Bellarmine on Extraordinary Papal Elections


Bellarmine's Controversies, De clericis, bk. I, ch. 10. (Translated by James Larrabee, with comments)
Chapter 10.

Eighth Proposition.

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.

In this proposition, there does not appear to be universal agreement. Some think that, exclusive of positive law, the right of election would devolve on a Council of Bishops, as Cajetan, tract. De Potestate Papae & Concilii, cap. 13 & 21 & Francis Victoria, relect. 2. quest. 2. De potestate Ecclesiae. Others, as Sylvester relates s.v. Excommunicatio, 9. sec. 3, teach that in that case the right of election pertains to the Roman clergy. But these two opinions can be reconciled. Without a doubt, the primary authority of election in that case pertains to a Council of Bishops; since, when the Pontiff dies, there is no higher authority in the Church than that of a general Council: and if the Pontiff were not the Bishop of Rome, or any other particular place, but only the general Pastor of the whole Church, it would pertain to the Bishops either to elect his successor, or to designate the electors: nevertheless, after the Pontificate of the world was joined to the bishopric of the City [posteaquam unitus est Pontificatus orbis Episcopatui Urbis], the immediate authority of electing in that case would have to be permitted by the bishops of the whole world to the neighboring bishops, and to the clerics of the Roman Church, which is proved in two ways.

First, because the right of election was transferred from all the neighboring bishops and the Roman clergy to the Cardinals, who are a certain part of the bishops and clergy of the Roman Church; therefore, when the Cardinals are lacking, the right of election ought to return to all the bishops and clergy of the Roman Church.

Second, because this is a most ancient custom (as we showed above from Cyprian), that the neighboring bishops, in the presence of the clergy, should elect both the Bishop of Rome and others also. And it is unheard of that the Bishops or Archbishops of the whole world should meet for the election of the Supreme Pontiff, except in a case where it is doubtful who should be the legitimate electors. For this doubt ought to be resolved by a general Council, as was done in the Council of Constance. [This is the entire text of chap. 10.]

It should be noted that in this book, St. Robert treats first of the election of bishops, refuting the Protestant theory of popular election (revived by modern liberal "Catholics") at considerable length (chap. 7). He then deals in detail with the election of the Supreme Pontiff (chap. 9).  The proposition at the head of chapter 7 reads: "The right of electing the Supreme Pontiff, and the other Pastors and Ministers of the Church, does not belong to the people by divine right. But if, at any time, the people had any power in this matter, that was entirely from the connivance or the concession of the Pontiffs."

Another point to keep in mind in this context is that the neighboring bishops to the see of Rome are actually the Cardinal Bishops, the bishops of the suburbicarian sees. These have been associated in the government of the Church by the Popes from the earliest times. On this Bellarmine says in chap. 9 (in which he is concerned to show that the constituted method of papal election by the Cardinals, while not of divine law, is the best and should be retained): "The second manner [of electing a Bishop] was, that all the Bishops of the same province, or the majority of them, should elect the Bishop, after, however, requesting the testimony and consent of the Clergy and people of the place to which the Bishop is being given: and in the same manner were elected Metropolitans, Patriarchs, and the Supreme Pontiff himself, namely by the neighboring or provincial Bishops. And this was the most ancient manner ..." Further down he says: "The second manner is found in this form [of papal election, that is, election by the Cardinals], insofar as the principle element in it is concerned; for the neighboring Bishops now elect as they then elected, namely the six Cardinal Bishops."

James Larrabee
A.M.D.G.
 
http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/bellarm2.html

I do not see how any of this applies to today's situation if sedevacantism is true.

I do not see how any of this applies to today's situation if sedevacantism is true.

Is it not obvious?  The blueprint for ending this crisis is right before your eyes.

Your post mentions the bishops and also the clergy of Rome. But there are no bishops with Jurisdiction who are not heretics that we know of. And there are no Roman clergy who are not heretics that we know of. Do you mean that the traditionalist bishops who are not heretics but have no jurisdiction are to get together and vote for the new pope?

We know as a matter of Faith that there must always be members of the hierarchy.  It cannot completely fail.  If anyone denies this, then it is a heresy against the Apostolicity of the Church.

At the moment, we cannot know with certainty where all the remaining bishops are, but it remains possible to locate them.  So long as the lawful bishops of the hierarchy have not lost their Faith, they remain as members of the Church and in their offices.

The same applies to the clergy of Rome.  The diocese of Rome cannot defect.  In order for a diocese to remain Catholic, there must be both clergy and laity who have kept the Faith living in the diocese.  

We can be certain that not every lawfully appointed Roman cleric has lost the Faith.

Adherence to the antipope or even the use of the Novus Ordo Missae does not in and of itself prove heresy.

OK I understand. So we have to find these few non-heretical bishops or non-heretical clergy of Rome and convince them of sedevacantism and have them elect a new Pope. Thank you for making your position more clear to me.

I never said we must do it.  God is in control and I trust in Him that he can arrange this.  I pray daily for these bishops and clerics that they will have the grace and strength to do their duty and end the crisis.

When sedevacantist bishops increase in number beyond a critical point, which is the accuмulation of sufficient numbers with which they may represent and govern ( within reason ) all territories in which the Catholic church exists, then they may meet to elect a new pope - this is bound to happen with time ( maybe 100-300 years) and nothing else would be in keeping of the tradition of the church of being administered by a Pope.

Ps: With the imminent death of the novus ordo Vatican 2 "church", the traditionalists will be the major group calling itself "Catholic".
At that point, which is inevitable ( and supremely just ), the sedeplenist groups such as the two SSPX groups will no longer be able to maintain the position that the Vatican 2 "popes" were legitimate, because practically speaking that position will seem ridiculous. This position is bound to appear untenable to their supporters in only a matter of time, and the only ones I think who would still maintain that Vatican 2 was valid would be theological law nitpickers arguing contrary to natural justice and ignoring obvious invalidation of V2 popes.

This has already happened, and every time those without a mission from the Church hold a 'conclave' the result is an antipope.  Every time.  Not a solution.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: soulguard

When sedevacantist bishops increase in number beyond a critical point, which is the accuмulation of sufficient numbers with which they may represent and govern ( within reason ) all territories in which the Catholic church exists, then they may meet to elect a new pope - this is bound to happen with time ( maybe 100-300 years) and nothing else would be in keeping of the tradition of the church of being administered by a Pope.

Ps: With the imminent death of the novus ordo Vatican 2 "church", the traditionalists will be the major group calling itself "Catholic".
At that point, which is inevitable ( and supremely just ), the sedeplenist groups such as the two SSPX groups will no longer be able to maintain the position that the Vatican 2 "popes" were legitimate, because practically speaking that position will seem ridiculous. This position is bound to appear untenable to their supporters in only a matter of time, and the only ones I think who would still maintain that Vatican 2 was valid would be theological law nitpickers arguing contrary to natural justice and ignoring obvious invalidation of V2 popes.

This has already happened, and every time those without a mission from the Church hold a 'conclave' the result is an antipope.  Every time.  Not a solution.

I believe it is the best solution in this crisis, providing the Vatican 2 church stays on the road of deepening apostasy.
It is not like the church depends on any particular place (Vatican) to continue apostolic succession, it doesn't. Once there is lineage and once there is sufficient number, there is a chance of electing a new pope. If the result is an antipope, then you elect again, if he is an antipope again, then you elect again, time is no issue. If he is an antipope, there must be those who believe him to be an antipope and the true church not under his rule must break away. Eventually they will elect a valid pope. Or if the antipope dies the next one might be valid and might abrogate the previous one.

Once he has the support of most of the bishops, that is enough to take him seriously, unless he is a serious heretic like Francis 1.

my 2€ on this issue.

Soulguard, a pope can only be elected by a conclave that consists of Catholics who have ordinary jurisdiction.  That is why no matter how many times conclaves are held by those without it, every single time it will result in an antipope, because the people doing the electing do not have the authority to do so.  Of course, that has not stopped them from attempting-- if you believe that the sedevacantists have the right to elect a true pope, then you've got several (anti)popes to choose from.

Quote from: soulguard

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: soulguard

When sedevacantist bishops increase in number beyond a critical point, which is the accuмulation of sufficient numbers with which they may represent and govern ( within reason ) all territories in which the Catholic church exists, then they may meet to elect a new pope - this is bound to happen with time ( maybe 100-300 years) and nothing else would be in keeping of the tradition of the church of being administered by a Pope.

Ps: With the imminent death of the novus ordo Vatican 2 "church", the traditionalists will be the major group calling itself "Catholic".
At that point, which is inevitable ( and supremely just ), the sedeplenist groups such as the two SSPX groups will no longer be able to maintain the position that the Vatican 2 "popes" were legitimate, because practically speaking that position will seem ridiculous. This position is bound to appear untenable to their supporters in only a matter of time, and the only ones I think who would still maintain that Vatican 2 was valid would be theological law nitpickers arguing contrary to natural justice and ignoring obvious invalidation of V2 popes.

This has already happened, and every time those without a mission from the Church hold a 'conclave' the result is an antipope.  Every time.  Not a solution.

I believe it is the best solution in this crisis, providing the Vatican 2 church stays on the road of deepening apostasy.
It is not like the church depends on any particular place (Vatican) to continue apostolic succession, it doesn't. Once there is lineage and once there is sufficient number, there is a chance of electing a new pope. If the result is an antipope, then you elect again, if he is an antipope again, then you elect again, time is no issue. If he is an antipope, there must be those who believe him to be an antipope and the true church not under his rule must break away. Eventually they will elect a valid pope. Or if the antipope dies the next one might be valid and might abrogate the previous one.

Once he has the support of most of the bishops, that is enough to take him seriously, unless he is a serious heretic like Francis 1.

my 2€ on this issue.

Soulguard, a pope can only be elected by a conclave that consists of Catholics who have ordinary jurisdiction.  That is why no matter how many times conclaves are held by those without it, every single time it will result in an antipope, because the people doing the electing do not have the authority to do so.  Of course, that has not stopped them from attempting-- if you believe that the sedevacantists have the right to elect a true pope, then you've got several (anti)popes to choose from.

Mithrandylan,  

Well said!  Any election by the acephalous bishops would be illegal and invalid and would only produce a new antipope and a new schism.