Thesis I. — The Peaceful and Universal Acceptance is Part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (OUM)
Major premise: Catholic theologians unanimously teach that the peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope is a certain criterion of his legitimacy.
Minor premise: The unanimity of Catholic theologians teaches that the peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope is a certain criterion of the pontiff’s legitimacy.
Conclusion: Therefore, the peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope, as a certain criterion of his legitimacy, forms part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
Proof of the Major Premise
'Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith.' ( Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Tuas Libenter)
'The ordinary and universal magisterium is that which is carried on daily through the continuous preaching of the Church among all peoples. It includes:
- The preaching and proclamations of the Corporate Body of Bishops
- Universal custom or practice associated with dogma
- The consensus or agreement of the Fathers and of the Theologians
- The common or general understanding of the faithful' (A.D. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, 1959, pp. 176–177)
Proof of the Minor Premise
Theologians have unanimously taught
that peaceful and universal acceptance is a certain and reliable criterion for
the legitimacy of papal elections. Among these are:
1. Father Sylvester
Berry, The Church of Christ; an apologetic and dogmatic treatise (1927)
2.
Cicognani (Canon Law,
1947);
3.
Cardinal Billot
(De Ecclesia Christi, quaest. XIV Th. 29, § 3);
4.
Father Smith (Dr.
Littledale's Theory of the Disappearance of the Papacy, 1896);
5.
Father Connell
(American Ecclesiastical Review, 1965)
6.
Sylvester Joseph
Hunter (Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, 1896);
7.
Cardinal Journet (The
Church of the Incarnate Word);
8. Dom Guéranger
(L’année liturgique, Vol XII, p.188);
9.
Ludwig Ott
(Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 8-9; 299, 1953);
10.
Wernz-Vidal (Jus
can., II, p. 437, note 170);
11.
St. Alphonsus de
Liguori (Verità della fede, in Opere..., vol. VIII, p. 720, no. 9).
Thesis II. — A Heretical Papal Claimant Who Is Only Nominally Recognised, But Not Accepted as the Proximate Rule of Faith by the Church, Cannot Be the Pope Because He Lacks the Universal and Peaceful Submission That Guarantees Legitimacy.
Major Premise: Whoever is universally and peacefully accepted by the Church as pope is certainly the true pope, on account of the Church’s infallibility in dogmatic facts (a theologically certain proposition).
Minor Premise: But a heretical papal claimant who is only nominally recognised—yet not accepted by the Church as the proximate rule of faith—is not universally and peacefully accepted as pope.
Conclusion: Therefore, a heretical papal claimant who is only nominally recognised, but not accepted by the Church as the proximate rule of faith, cannot be the true pope.
Proofs of the Major Premise
'First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope. For if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible. This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. […] It is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognising a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.' (Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, 1898, pp. 309–310)
'... universal adherence of the Church is always, in itself alone, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and consequently of the existence of all conditions required for that legitimacy. Nor is the reason for this to be sought from afar. It is immediately derived from the infallible promise and providence of Christ: The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and again: Behold, I am with you always. For it would be tantamount to the Church adhering to a false pontiff as if it were adhering to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule that the Church must follow in matters of belief and always does so in practice, as will become even clearer from what follows. Indeed, God may permit the vacancy of the See to be prolonged for some time. He may also permit doubt to arise concerning the legitimacy of one or another elected individual. However, He cannot permit the entire Church to accept as pontiff one who is not truly and legitimately so. Therefore, once a pontiff has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, no further question should be raised regarding a possible flaw in the election or the absence of any condition necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals any flaw in the election and infallibly demonstrates the existence of all required conditions. Let this be said in passing against those who seek to justify certain schismatic attempts made during the time of Alexander VI, under the pretext that they were undertaken by one who claimed to possess the most certain proofs of Alexander’s heresy, to be revealed in a general council. But indeed, setting aside other arguments by which this opinion could easily be refuted, this one suffices: it is well established that at the time when Savonarola was writing his letters to the princes, the whole of Christendom adhered to and obeyed Alexander as the true pontiff. Therefore, by that very fact, Alexander was not a false pontiff but a legitimate one. Consequently, he was not a heretic—at least not with that heresy which, by severing the status of a member of the Church, would by its very nature deprive him of pontifical authority or any other ordinary jurisdiction. Thus far concerning those matters that pertain to the perpetuity of Peter’s primacy in the Roman Pontiffs. Now, we must address the nature and rationale of that primacy.' (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, 1909, pp. 620–621)
Proofs of the Minor Premise
A papal claimant who is not accepted as the Supreme Pastor and teacher of all Christians, and whose teachings and disciplines are rejected, resisted, doubted, or ignored by a morally significant portion of the Church, faithful and clergy alike, cannot be the Roman Pontiff, as this would destroy the unity and visibility of the Church.
A society is an association of individuals bound by a common goal. Those who work in opposition to each other or are not united by a social bond cannot constitute a true society (Grenier, Thomistic Philosophy, pp. 603–604). The Catholic Church is a visible society whose members are united in one faith, worship, and government. If the visible head of the Church were to profess a different faith from that of the faithful, then the members would no longer be in communion with one another: some would submit to him, others would resist. In such a case, the Church, as one visible society, would collapse.
'…The Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government.' (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, n. 6)
'Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws.' (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, n.6)
Sedevacantism and the Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope - Free download (PDF)
.png)
