Thanks Sean. This quote from your post should be applied to Bergoglio:



Universi Dominici Gregis states that any papal election that does not follow the specific prescriptions of that Apostolic Constitution is null and void (UDG 76). The 2013 papal election did not follow the specific prescription of UDG requiring that the beginning the election take place AFTER the death of the Pope (UDG 49). Therefore, the 2013 papal election was null and void.

Here are the quotes from UDG:

Therefore, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was not "validly elected" and, he was "never Pope."

I believe UDG applies to elections after a pope has died, not after a pope has resigned.

The pragraph you cited begins:

"49. When the funeral rites for the deceased Pope have been celebrated according to the prescribed ritual..."

Sean, you are correct to believe that "UDG applies to elections after a pope has died." That is exactly what I have been saying.

But your statement seems to imply that there is some other Church law that allows a papal election "after a pope has resigned." I assure you that no such Church law was in force in 2013.

UDG was the only expression of Church law governing papal elections in 2013.

I believe that papal resignation, not having occurred in 600 years, was overlooked, and therefore left unaddressed; it seems to have disappeared from the collective consciousness.

But the rule governing papal resignation would be found here:

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

But Sean, what does such a "belief" have to do with the law of papal elections, without which law we cannot determine whether a Pope was validly or invalidly elected? In other words, only by applying the law of papal election requirements to the factual election proceedings can validity or invalidity be determined.

Journet says the following in the first sentence of your post:

"The Church has no power to change the form of her government, nor to control the destiny of him who, once validly elected, is no vicar of hers but Vicar of Christ."

Everything depends on the "validity" of the election, because and invalid Pope would be a "doubtful Pope." And Journey says

"First, there is the deposition of a doubtful Pope. But a Pope whose election remains uncertain was never Pope, so that there is no question here of deposition properly so called."

How can Journet's words "doubtful" and "uncertain" have any meaning if we don't have the papal election law to use as a standard by which we judge the doubt or uncertainty?

That the hierarchy has unanimously consented to the election means that there is no doubt as to his legitimacy, and heals in the root any defect in the election process. (Billot)

That the hierarchy has unanimously consented to the election means that there is no doubt as to his legitimacy, and heals in the root any defect in the election process. (Billot)

Please provide the full quote (with context) from Billot. The way you state it, it seems to disagree with John of St. Thomas and others.

Below is what I said to the user NIFH in another thread concerning the same issue:

I will try to go systematically through this exchange.

1. You stated that John of St. Thomas taught that the "Universal Peaceful Acceptance" of a particular Pope can be "de fide." If understood correctly (as referring to a "dogmatic fact"), I agree that it is possible for a past papal claimant to be accepted by a Pope or and Ecuмenical Council.

2. Only a Church authority with the power to declare a "dogmatic fact" (such as a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council) can declare that a particular papal claimant was, in the past, actually a Pope. The opinions of laymen or Cardinals or Bishops or priests on the matter are not relevant. Again, only a Pope or an Ecuмenical council can declare a "dogmatic fact."

3. As John of St. Thomas says in another place (which I quoted earlier), that it is his opinion that only a lawfully/duly/properly elected papal claimant can be the subject of "universal peaceful acceptance" declaration made by a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council. An unlawfully-elected Pope would not be considered, according to John of St. Thomas.

4. The precise theological dogma involved when a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council declares a "dogmatic fact" is discussed in Ott in Part 2, Chapter 1, §13, 3: Bearers of Infallibility. In that section, Ott explains that ONLY the Pope and a valid Ecuмenical Council can declare new infallible dogmas.

5. There is no general theological dogma called "universal peaceful acceptance" dogma. You seem to have access to Ott's book. Tell me where I can find this "dogma" of "universal peaceful acceptance" discussed in Ott's book.

6. Now, turning to Bergoglio. The the declaration of "universal peaceful acceptance" does not apply to him for two reasons:

a) there has been no declaration of "dogmatic fact" made by a later Pope or an Ecuмenical Council that Bergoglio was a valid Pope.

b) there would never be such a declaration of "dogmatic fact" made in Bergoglio's case anyway because his election was unlawful.

There's only one thing that needs to be known about "Sedevacantism", that the Magisterium and the Public worship of the Church cannot become corrupt.  Therefore these men have not been legitimate Popes acting freely in the exercise of their office.  If you want to claim they were blackmailed and not acting freely, that's fine.  But, apart from that type of scenario, your attribution of this degree of corruption to the Magisterium and to the Mass is simply not Catholic.  Quibble all you want about depositus this or deponendus that.  It's all a distraction from the core heresy you promote.

Billot:

"Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope falling into heresy], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to look far for the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and the infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold I shall be with you all days.’ For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith,[2] seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact she always follows. As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

"Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”[3]

Billot mentions "infallibility" multiple times in that quote. He is referring to what is called a "dogmatic fact." When he mentions "the universal Church" or "the Church" in this context, he is necessarily referring to the infallible teaching authority of the Church, not to the opinions of individuals in the Church.

For a particular fact, such as a valid papal election, to become an infallible fact, a "dogmatic fact," either a Pope or an Ecuмenical Council must settle any controversy. Until that happens, the particular Pontificate would not be an infallible, dogmatic fact.

John of St. Thomas:

Objection: We cannot know with certainty of faith that the particular electors have a valid intention of election, nor that they are true and legitimate Cardinals, nor that they observed the form of election required by law, such as the requirement that the Pope be elected by two-thirds majority of the cardinals, as well as the other conditions without which the election is null.

Answer: The acceptance and definition of the Church, inasmuch as it gives the certitude of faith [concerning the legitimacy of the Pope], does not touch upon the conditions of the election, or the intention and genuine identity of the electors, without intermediary, but rather mediately, and as a logical consequence of what it immediately touches upon: namely, that whoever is elected by the persons that the Church designates to choose a Pope in her name, by the very fact that he is accepted by the Church as legitimately elected, is in fact Pope. This latter is what the definition of Martin V, related above, as well as the acceptance of the Church, is really about. Now, from the de fide truth that this man is Pope, it follows as a consequence that all the requisite conditions must have been observed.  For, faith does not concern itself primarily with the conditions that must be realized in the electors, but only afterwards with the person elected [i.e., the object of faith is the legitimacy of the one elected, not whether the conditions required for a valid election were met].  It is the same with the definitions of Councils. Faith is not concerned with the prerequisites of the definition—for instance, that the definition was preceded by diligent investigation, or a disputation about the propositions to be defined—for this is not the subject-matter of faith. Nevertheless, once the definition has been given [which is the object of faith], one rightly infers as a theological conclusion that all the things necessary for the definition were in place, and consequently that there was a discussion preceding it.  (…)

"Therefore, we have the certainty of faith, by a revelation implicitly contained in the Creed and in the promise made to Peter, and made more explicit in the definition of Martin V, and applied and declared in act (in exercitio) by the acceptance of the Church, that this man in particular, canonically elected according to the acceptance of the Church, is Pope. The certainty of faith touches this alone [i.e., his legitimacy]; and whatever is prerequisite to it [i.e., the conditions], or else follows upon the fact of the election, is inferred as a theological conclusion drawn from the proposition that is de fide, and is believed mediately.