1st Argument by Jimmy Akin:
According to many current sedevacantists, Pius XII was the last valid pope. He died in 1958, which was 53 years ago.

Here is where the argument gets interesting: In order to be pope, under current canon law, one must be elected by the college of cardinals. In order to be a member of the college of cardinals, one must be appointed by the pope. In order for the pope to appoint you, he must be alive.

If the last valid pope died in 1958, that would seem to mean that no cardinals have been validly appointed since then.  How many cardinals are alive today who were appointed before 1958?

None.

The longest-serving cardinal at present is Eugenio Sales, who wasn’t appointed until 1969. If his elevation to the cardinalate was invalid, and so were all subsequent elevations due to a lack of valid popes, then it would appear that the college of cardinals now has no members. With no valid members, it would seem impossible for there to be another validly elected pope.

Ever.

That would be odd.

It would certainly seem to be contrary to the will of Christ who, in the words of Vatican I, willed “that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church.” If Christ really wills that there be an ongoing series of successors then one would think he would keep the Church from getting into a position where it is impossible to elect any more successors.

So do we have a good argument here, from Vatican I, after all? An argument that deals a death-blow to a major current form of sedevacantism?

2nd Argument (Quoted by Nishant):

Cardinal Billot says: "God may allow that a vacancy of the Apostolic See last for a while. He may also permit that some doubt be risen about the legitimacy of such or such election. However, God will never allow the whole Church to recognize as Pontiff someone who is not really and lawfully.  Thus, as long as a pope is accepted by the Church, and united with her like the head is united to the body, one can no longer raise any doubt about a possible defective election."


3rd Argument of Pope Benedict XIV (Quoted by Nishant):

it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: "This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion" (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition).

This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: "Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world" (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: "It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world" (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap.



Commentary:

1) The first two arguments establish the impossibility of sedevacantism.

2) The 3rd argument establishes the schismatic nature of the sedevacantist position.

3) All three in combination establish that all the various sedevacantist theories are total hallucinations.

As I have said to Nishant, I think it is very much debatable that the whole Church recognizes these men as popes.

One cannot use the Novus Ordo to measure such a thing.  So the "recognition" of the majority of the Novus Ordo prelates does not extend to verify what Billot is teaching, since they themselves don't have the faith; it would be tantamount to arguing that since the AP calls them popes, they must be.

Similarly, the vast majority of Novus Ordo Catholics cannot be used as this gauge, since they themselves dissent even from the teaching of the N.O. Church on such things like birth control and the Real Presence-- the former still "officially" condemned by the Novus Ordo Church, the former still "officially" taught; but the Novus Ordo faithful as an overwhelming majority accept and reject these respectively.

Traditional Catholics cannot be said to recognize these men when they reject everything they teach.  When theologians speak of recognition they aren't talking about putting his picture in the vestibule or inserting his name in the canon only, rather these are things which follow logically from peacefully accepting the authority of the pope in question.  Traditional Catholics reject that authority, not just a little bit, but completely.  There is certainly no peaceful acceptance on our end toward these men.  And there hasn't ever been.

I can't think of a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who denies the legitimacy of this pontificate.

And if you are not willing to recognize their recognition, you have effectively eliminated the worldwide heirarchy.

In that case, it is not evident to me how to avoid the charge of violating indefectibility and schism.

And of course, Jimmy Akin's argument is unassailable.

Great post, Sean.

I can't think of a single bishop with ordinary jurisdiction who denies the legitimacy of this pontificate.

Exactly. There is none such. Then clearly the whole ecclesia docens recognizes Pope Francis as Pontiff and professes communion with him.

And Mith seems to leave out that Pope Benedict XIV clearly described for us that "una cuм" is really "an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter." So how can it be claimed, on the contrary, that is not recognition of the Pope?

Cardinal Billot, and also Fr. Hunter cited on the other thread, explains that this cannot be - if Pope Francis was outside the Church, then so would the whole ecclesia docens also be, for they profess communion with him, which however is impossible.

Therefore, the reverse must be true, since all of them profess communion with him, he must be inside the Church. And therefore, their acceptance of him is an infallible sign and effect of the validity of his election.

As Fr. Hunter says, in the practical order, it suffices us to know that "if the bishops agree in recognizing a man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of bishops would be separated from their head, and the divine constitution of the Church would be ruined".

Why so much interest in trying to defeat sedevacantism, Sean, if it's so useless and impossible an idea?

Mith, even under your view, there is no bishop with ordinary jurisdiction (who comprise the ecclesia docens) who doesn't pray in communion with Pope Francis. I take it you admit this? Please tell us, if you believe otherwise, which bishops do not.

Secondly, please tell us, what is the actual profession that recognizes a man as Pontiff, if it is not the act of praying for him as Pope? Please cite some authority for the latter. From Pope Benedict XIV's statement, it seems fairly evident that not only is this act an express profession of such a recognition, but it is also "the chief and most glorious form of communion".

1st Argument by Jimmy Akin:
According to many current sedevacantists, Pius XII was the last valid pope. He died in 1958, which was 53 years ago.

Here is where the argument gets interesting: In order to be pope, under current canon law, one must be elected by the college of cardinals.

False.  This falsehood should no longer be making the rounds on CI.  Anyone who has been paying attention knows it to be refuted by pre-V2 theologians (e.g. Cardinal Journet).  Canon law requires the Cardinals to elect the pope but it is also an accepted legal principal that when the law is impeding the purpose for which it was created, it has no force.

So, Sean Johnson, Jimmy Akins' argument is not only assailable, it holds no water whatsoever.  It is a junk argument.

And Mith seems to leave out that Pope Benedict XIV clearly described for us that "una cuм" is really "an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter." So how can it be claimed, on the contrary, that is not recognition of the Pope?

You obviously do not understand what submission means.  Recognition is worthless if it is not accompanied by submission.  Pope Innocent didn't require recognition, he required submission.  Without it you are damned.