observed, so that consciences are not left in perplexity. In that event, by way of devolution, this power seems to pass to the universal Church, as though there were no electors determined by the Pope to represent her in this act for the good of the Church. For it has already been shown that the care of the Church was committed by Christ not to the Church herself, but to Peter; and therefore Peter’s determination, for the exercise of the act of election in the Church’s name, prevails both over the Church’s own determination and over the Church’s own act...” [8]
Therefore, we could either conclude that Christ would supply the council with this minimum necessary jurisdiction directly, or that this would be a form of presumed jurisdiction (being presumed as both the will of the pope and the will of God).
All clergy in groups called “traditional” currently live by the belief that there is a kind of jurisdiction which can be either supplied or presumed for the necessary good of the Church. Those clergy called Sedevacantist or Sedeprivationist who believe there is no pope believe that this jurisdiction is nonetheless allowed to them to administer the sacraments (without which the Church would fail). Those clergy of the SSPX or “Recognise and Resist” movements also live by their belief in this jurisdiction because, whilst they believe there is a pope, they nonetheless invoke a kind of jurisdiction which is not provided by him nor from his ordinaries which can be acted upon independently of his commands and which nonetheless upholds the good of the Church.
Therefore, it could be affirmed that the jurisdiction of an Imperfect General Council is not of territorial Jurisdiction held by Bishops, but comes directly from Christ or through the presumed will of the last defunct pope for the necessary good of the Church.
Traditionalist bishops cannot participate in a general council because they do not have ordinary jurisdiction.
But if we were to concede that ordinary jurisdiction is necessary to participate in an Imperfect General Council, there are three possible answers to this objection, which are debated among Catholics: on the one hand, there are those who say that bishops with supplied jurisdiction can participate in such a council, since the authority of the council would come directly from Christ, not from an authority prior to or external to the assembly itself. On the other hand, there are those who, following some pre-conciliar theologians, say that bishops possess universal jurisdiction by virtue of belonging to the episcopal order in hierarchical communion with the Church. Finally, there is a position that explains that bishops receive the jurisdiction necessary to become pastors of the Church by virtue of the tacit and habitual will of the Pope (or papal legislation), which cannot destroy the pastoral office of the Church and therefore is presumed to tacitly guarantee the mission and authority necessary to continue that office.
This answer will focus on explaining this last position, as it destroys any further debate on the matter.
To properly understand this position, these essential points must be understood:
a) There have been cases verified by history in which bishops have been consecrated without papal mandate, and those bishops thus consecrated have taken possession of their pastoral office.
b) The pastoral office of traditionalist bishops is not that of a pre-existing diocese, but that does not imply that it is null and void: dioceses are an institution of ecclesiastical law, and therefore mutable; they are not a requirement of divine law.
a) There have been cases verified by history in which bishops have been consecrated without papal mandate, and those bishops thus consecrated have taken possession of their pastoral office.
In addition to the well-known fact that the canonical institution of bishops by the Pope is an ecclesiastical law that dates back (at least universally) to the reforms made by St. Gregory VII, the truth is that there has been a case very similar to those carried out in our times by Archbishops Thuc, Lefebvre and a few others. We refer to the case of St. Eusebius of Samosata, who appointed and consecrated parish priests and titular bishops of various dioceses that were being persecuted by the Arians. St. Eusebius performed this action without having any specific jurisdiction over those dioceses, and yet, far from having performed a schismatic act, it was a measure greatly praised by all Catholics, who owe to St. Eusebius the preservation of various dioceses. We can present the account of Father Fleury (prior of Argenteuil and confessor to the king, in his Ecclesiastical History), who tells us the following about Saint Eusebius:
“St. Eusebius of Samosata, being returned from his banishment, did likewise establish bishops in many places, whether by the authority he had acquired by his age, his virtue, and his sufferings for the faith; or that these ordinations were imputed to him, which he had procured from such as had power to bestow them. He placed therefore at Barhaea, Acatius, a celebrated man at that time, who had been eminent in the monastic way of life under Asterius, who was disciple of St. Julian Sabas, and continued the same practice of virtue during his episcopacy, which he held fifty-eight years. His doors were always open to everybody, so that he could be spoken with at any hour, even during his meals, and in the night; for he permitted his sleep to be broken, so little did he fear to have witnesses of his most secret actions. St. Eusebius likewise appointed Theodotus, famous in the ascetic life, bishop of Hierapolis, Eusebius of Chalcis, and Isidore of Cyrus, both men of great zeal and singular merit: at Edessa he placed St. Eulogius, who had been banished into Egypt; for St. Barse was dead some time before. Eulogius made Protogenes, companion of his labours and his exiles, a bishop, and settled him at Carrhae to establish religion there. The last place where St. Eusebius of Samosata constituted a bishop was Dolicha, a little city of Syria, infected with Arianism. He was willing therefore to make Maris bishop thereof, a man of merit and great virtue. But as he himself entered into the city, an Arian woman threw a tile at him from the roof of her house, which broke his skull, of which he died soon after. But before his death, he caused them who were present to swear they would not prosecute this woman; such was the end of St. Eusebius of Samosata. The Church places him among the martyrs, and honours his memory on the twenty-first of June. His nephew Antiochus succeeded him, who had followed him into Thrace during his exile, and who had been banished himself into Armenia.” [9]
Father Montrouzier, explaining this fact in theological and canonical terms, offers the following reflection:
“History recounts, with praise, the example of Saint Eusebius, Bishop of Samosata, who, during the Arian persecution, travelled around the Churches to provide them with faithful priests and pastors (see the following paragraph). But to praise this trait and others like it, it is not necessary to go back to a supposed concession that never existed. Suffice it to say that, by virtue of the charity that unites all members of the Church, bishops owe each other mutual assistance, for which they can rightly presume the consent of the Roman Pontiff, in cases of unforeseen necessity, because it seems clear to us that apostolic vicars whose days are thus threatened can and must quickly consecrate at least one bishop in order to contribute effectively to the preservation of Christianity. But by what right will they act? Will it be by virtue of the universal jurisdiction conferred for extreme cases? No. They will base themselves solely on the presumed consent of the Roman Pontiff, whose intentions they interpret as wise men.” [10]
This explanation given by Fr. Montrouzier is very relevant to our current situation. It is clear that the bishops who remained faithful in a time of great crisis in history had to continue the mission of the Church, and it is clear that this continuity is the presumed consent of every legitimate pope. Therefore, it is clear that what is said about St. Eusebius can be said of Archbishops Thuc, Lefebvre and a few others, and of those who continue their mission today.
b) The pastoral office of dioceses is not divine law, but rather an evolution of ecclesiastical law, and therefore mutable.
This point is perhaps the most basic and obvious. It is a well-known fact that dioceses have often been created, some have been expanded, others have been abolished, etc. In other words, it is a purely accidental element of the Church that can be adapted and modified by circumstances. It is clear that in the situation we find ourselves in, it can be legitimately assumed that papal legislation tacitly grants the necessary modifications for the pastoral office to be effective.
Furthermore, it is important to note that there has not always been a specific territorial delimitation in the Church.
In the article on dioceses, the Catholic Encyclopedia offers the following information:
“It is impossible to determine what rules were followed in the early Church to limit the territory over which each bishop exercised his authority...” [11]
“The exact limitations of episcopal territory could not have aroused much interest in the early days of Christianity, as it would have been impracticable.” [12]
Therefore, objections regarding the office over which bishops exercise their authority, in the current context, seem irrelevant to us. The fact is that traditionalist bishops govern and teach certain particular flocks in a regular and stable manner; they are not vague or purely sacramental bishops, as is often falsely insinuated. We often see chapels, seminaries, oratories, and missions being built, abjurations of error being made, etc. In other words, all acts that belong to the legal sphere of external jurisdiction, which cannot be explained simply by appealing to a jurisdiction supplied on a case-by-case basis, since we are talking about acts that are performed in a stable and habitual manner.
What we mean by this is that the pastoral office of traditionalist bishops is a clear and evident fact that cannot be seriously denied by anyone who has even a minimal knowledge of the work of the traditionalist clergy.
All these acts are always performed in a stable manner with the consent of a bishop, without which it would be impossible to carry out such actions. That is why we say that the offices continue to belong properly to them.
Conclusion
Monsignor Van Noort offers an important principle in this regard:
“It is one thing to change the constitution of the Church; it is another thing entirely to provide for extraordinary circumstances in an extraordinary way.” [13]
At no point here is there any talk of introducing changes to the constitution of the Church: there is no question that the origin of ecclesiastical jurisdiction derives from the Supreme Pontiff. But, to be specific, it is also necessary to remember that jurisdiction is received by the will of the Pope, not necessarily by a written mandate. In extraordinary circumstances of necessity, the present hierarchy can presume the will of the Pope, since the intrinsic duty of every canonically instituted bishop is to ensure the expansion and continuity of the Church, with all its necessary attributes and faculties.
Call it ordinary jurisdiction, habitual jurisdiction, or whatever name you wish. The point is that the necessary jurisdiction that constitutes traditionalist bishops as the legitimate pastors of the Church continues to exist today, which explains why they must be considered as members of the imperfect council by divine right.
[1] Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Conciliis, in Opera Omnia, t. II, (Paris: Ludovicum Vivès, 1870), lib. I, cap. XIV, p. 217
[2] Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections”, 1913 edition
[3] Both of which are more sever punishments. It is worth noting for example that once a deposition occurs, it already assumes a loss of office: “[Deposition] is more severe than privation of office. It includes suspension, privation of all offices and benefices which the cleric may have, and disqualification for any future office or benefice.” (Rev. Matthew Ramstein, J.U.D., Manual of Canon Law, 1947, L. V, cap. II, art. II, p. 692)
[4] First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus (Session 4, 18 July 1870), chap. 2.
[5] Pope St. Pius X, Vacante Apostolica Sede, 1904
[6] Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945
[7] St Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Theologia Moralis, t. 1 (Augustae Taurinorum: Ex Typis Hyacinthi Marietti, 1879), lib. 1, tract. 2, De legibus, no. 421, 86.
[8] Thomas de Vio, (Cardinal Cajetan), De comparatione auctoritatis papae et concilii cum apologia eiusdem tractatus, in Scripta theologica, t. 1, ed. Vincentius M. Iacobus Pollet (Romae: Apud Institutum “Angelicum,” 1936), cap. 13, no. 204, 97
[9] Claude Fleury, Ecclesiastical History of M. L’Abbé Fleury, vol. 2 (London: Printed by T. Wood for James Crokatt, at the Golden Key, near the Inner-Temple Gate in Fleet-street, 1728), 500–501
[10] “Origine de la juridiction épiscopale,” Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques, 3e série, tome 5, no. 145 (1872): 397
[11] Catholic Encyclopedia, “Dioceses”, 1913 edition
[12] Ibid.
[13] G. Van Noort, Christ’s Church, trans. and rev. John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1959), 320 n. †
II. Only Cardinals Can Elect a True Pope.
The main goal of gathering an Imperfect General Council is to deal with a problem that exists at the head of the Church. Therefore, before any potential election happens, the General Council must focus on giving a diagnosis of the present crisis at the head of the Church. Next, provided the conclusion reached by the General Council is that the Holy See is vacant, the next step would be to discern how a true pope can be given to the Church today. Accordingly, the General Council would have to determine who the legitimate electors are today and how a valid election can be held. Unam Sanctam, in its work towards the gathering of a General Council does not wish to tell everyone what has to be done, but believes, rather, that this will belong to the Church assembled in the Holy Ghost.
Now, to answer the objection nevertheless, here are a few considerations:
There are three points to make in response to this objection:
a) The question of the legitimacy of today’s Cardinals will have to be addressed by the General Council.
b) The law that Cardinals must be electors is subject to change.
c) The law itself permits alternative options in our current situation.
In addition, we shall address the claim that Pius XII has irrevocably determined that the Cardinals alone can perform a papal election.
a) The question of the legitimacy of today’s Cardinals will have to be addressed by the General Council.
This is the first point to make clear. If we could all be certain about the validity of the Cardinals themselves and of their elections, there would be no discussion to have. However, there is serious ground in the law itself to question the validity of today’s Cardinals. To see this, let’s begin with the definition of a Cardinal according to Canon Law:
Canon 232 § 1: “Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff from throughout the whole world who are at least constituted in the presbyteral order [and who] are notably outstanding for their doctrine, piety, and prudence in conducting affairs.”
Therefore, Cardinals are selected by the Roman Pontiff, have [at least] valid priestly ordinations, and are “outstanding for their doctrine and piety.” Do the current Novus Ordo Cardinals fit this description?
Firstly, we would already have to assume that the apparent Roman Pontiffs following The Second Vatican council have been legitimate in order to conclude that their appointments of Cardinals have been legitimate. If the General Council concludes to the lack of legitimacy of some or all of the pretenders to the papacy in the last few decades, their nomination of Cardinals also would have to be declared invalid. This is a first point.
Secondly, many consider the new rite of ordination to be doubtful. This is another problem that will require the decision of the General Council. The priestly ordination of cardinals ordained according to the new rite could very well be invalid. [1]
Finally, it is evident that the present cardinals are not “distinguished for their doctrine and piety,” since they all seem publicly to profess a non-Catholic religion.
This leads us to conclude that the truth could very well be the inverse of the objection: if the objection is that we must have recourse to Cardinals lest we form a new sect, the problem is that we might not have Cardinals at present precisely because they have formed or joined a new sect. Once again, Unam Sanctam, independently of the conclusions that each of its members may have reached, wants to hear the voice of the assembled Church and no longer the voice of individuals.
That the Novus Ordo system could very well be declared a sect by the General Council is clear from the shared, public adherence we witness today in many of the hierarchs to non-Catholic doctrine and from the very definition of a sect:
“...any Christian denomination which has set itself up independently of [the Catholic] Church is a sect. According to Catholic teaching any Christians who, banded together refuse to accept the entire doctrine or to acknowledge the supreme authority of the Catholic Church, constitute merely a religious party under human unauthorized leadership.” [2]
This is a point we will return to later, but we invite our objectors to find any other requirement for determining a sect. For example, some might claim that a sect does not come into existence until the Church declares it so. We invite proof of this. If this is not forthcoming, we can conclude that a sect is defined, at least in part, by its shared rejection of Catholic doctrine as a group. Given that this seems to be a defining characteristic of the Novus Ordo religion and given that the current Cardinals adhere to this religion, the General Council could very well conclude that they are not Cardinals according to the legal definition. This we leave to the General Council.
Furthermore, the elections performed by these Cardinals could also be called into question by the General Council and deemed contrary to law. If certain papal claimants of the past decades were declared illegitimate by the General Council, their laws would also be rejected, and therefore current elections could also be considered invalid. This would be because the current Cardinals would not have performed elections according to the rules laid down by lawful popes. Changes to the rules of papal election were made multiple times following the Second Vatican Council and the General Council would have to determine whether or not they were valid. [3] The 1917 code of Canon Law for example states that the number of Cardinals is limited to 70:
Canon 231: § 1. “The Sacred College [of Cardinals] is divided into three orders: episcopal, to which belong only those six Cardinals over the various suburbicarian dioceses; presbyteral, which consists of fifty Cardinals; and diaconal, which [consists of] fourteen [Cardinals].”
However, at present there are over 240 Novus Ordo Cardinals, with 120 as electors [4], begging the question as to which 70 of these 120 or 240 should have their votes counted during an election if modern legislation concerning the conclaves were not legal. If we should say that the legality of those laws should not be taken into account, we should conclude that the law need not be followed, and thus the objection becomes void.
Therefore, in brief, the legal status of current Cardinals must be examined carefully by the General Council and we cannot exclude that it be deemed illegitimate. Do we have valid Cardinals at present given that their approval of the new religion makes them highly doubtful, enough to justify alternative approaches?
b) The law that Cardinals must be electors is subject to change.
The law that Cardinals are the papal electors is ecclesiastical law (human law), not Divine law, and it is subject to change, proven by the fact that it has changed throughout the past. In earlier periods, priests and deacons were electors. Later, it was the clergy of Rome and bishops also who had a part in papal elections. The Church was a thousand years old before she definitively chose Cardinals as her electors, and for good reason. For the thousand years that followed, they had proven to ensure stable and efficient elections. [5]
However, if an ecclesiastical law is long-standing and has proven to be very efficacious, that does not make it immutable. Ecclesiastical laws ought to be followed until they become a hindrance to Divine law and the mission of the Church:
“Human laws however, must be subordinate to the Divine law, or at least, must not contradict it…” [6]
And St. Thomas Aquinas, when speaking of human law, states:
“...[human] laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good… Secondly… through being opposed to the Divine good… or to anything else contrary to the Divine law.” [7]
If we have no Cardinals at present or they are sufficiently doubtful that we cannot have faith in the validity of their elections, the human insistence on the use of Cardinals would lead to the conclusion that the Church is in a state of paralysis and is now powerless to provide for her head, both of which are contrary to Divine law and the good of the Church.
Furthermore, if the use of Cardinals were not subject to change, the existence of alternative suggestions in the case of their extinction would be unintelligible. However, we see many such suggestions:
The Catholic Encyclopaedia: “Should the college of cardinals ever become extinct, the duty of choosing a supreme pastor would fall… upon the remaining Roman clergy.” [8]
St. Robert Bellarmine: “If there were no papal constitution on the election of the Supreme Pontiff; or if by some chance all the electors designated by law, that is, all the Cardinals, perished simultaneously, the right of election would pertain to the neighbouring bishops and the Roman clergy, but with some dependence on a general council of bishops.” [9]
Cardinal Cajetan: “So long as there are clearly designated electors, namely, the Cardinals as things stand today, the universal Roman Church does not take their place. But if all the Cardinals should die, then the Roman Church itself succeeds immediately: the Church from which Linus was elected before any human electoral laws were known to us. Yet since the part is included within the whole, and within the universal Church the Roman Church is included, if in such a case a general council, with the Roman Church in concord (that is, with her assent), were to elect a Pope, then the man so elected would truly be Pope.” [10]
Notwithstanding therefore what the General Council will decide on the matter, it is clear that the use of Cardinals as papal electors is subject to change if this law should stand in the way of the good of the Church, and alternatives have been suggested.
c) The law itself permits alternative options in our current situation.
As we have seen, the legitimacy of current Cardinals will have to be called into question by the General Council. However, if they were to be considered illegitimate, the Church must retain the ability to elect a new Pope. Not only is this for the good of the Church, but it is a matter of Divine Faith: Catholics know that St. Peter will have perpetual successors [11], and therefore will always have the means to provide one. Therefore, we can conclude from this Divine Faith that without valid Cardinals, the Church must have other valid means for electing a new pope.
Firstly, let us consider these arguments from Cardinal Cajetan. After a brief discussion about whether or not the Church can change laws or follow new laws without the approval of the Pope, and after generally denying this idea, Cajetan nonetheless states:
“There is, however, a case of permission, that is, where the Pope has made no contrary determination, and a case of ambiguity, that is, where it is not known whether someone is truly a Cardinal, and similar cases. In such situations, when the Pope has died or is otherwise uncertain, as seems to have happened at the beginning of the great schism under Urban VI, it must be maintained that in the Church of God there exists a power to apply the papacy to a person, provided the necessary requirements are observed, so that consciences are not left in perplexity. In that event, by way of devolution, this power seems to pass to the universal Church, as though there were no electors determined by the Pope to represent her in this act for the good of the Church. For it has already been shown that the care of the Church was committed by Christ not to the Church herself, but to Peter; and therefore Peter’s determination, for the exercise of the act of election in the Church’s name, prevails both over the Church’s own determination and over the Church’s own act, since it is done in the Church’s name, not by the Church’s authority.” [12]
That is to say, whilst the laws currently in force call for the use of Cardinals, and whilst laws usually cannot be overruled without the express authority of a living pope, Cajetan presents an exception: in a case in which either the pope or Cardinals are doubtful (both of which could apply to our case), the power to elect would devolve to the Universal Church; and this is not done contrary to the Will of Christ, or against the will of a pope, but instead is authorised according to his presumed will. To justify this, Cajetan invokes the same “good of the Church” that we have already mentioned.
We see this same principle in Canon Law:
Canon 20: “If on a given matter there is lacking an express prescription of law, whether general or particular, the rule is to be surmised, unless it concerns the application of a penalty, from laws laid down in similar cases; [then] from the general principles of law observed with canonical equity; [then] from the style and practice of the Roman Curia; and [finally] from the common and constant opinions of the doctors.”
This Canon is most pertinent to our situation because whilst we have express rules for performing a papal election with valid cardinals, we have no express prescriptions for how to proceed should all the Cardinals have become extinct; defected, or rendered doubtful. Nonetheless, Canon Law clearly states that an alternative rule can be deduced from alternative means. In his commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Professor of Canon Law Rev. Charles Augustine outlines the four principles within Canon 20, and we take the second to be the most relevant:
“The second means of deciding cases is recourse to general legal principles based on the equity of Canon Law. That equity is a means of practical interpretation and application is evident, for reason dictates that, if a law is deficient in a particular case, it should be applied according to the principles of law, indeed, but with a human feeling.” [13]
Therefore, from this alone we see that the law gives permission to discern new rules in extraordinary cases, either from previous practices or from the principle of law itself. It is also very interesting to note that the author states “with a human feeling.” This affects a larger, parallel discussion about the very nature of Catholic Law; being based upon Roman Law, it looks to principle first and the general, natural discernment of the situation.
For now, it is sufficient to conclude that the law itself allows for alternatives to the use of Cardinals and therefore the use of alternatives does not constitute a denial of the law.
Augustine proceeds to outline the fourth principle:
“The last mode of propounding or expounding a case is the authority of the school. That the professional canonists have exerted a decisive influence since the time of Gratian, not only upon decisions but on lawmaking itself, is well known. The ‘school’ itself distinguished a threefold class of opinions: communissima, when all authors agreed; communis, when several weighty authors held the same opinion; controversa, when there was disagreement among canonists. And it was always regarded as rash to deviate from the opinio communissima. The Code mentions the ‘common and constant opinion’ of the school as a guiding principle in deciding a doubtful case, and justly so because such a consensus is sufficient for moral certainty.” [14]
Therefore, it is clear that a consensus amongst theologians, doctors, and canonists can support the discernment of alternative means. Even if we do not here conclude the exact means for electing a new pope, and rather leave it to the General Council, theologians nonetheless agree that an alternative of some kind would be possible.
Therefore, looking for alternatives in this situation is concordant with Catholic law, in accordance with Catholic principle. Given the potential invalidity and doubtfulness of the current Cardinals, it is a Catholic duty to look for alternatives if Catholics are to stay true to their faith that St. Peter will have perpetual successors. Therefore, in this case the particular ecclesiastical law can (and must) give way to the requirements of Divine law.
Additional objection: Pope Pius XII has determined that only the Cardinals have the sole right to elect a pope and therefore no other alternatives are possible.
This argument is based upon the constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis by Pope Pius XII (which in turn refers to Vacante Sede Apostolica by Pope Pius X). Particularly, the passage which reads:
“32. Ius eligéndi Romanum Pontificem ad S. R. E. Cardinales unice et privative pertinet, excluso prorsus atque remoto quolibet cuiuspiara alterius Ecclesiasticae dignitatis, aut laicae potestatis cuiuslibet gradus et ordinis interventu.
[32. The right of electing the Roman Pontiff belongs exclusively and inalienably to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, with the complete exclusion and removal of any intervention whatsoever by any other ecclesiastical dignity or by any secular power of whatever rank or order.]” [15]
The argument is therefore that because this ruling expressly and explicitly states that none other than the Cardinals can elect a pope, and because no other ruling has abrogated this, leaving it in force, we must absolutely adhere to this ruling without recourse to any alternatives. There are two problems with this argument. The first is that it assumes that we already have valid Cardinals and the second is that insistence upon this argument leads to a reductio ad absurdum. The former point has been addressed by our answer (c.f. Objection 2. a above), and so we will turn to the latter point.
The insistence upon this argument leads to a reductio ad absurdum because the Novus Ordo Cardinals themselves do not follow the rules laid down by Pius XII and therefore, according to this premise, would not and could not perform valid elections if such laws were still pertinent to our situation. In a speech given in support of his constitution, Pope Pius XII said the following:
“It is well known that our predecessor, Pope Sixtus V, with his Constitution Postquam verus of 3 December 1586, after noting that in ancient times the Sacred College had been too small and in more recent times too large, set the number of Cardinals at seventy, in imitation of the seventy elders of Israel, prohibiting with very strict clauses that for any reason, even the most urgent, that number should be exceeded. Without doubt, the Roman Pontiffs who succeeded him would not be bound by these provisions if they deemed it appropriate to increase or decrease the number; however, there is no record of any of them ever having derogated from this law, which was also explicitly confirmed in canon 231 of the Code of Canon Law.” [16]
And indeed, Canon Law states:
Canon 231: § 1. “The Sacred College [of Cardinals] is divided into three orders: episcopal, to which belong only those six Cardinals over the various suburbicarian dioceses; presbyteral, which consists of fifty Cardinals; and diaconal, which [consists of] fourteen [Cardinals].”
And Pope Sixtus V originally stated:
“...perpetuo statuimus, et ordinamus, ut in posterum connumeratis omnibus cuiusque ordinis episcopis, presbyteris, et diaconis cardinalibus, qui nunc sunt, quique in futurum creabuntur, cuncti simul numerum septuaginta nullo umquam tempore excedant, ac talis humerus quovis praetextu, occasione, vel causa etiam urgentissima minime augeatur.
[...we do perpetually establish and ordain that in future, when all the cardinals of each order, bishops, priests, and deacons, who are now in office and who shall be created in future, are counted together, the total number shall never at any time exceed seventy, and that the number shall in no way be increased by any pretext, occasion, or cause, even the most urgent.]” [17]
Therefore, this limit of 70 cardinals is a rule that has been permanently in force; set to be established perpetually, has never been officially abrogated up to Vatican II, and was re-confirmed by Pope Pius XII. Therefore, by the logic of the argument of this objection, this rule must also be adhered to without exception to assure validity. If, therefore, this law is not adhered to, it follows from the logic of the argument that not only are the elections performed by the current Cardinals invalid, but the entire organisation of the Cardinals would have to be regarded today as illegitimate.
This rule has certainly been broken because there are currently over 240 total Novus Ordo Cardinals, with over 120 “electors”. [18] The limit of 70 was overruled by Paul VI in 1975. [19]
Some claiming the vacancy of the Holy See might argue that therefore the legitimate thing to do would be to retain the conclusion that only the Cardinals can perform an election, while waiting for them to change their rules of constitution and election, to be returned in conformity with those of Pius XII with their numbers at 70, at which point a valid election could be performed. However, this is not possible because if the rules were changed and rendered invalid in 1975 by Paul VI, it therefore follows that all papal elections after this time were invalid. This is fatal to the argument of such people because Cardinals must be appointed by a validly elected pope. [20] If all of the popes since 1975 have been invalidly elected, according to their premises, then all of the Cardinal appointments since that time have also been invalid according to this same argument. All Cardinals appointed prior to 1975 are now dead, as are all those who were appointed by Paul VI. [21] Therefore, there are no valid Cardinals and no validly elected popes to appoint new ones. From the same logic of the argument that we must adhere categorically to the rules set down by Pius XII that only cardinals can perform a valid election, we would also have to conclude that there are therefore no cardinals and no possibility of appointing new cardinals, which invalidates the same argument.
There might however be recourse to the claim that despite this invalidity, the Church would nonetheless supply what is necessary for the validity of Cardinal appointments and Cardinal papal elections, despite contravention of the rules. To this we answer that such an argument is an admission that the Church can supply for what is necessary in exceptional cases when the explicit rules cannot be followed, which itself invalidates the strict necessity of using Cardinals for a papal election, and in turn offers support for special power supplied to an Imperfect General Council in an exceptional case of necessity.
[1] To examine the most common arguments in favour of the invalidity of the new rites of ordination, see the article.: Absolutely Null and Utterly Void: The 1968 Rite of Episcopal Consecration by Rev. Anthony Cekada
[2] Catholic Encyclopaedia, “Sect and Sects”, 1913 edition. (emphasis added)
[3] See: Romano Pontifici Eligendo [Paul VI, 1975]. Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis [John Paul II, 1996], Electione Romani Pontificis [Benedict XVI 2007], Normas Nonnulas [Benedict XVI, 2013]
[4] Dated February 2026: press . vatican . va/content/salastampa/en/documentation/cardinali---statistiche/composizione-per-area.html
[5] Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections”, 1913 edition
[6] Catholic Encyclopedia, “Canon Law”, 1913 edition
[7] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: Ia IIæ, q.96, a.4, resp.
[8] Catholic Encyclopedia, “Election of the Popes”, 1913 edition
[9] St. Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis Christianae Fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, t. II, (Neapoli: apud Josephum Giuliano, 1837), “Secunda controversia generalis: De membris Ecclesiae militantis,” lib. I (De clericis), cap. X
[10] Thomas de Vio (Cardinal Cajetan), Apologia de comparata auctoritate Papae et Concilii, in De comparatione auctoritatis papae et concilii cum apologia eiusdem tractatus, ed. Vincent-M. J. Pollet, O.P., Scripta theologica, v. 1, (Romae: Institutum “Angelicum,” 1936), cap. XIII, no. 745, p. 300
[11] First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor aeternus (18 July 1870), chap. 2
[12] Thomas de Vio (Cardinal Cajetan), De comparatione auctoritatis papae et concilii cum apologia eiusdem tractatus, in Scripta theologica, v. 1, ed. Vincentius M. Iacobus Pollet (Romae: Apud Institutum “Angelicum,” 1936), cap. 13, no. 204, 97
[13] Rev. Charles Augustine O.S.B, A Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, vol. 1, 6th Edition 1931, p. 100
[14] Ibid. p.101
[15] Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945, t.II. c.I
[16] Acta Apostolicae Sedis: Commentarium Officiale, Annus XXXVIII, s. II, vol. XIII, p. 15
[17] Sixtus V, Postquam Verus, 1586, no. 4
[18] Dated February 2026: press . vatican . va/content/salastampa/en/documentation/cardinali---statistiche/composizione-per-area.html
[19] Paul VI, Romano Pontifici Eligendo, 1975
[20] Canon 232
[21] This directory can be navigated in a variety of ways to confirm this (accessed February 2026): gcatholic . org / hierarchy/data/cardPL6-4
III. The Election of a Pope Can Only Be Done by the Roman Clergy.
This question of the involvement of the Roman clergy is something that the General Council will have to study in the case where an election would be necessary. In order to see why an election could eventually have to be done without the involvement of Cardinals, please see the other objections that treat this topic.
There are two reasons to conclude that the election of a Roman Pontiff can be performed without the involvement of the Roman clergy:
a) The Pope is the Bishop of the Universal Church and can therefore be elected by the Universal Church.
b) The elective power of the Roman clergy is not necessarily of Divine law, and is therefore mutable.
a) The Pope is the Bishop of the Universal Church and can therefore be elected by the Universal Church.
The argument that the Roman Clergy must be present at a papal election rests upon the claim that, being the Bishop of Rome, the pope must therefore be elected by the clergy of Rome (whether that be the Cardinals or otherwise) because a pope ought to be elected by the clergy of his territory. However, according to this same logic it is also possible for the pope to be elected by the universal Church because the pope is not only the Bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction over Rome, but has Ordinary and Supreme Jurisdiction over the Universal Church. [1]
Whilst sources commonly argue for the inclusion of the Roman Clergy in a papal election should the Cardinals become extinct, theologians nonetheless recognise that the involvement of the Universal Church can be valid, and may also take the place of the Roman Clergy:
St. Robert Bellarmine:
“If there were no papal constitution on the election of the Supreme Pontiff; or if by some chance all the electors designated by law, that is, all the Cardinals, perished simultaneously, the right of election would pertain to the neighboring bishops and the Roman clergy, but with some dependence on a general council of bishops.” [2]
Cardinal Cajetan:
“But if all the Cardinals should die, then the Roman Church itself succeeds immediately: the Church from which Linus was elected before any human electoral laws were known to us. Yet since the part is included within the whole, and within the universal Church the Roman Church is included, if in such a case a general council, with the Roman Church in concord (that is, with her assent), were to elect a Pope, then the man so elected would truly be Pope.” [3]
Theologian Charles Journet (following Cajetan):
“...in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power “of applying the Papacy to such and such a person” devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God… when the provisions of the Canon Law cannot be fulfilled, the right to elect will belong to certain members of the Church of Rome. In default of the Roman clergy the right will belong to the Church universal, of which the Pope is to be Bishop.” [4]
It is also worth noting that even if we recognise legitimate Cardinals as the Clergy of Rome, individuals who were neither Cardinals nor otherwise members of the Clergy of Rome took part in past elections, such as secular princes. [5] This demonstrates that the right to elect the pope itself is not necessarily tied to the Clergy of Rome in essence, otherwise the Clergy of Rome alone could ever meaningfully participate in papal elections.
b) The elective power of the Roman clergy is not necessarily of Divine law, and is therefore mutable.
Journet continues with the following statement:
“If the power to elect the Pope belongs, by the nature of things, and therefore by divine law, to the Church taken along with her Head, the concrete mode in which the election is to be carried out, says John of St. Thomas, has been nowhere indicated in Scripture; it is mere ecclesiastical law which will determine which persons in the Church can validly proceed to election.” [6]
This further confirms a common argument that we will make throughout our work: that the laws of papal election are mutable, human laws and ultimately exist only to serve the Divine mission of the Church, including the perpetual provision of Her head. Therefore, none of the provisions for election are to be taken as so absolute that they admit of no other alternatives, and none leave the Universal Church powerless.
We end this answer with some recommended principles for how to interpret and apply Church Law:
“Third rule: In all matters pertaining to the precepts of morals and natural justice, if positive laws are lacking, natural law will be the law to which indications and affairs are to be directed.
Fourth rule: Although the Church can derogate, change, or dispense with nothing in divine and natural (primary) laws, the knowledge of natural law is not only useful but necessary for recognising which laws are natural and therefore immutable, and which are positive and thus subject to derogation, change, and dispensation.” [7]
[1] Charles Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate, vol. 1: The Apostolic Hierarchy, trans. A. H. C. Downes (London: Sheed and Ward, 1955), 25
[2] St. Robert Bellarmine, De Controversiis Christianae Fidei adversus huius temporis haereticos, t. II, (Neapoli: apud Josephum Giuliano, 1837), “Secunda controversia generalis: De membris Ecclesiae militantis,” lib. I (De clericis), cap. X
[3] Thomas de Vio (Cardinal Cajetan), Apologia de comparata auctoritate Papae et Concilii, in De comparatione auctoritatis papae et concilii cum apologia eiusdem tractatus, ed. Vincent-M. J. Pollet, O.P., Scripta theologica, v. 1, (Romae: Institutum “Angelicum,” 1936), cap. XIII, no. 745, p. 300
[4] Charles Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate, vol. 1: The Apostolic Hierarchy, trans. A. H. C. Downes (London: Sheed and Ward, 1955), 480-481
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Dominicus M. Prümmer, Manuale Iuris Canonici: in usum scholarum, (Friburgi Brisgoviae: Herder & Co., Typographi Editores Pontificii, 1927), cap. 2, q. 15, r, 10-11
IV. The Pope Cannot Live outside of Rome. If We Are to Have a True Pope, He Has to Be the Bishop of Rome and Live in Rome.
This objection is answered very simply by the historical fact of the Avignon papacies. As French Catholic priest and historian Guillaume Mollat wrote:
“Between 1305 and 1378 seven popes succeeded one another on the throne of St Peter and lived, more or less continuously, in Avignon, on the banks of the Rhone. Was it an unheard-of occurrence and in fact a ‘scandal’ in the annals of the Church for them to reside outside Rome? The majority of non-French writers, from Platina onwards, seem to suggest it. Yet, for all they were bishops of Rome, a large number of the popes were elected and crowned elsewhere than at Rome and governed the world from some place other than Rome. During the latter half of the thirteenth century their subjects’ unrest made it impossible for the popes to reside in the Eternal City and they were obliged to emigrate, to such an extent that it became exceptional for them to live in Rome...
Martin IV (1281-5), a Frenchman, elected at Viterbo, ubi tunc residebat Romana Curia, never went outside Tuscany and Umbria...
Alexander IV (1254-61) was elected and crowned at Naples…” [1]
From these brief passages we can therefore see that not only did seven legitimate popes reside outside of Rome but some were also legitimately elected outside of Rome, whilst still being bishops of Rome.
Moreover, Pope Nicholas II made this possibility explicit in 1059 in the papal bull In nomine Domini:
“...if the perversity of depraved and wicked men shall so prevail that a pure, sincere and free election cannot be held in Rome, the cardinal bishops, with the clergy of the church and the catholic laity, may have the right and power, even though few in numbers, of electing a pontiff for the apostolic see wherever it may seem to them most suitable.” [2]
Therefore, we can conclude from papal decree and historical fact that it is not necessary for popes to either reside in, nor be validly elected, in Rome.
[1] G. Mollat, The Popes at Avignon, 1305–1378, trans. Janet Love (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1963), xiii–xiv.
[2] Pope Nicholas II, In nomine Domini, 5
V. Before Another Pope Can Be Elected, All Claimants Must Be Removed.
In Search of Truth
This objection is made on one of two grounds:
a) on the grounds that the pope must be elected and/or reside in Rome,
b) on the grounds that whilst there is a usurper in Rome, any newly elected pope would be rendered a doubtful pope (and therefore not a legitimate pope).
The first point has already been answered in our previous response: it is not necessary that a pope either reside in Rome nor be elected in Rome, as proven by both history and papal decree.
The second point is answered by a further historical consideration: there have been multiple antipopes in Church history and multiple antipopes ruled in Rome whilst the legitimate Pope was outside of Rome. This shows the objection to be false because if a usurper or contestant in Rome would render the legitimate Pope doubtful (and therefore illegitimate), we would have to conclude that the Church could have never had a legitimate pope at the same time as an antipope because the latter would render the former impossible. However, we see that this is not true. Indeed, the definition of an antipope is “a false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected.” [1] and therefore every one of the twenty-nine or more official antipopes [2] in Church history existed alongside a legitimate pope. Here are some key examples:
Antipope Constantine II:
“Stephen (III) IV, Pope, born about 720; died 1 or 3 August, 772. Paul I was not dead when trouble began about the election of his successor. Toto of Nepi with a body of Tuscans burst into Rome, and, despite the opposition of the primicerius Christopher, forcibly intruded his brother Constantine, a layman, into the chair of Peter (June, 767). In the spring of 768, however, Christopher and his son Sergius contrived to escape from the city, and with the aid of the Lombards deposed the usurper. They were also able to overthrow the monk Philip, whom some of their Lombard allies had clandestinely elected pope. By their efforts Stephen, a Sicilian, the son of Olivus, was at length canonically elected and consecrated (7 August, 768). He had been a Benedictine monk, and had been ordained priest by Pope Zachary. After his consecration the antipopes were treated with the greatest cruelty which, it seems to be generally allowed, Stephen was unable to hinder.” [3]
Therefore, from this account we see that an antipope was seated in Rome, the legitimate pope was elected outside of Rome, and the usurper was removed after this.
Antipope Benedict X:
“As soon as the news of the death of Stephen X at Florence reached Rome (4 April, 1058). the Tusculan party appointed a successor in the person of John Mincius, Bishop of Velletri, under the name of Benedict X. His elevation, due to violence and corruption, was contrary to the specific orders of Stephen X that, at his death, no choice of a successor was to be made until Hildebrand’s return from Germany. Several cardinals protested against the irregular proceedings, but they were compelled to flee from Rome. Hildebrand was returning from his mission when the news of these events reached him. He interrupted his journey at Florence, and after agreeing with Duke Godfrey of Lorraine-Tuscany upon Bishop Gerhard for elevation to the papacy, he won over part of the Roman population to the support of his candidate. An embassy dispatched to the imperial court secured the confirmation of the choice by the Empress Agnes. At Hildebrand’s invitation, the cardinals met in December, 1058, at Siena and elected Gerhard who assumed the name of Nicholas II. On his way to Rome the new pope held at Sutri a well-attended synod at which, in the presence of Duke Godfrey and the imperial chancellor, Guibert of Parma, he pronounced deposition against Benedict X.” [4]
Therefore, this shows that a legitimate pope can be elected after the election of an antipope and still be regarded as legitimate even before the antipope is removed.
Antipope Felix II: (N.B.: There are some people of great fame who claim that Felix II was a true pope. We are not willing to enter this controversy here, but merely give examples of situations that might resemble a potential future situation in the Church.)
“In 355 Pope Liberius was banished to Beraea in Thrace by the Emperor Constantius because he upheld tenaciously the Nicene definition of faith and refused to condemn St. Athanasius of Alexandria. The Roman clergy pledged itself in solemn conclave not to acknowledge any other Bishop of Rome while Liberius was alive. (‘Marcellini et Fausti Libellus precum’, no.1: ‘Quae gesta sunt inter Liberium et Felicem episcopos’ in ‘Collectio Avellana’, ed. Gunter; Hieronymus, ‘Chronicon’, ad an. Abr. 2365). The emperor, however, who was supplanting the exiled Catholic bishops with the bishops of Arian tendencies, exerted himself to install a new Bishop of Rome in place of the banished Liberius. He invited to Milan Felix, archdeacon of the Roman Church; on the latter’s arrival, Acacius of Caesarea succeeded in inducing him to accept the office from which Liberius had been forcibly expelled, and to be consecrated by Acacius and two other Arian bishops. The majority of the Roman clergy acknowledged the validity of his consecration but the laity would have nothing to do with him and remained true to the banished but lawful pope.” [5]
Therefore, from this account we see that a legitimate pope was banished from Rome and residing outside of Rome, and that the antipope was installed in Rome. Even the clergy publicly recognised this antipope, but the Pope retained his legitimacy.
Antipope Anacletus II:
“Both claimants [Analcetus II and Pope Innocent] were consecrated on the same day, 23 February, Anacletus in St. Peter’s and Innocent in Sta. Maria Nuova. How this schism would have been healed, had the decision been left to the canonists, is hard to say. Anacletus had a strong title in law and fact. The majority of the cardinals with the Bishop of Porto, the Dean of the Sacred College, at their head, stood at his side. Almost the whole populace of Rome rallied around him. His victory seemed complete, when, shortly after, the Frangipani, abandoning what appeared to be a lost cause, went over to him. Innocent sought safety in flight. No sooner had he arrived in France than his affairs took a favourable turn. ‘Expelled from the City, he was welcomed by the world’, says St. Bernard, whose influence and exertions secured for him the adhesion of practically the entire Christian world. The Saint states his reasons for deciding in favour of Innocent in a letter to the Bishops of Aquitaine (Op. cxxvi). They may not be canonically cogent; but they satisfied his contemporaries. ‘The life and character of our Pope Innocent are above any attack, even of his rival; while the other’s are not safe even from his friends’…
“...In the spring of 1133, the German King conducted Innocent, whom two great synods, Reims and Piacenza, had proclaimed the legitimate Pope, to Rome; but as he came accompanied by only 2,000 horses, the antipope, safe within the walls of Castle St. Angelo, looked on undismayed. Unable to open the way to St. Peter’s, Lothair and his queen Richenza, on 4 June received the imperial crown in the Lateran. Upon the Emperor’s departure Innocent was compelled to retire to Pisa, and for four years his rival remained in undisturbed possession of the Eternal City. In 1137 Lothair, having finally vanquished the insurgent Hohenstaufens, returned to Italy at the head of a formidable army; but since the main purpose of the expedition was to punish Roger, the conquest of Rome was entrusted to the missionary labours of St. Bernard.” [6]
Therefore, from this account we see another history of a rivalled papacy with some other interesting points of note: The legitimate pope was legitimate but the Church still saw it as prudent to confirm this with two synods; despite grounds for doubt and rejection by clergy, the legitimate pope was nonetheless accepted by the faithful (which further confirmed his legitimacy) and the Church did not wait for the usurper to be removed from Rome before they supported the legitimate Pope, but this Pope himself acted as a rallying point for Catholics to re-claim Rome.
There are many other examples like this in the history of the antipopes, but the conclusion they present is that a usurper occupying Rome is not a sufficient reason to waylay the election of a new pope, and the usurper need not be removed before a legitimate Pope can be elected or become meaningfully active.
[1] Catholic Encyclopedia, “Antipope”, 1913 edition
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid. “Pope Stephen (III) IV”
[4] Ibid. “Pope Nicholas II”
[5] Ibid. “Felix II”
[6] Ibid. “Anacletus II”
Source:
Objections | Unam Sanctam