http://www.cmri.org/02-long-term-vacancy.shtml

Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, S.J.:
On the Idea of a Long-Term Vacancy of the Holy See
By John Daly

Revised and edited by John Lane (http://www.sedevacantist.org/oreilly.html), October 1999

In 1882 a book was published in England called The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, comprising 29 essays by Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly S.J., one of the leading theologians of his time. The book expresses with wonderful clarity and succinctness many important theological truths and insights on subjects indirectly as well as directly related to its main theme. For our purposes the book has in one respect an even greater relevance than it did at the time of publication, for in it Fr. O’Reilly asserts with the full weight of such authority as he possesses, the following opinions:

    that a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the indefectibility of the Church; and
    that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See (other, of course, than that a true pope will never fall into heresy, nor in any way err).

Of course Fr. O’Reilly does not have the status of pope or Doctor of the Church; but, that said, he was certainly no negligible authority. Some idea of the esteem in which he was held can be obtained from the following facts:

    Cardinal Cullen, then Bishop of Armagh, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Thurles in 1850. Dr. Brown, bishop of Shrewsbury, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Shrewsbury.
    Dr. Furlong, bishop of Ferns and his former colleague as professor of theology at Maynooth, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Maynooth.
    He was named professor of theology at the Catholic University in Dublin on its foundation. The General of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Beckx, proposed to appoint him professor of theology at the Roman College in Rome, though as it turned out circuмstances unrelated to Fr. O’Reilly intervened to prevent that appointment.
    At a conference held regarding the philosophical and theological studies in the Society of Jesus, he was chosen to represent all the English-speaking “provinces” of the Society — that is, Ireland, England, Maryland, and the other divisions of the United States.

In short Fr. O’Reilly was widely recognized as one of the most erudite and important theologians of his time.

Finally, the following quotation by Dr. Ward in the justly renowned Dublin Review (January 1876 issue) is worth quoting (emphasis added):

    “Whatever is written by so able and solidly learned a theologian — one so docile to the Church and so fixed in the ancient theological paths — cannot but be of signal benefit to the Catholic reader in these anxious and perilous times.”

Dr. Ward thought his times were anxious and perilous! Well, let us now see what “signal benefit” we, a little more than a century later, can derive from some of Fr. O’Reilly’s writing.

We open with a brief passage from an early chapter of the book, called “The Pastoral Office of the Church”. On page 33 Fr. O’Reilly says this (emphases added):

    “If we inquire how ecclesiastical jurisdiction... has been continued, the answer is that... it in part came and comes immediately from God on the fulfillment of certain conditions regarding the persons. Priests having jurisdiction derive it from bishops or the pope. The pope has it immediately from God, on his legitimate election. The legitimacy of his election depends on the observance of the rules established by previous popes regarding such election.”

Thus, if papal jurisdiction depends on a person’s legitimate election, which certainly is not verified in the case of the purported election of a formal heretic to the Chair of Peter, it follows that, in the absence of legitimate election, no jurisdiction whatever is granted, neither “de jure” nor, despite what some have tried to maintain, “de facto.”

Fr. O’Reilly makes the following remark later in his book (page 287 — our emphases added):

    “A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power; but he has not practically in relation to the Church the same right as a certain pope — he is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church, and may be legitimately compelled to desist from his claim.”

This extract comes from one of two chapters devoted by Fr. O’Reilly to the Council of Constance of 1414. It may be remembered that the Council of Constance was held to put an end to the disastrous schism which had begun thirty-six years earlier, and which by that time involved no fewer than three claimants to the Papacy, each of whom had a considerable following.

Back to Fr. O’Reilly:

    “The Council assembled in 1414...

    “We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope — with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”

Thus one of the great theologians of the nineteenth century, writing subsequently to the 1870 Vatican Council, tells us that it is “by no means manifest” that a thirty-six year interregnum would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ. And we can therefore legitimately ask: at what stage, if any, would such be manifest? After thirty-seven years? Or forty-seven years? Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree — how long — cannot enter into the question. That is up to God to decide, and who can know what astonishing things He may in fact decide.

And, indeed, as Fr. O’Reilly proceeds further in this remarkable chapter, written over a hundred years ago but surely fashioned by Divine Providence much more expressly for our day than for his, he makes this very point about what it can and cannot be assumed that God will permit. From page 287 (all emphases added):

    “There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...

    “The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”

While Fr. O’Reilly himself disclaims any status as a prophet, nevertheless a true prophecy is clearly exactly what this passage amounts to. Moreover it is the kind of prophecy which, provided it is advanced conditionally, as in this case, both can and should be made in the light of the evidence on which he is concentrating his gaze. In respect of much that lies in the future there is no need for special revelations in order that we may know it. As Fr. O’Reilly indicates, except where God has specifically told us that something will not occur, any assumptions concerning what He will not permit are rash; and of course such assumptions will have the disastrous result that people will be misled if the events in question do occur. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” (Isaias 55:8)

once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree — how long — cannot enter into the question

Incorrect. It's very simple, because of the interdependence of the Papacy and the Episcopate, of the Petrine Succession and the Apostolic Succession. The Papacy cannot be vacant longer than it takes for every Bishop appointed to a diocese or episcopal see by the last Pope to die, otherwise every episcopal see would fall vacant, which is heretical. Bishops are usually appointed around age 35 and if we assume they die around age 90, 55 years stretches it to breaking point. A five hundred or 1000 year interregnum is clearly heretical. Whoever denies this implicitly denies the dogma that Peter must have perpetual successors in the primacy of the Church. What, you think a single successor every few hundred years satisfies that dogma? Dom Gueranger, whom Pope Pius IX praised for his invincible defense of the Papacy against the errors of the Gallicans, explains the dogma,

"the episcopate is most sacred, for it comes from the hands of Jesus Christ through Peter and his successors.  Such is the unanimous teaching of Catholic Tradition, which is in keeping with the language used by the Roman pontiffs, from the earliest ages ... This fundamental principle, which St. Leo the Great has so ably and eloquently developed, this principle, which is taught us by universal Tradition, is laid down with all possible precision in the magnificent letters, still extant, of Pope St. Innocent I., who preceded St. Leo by several years. Thus he writes to the Council of Carthage, that “the episcopate, with all its authority, emanates from the apostolic see”;  to the Council of Milevis, that “bishops must look upon Peter as the source whence both their name and their dignity are derived”; to St. Victricius, bishop of Rouen, that “the apostolate and the episcopate both owe their origin to Peter.”

All spiritual authority comes from Peter; all comes from the bishop of Rome, in whom Peter will continue to govern the Church to the end of time.  Jesus Christ is the founder of the episcopate; it is the Holy Ghost who establishes bishops to rule the Church; but the mission and the institution, which assign the pastor his flock, and the flock its pastor, these are given by Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost through the ministry of Peter and his successors. How sacred, how divine, is this authority of the Keys, which is first given by heaven itself to the Roman Pontiff; then is delegated by him to the prelates of the Church; and thus guides and blesses the whole Christian world!"

So Apostolicity of mission would cease, if there is no one to send bishops, no Supreme Pastor to appoint bishops to dioceses or episcopal sees, which is impossible.

With regard to sedeprivationism, although it is better than indefinite sedevacantism simpliciter in at least recognizing this as a problem, it is more a proposal than a solution. Pope Innocent III clearly tells us the Pope who loses the pontificate by a manifest sin of heresy (material heresy is not a sin, only formal heresy is a mortal sin, heresy must be public and it must be formal to effect loss of office) ceases in any way to exercise the pontificate or realize effects proper to its power, citing the Gospel passage of salt without flavor. The only possibilities, therefore, are that these Popes have been Catholics erring in good faith, thus retain the pontificate, and thus their episcopal appointments have ensured the continuation of formal Apostolic succession, or they have not been Popes, there are almost no bishops in episcopal sees and thus no way to restore the Church.

I don't think John Daly or John Lane would concede your point, Nishant.  John Lane in particular will not concede because he believes there could very well be bishops that we don't know anything about.  Also, you have admitted in the past that it is possible for the pope to grant the power of confirming bishops without explicit papal mandate.  Well, there is a group that is claiming that Pope Pius XI (that's 11) did grant this power to Archbishop Thuc.  I am not willing to believe it yet but nevertheless it cannot be ruled out that a pope has done this even as late as 1958.  So there could conceivably be bishops validly appointed to sees long after 1958.  So while I don't disagree with the principles you are stating, neither do I agree that 55 years is the absolute cut-off point.

One thing I refuse to believe is that I am bound to recognize a body of bishops who have deliberately led millions of souls to hell.  Francis only makes your position all the more absurd.  For the sake of preserving the appearance of apostolicity you are encouraging souls to risk their salvation by following a heretical hierarchy and/or you are encouraging souls to disobey legitimate authority. Either way, that is not good.  This crisis is so bad at this point that even those who claim that their resistance to authority is justified are now refusing to believe that acts of what they believe to be the extraordinary magisterium are binding.  e.g. canonizations.

Maybe you are right.  But at the moment, there isn't enough evidence to warrant your exaggerated confidence in your own position.

Your bolded is exactly what has been on my mind as of late.

I am not willing to believe it yet but nevertheless it cannot be ruled out that a pope has done this even as late as 1958. So there could conceivably be bishops validly appointed to sees long after 1958. So while I don't disagree with the principles you are stating, neither do I agree that 55 years is the absolute cut-off point.

Clemens Maria, but saying an interregnum can go on practically indefinitely invariably ends up separating the Papacy from the Episcopate and reducing the dogma that Peter must have perpetual successors to meaninglessness. It isn't really about the 55 year mark, but how you will continue to appoint Bishops to sees and fill up the vacancies that will invariably occur in them without the Supreme Pastor. If a Pope gave a mandate to a Bishop, that Bishop would indeed be enabled to appoint other Bishops to sees. But that Bishop would not have the power to delegate his own mandate to yet another Bishop, and so inevitably, all sees will become vacant one day, unless there is a Pope again to fill them by then. The Church simply cannot carry on indefinitely without a Pope.

You say the "appearance of Apostolicity" should be a tangential consideration, at best, especially in light of their negligence causing souls to go to hell. But that is mistaken, the Church has always held an unbroken line of succession from the Apostolic age to the present is the clearest visible mark by which She is identified, Brunsmann-Preuss, Handbook of Fundamental Theology, "In order to be able to distinguish with certainty the true Church of Christ from all false claimants, it is sufficient to establish the Apostolic Succession with regard to the primacy of Peter. For, since the primacy is the crown of the Apostolate, the Church which possesses the primacy must needs be Apostolic ... Hence that Church, and that Church only, which can trace its rulers to the first primate, namely, St. Peter, is in fact and by right Apostolic in every sense. Those regional churches which are subject to the successor of St. Peter, and live in community with him, participate in this Apostolicity. All others, be it that they have separated from the one only Apostolic Church or developed independently of her, lack the note of Apostolicity and consequently cannot be the true Church of Christ ... The Church of Christ will continue to the end of time, unchanged in all her essential elements, one of which is the ordinary and legitimate Apostolic succession of her teachers and rulers. For the same reason she will never at any time lack the missio ordinaria and apostolica."