John Lane posted the following on another forum:

Papal elections in extraordinary circuмstances

Cardinal Louis Billot S.J., generally regarded as the greatest theologian of the twentieth century, on the question of Papal elections in extraordinary circuмstances.

"The legitimate election of a pontiff today depends de facto on pontifical law alone, as is easily demonstrated by the obvious argument that the law regulating the election was promulgated by the supreme pontiffs. Therefore, until such time as it is abrogated by the pontiff himself, it remains in force and there is no power in the Church, even when the See is vacant, by which it can be changed. 'For the pope ordains those things which relate to the election and changes and restricts the manner of the election in such a way that any other manner would be invalid. In the Church, however, or in a council, this power does not reside in the absence of a pope, whence it arises that even the entire Church cannot authoritatively change a law made by the pope so that, for instance, true and indubitable cardinals would not be necessary for the election or so that one who had been elected by fewer than two thirds of the cardinals might be pope. But, on the other hand, the pope is perfectly capable of ordaining this..., since it belongs to the same person to abolish who can authoritatively impose in all matters of positive law'. (Cajetan, Tract.1 de auctoritate Papae et Concilii, c.13.) And therefore, if, for example, the See had chanced to fall vacant during the Vatican Council, a legitimate election could not have been conducted by the Fathers of the Council, but only by the usual electors, as was even expressly laid down in a special bull by Pius IX.

"There can, therefore, be only a hypothetical question, namely whether any authority besides the pontifical authority might in any circuмstances be able to assign the conditions of an election. In this matter, indeed, no doubt is raised concerning the authority of an oecuмenical council which cannot be distinguished from pontifical power, since it is of the nature of oecuмenical decrees that they are confirmed by the pontiff. Hence there is matter for doubt only in the case of some lower authority. But in all such cases the conclusion must be negative, since the primacy, for himself and his successors, was granted to Peter alone, and to him alone, therefore, i.e. to the supreme pontiff alone, does it belong to determine the mode of transmission of the power which is to be passed on and, consequently, the mode of the election by which this transmission takes place.

"Any law, moreover, related to the order of the universal Church, exceeds by its very nature the scope of any power less than the supreme power. But the election of the supreme bishop pertains without doubt to the order of the universal Church. It is, therefore, reserved, by its very nature to the determination of him to whom the care of the entire community was committed by Christ. And indeed it is incontrovertible that these conclusions are valid in normal circuмstances. Let us now investigate, nevertheless, how the law would apply if perchance an extraordinary situation were to arise in which it was necessary to proceed to the election of a pontiff while it was no longer possible to comply with the conditions determined by previous pontifical law; as some think was the case at the time of the Great Schism in the election of Martin V.

"Well, once we grant the occurrence of such circuмstances, it is to be admitted without difficulty that the power of election would devolve upon a general council. For the natural law itself prescribes that in such cases the attribute of a superior power descends, by way of devolution, to the power immediately below insofar as it is indispensably necessary for the survival of the society and for the avoidance of the tribulations of extreme lack. 'In case of doubt, however (e.g. when it is unknown if someone be a true cardinal or when the pope is dead or uncertain, as seems to have happened at the time of the Great Schism which began under Urban VI), it is to be affirmed that the power to apply the papacy to a person (the due requirements having been complied with) resides in the Church of God. And then by way of devolution it is seen that this power descends to the universal Church, since the electors determined by the pope do not exist' (Cajetan, ibidem). This, I say, is understood without difficulty if the occurrence of the case be admitted. But whether, in fact the case has ever occurred is a completely different question. For indeed it is now held as more or less certain among learned men that the election of Martin V was not done on the private authority of the Council of Constance, but by faculties expressly granted by the legitimate Pontiff Gregory XII before he had renounced the papacy, so that Cardinal Franzelin correctly and appropriately says: that there is 'reason for us with humble praise to wonder at the providence of Christ the King, the spouse and head of the Church, by which He calmed those huge crowds of men driven and sustained by covetousness and ignorance, with all laws being observed to the letter; most clearly demonstrating that the indefectibility of the rock upon which He built His Church, so that the gates of Hell would not prevail against Her, is supported not by human effort, but by the divine fidelity in promises and omnipotence in government' (Franzelin loc. cit.)." (Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, translated by John S. Daly.)

Yours in Christ our Risen King,
John Lane.

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.

John Daly wrote:

I am an Englishman living in France, father of six, soon to be seven, children, a sedevacantist since 1983 and a translator (French and Latin) by profession.

Here now is how I understand this issue of Church law, natural law and divine law in the case of the extinction of all designated electors (a hypothesis which all agree is not contrary to any known divine promise):

I should reply, I think, that it is impossible for the Church by a positive disposition of human law to frustrate her own divine constitution. Hence any positive law of the Church is understood as qualified by the demands of her divine constitution in case of absolute conflict such as might supervene.

If the Church declares, by a law ("L") that only persons in category A can validly perform a certain act ("Z") and the members of category A all cease to exist, we must first distinguish whether the Church's law L was restricting a power which persons outside category A would normally possess in the absence of this limitation or whether she was giving a power which in the absence of her law L no one would normally have. We must also consider whether divine law or her divine constitution play a relevant part.

For instance, if a law of the Church delegates to certain persons the power to dispense from vows and those persons cease to exist, the result is that no one can now dispense from vows. This may appear inconvenient, but only because we are used to having people who can dispense from vows in some cases. In fact God might have made His Church in all other respects the same but without the power to dispense from vows (promises made to Him) and no one would have thought the omission surprising.

Somewhat differently, if the Church declares that only persons elected by the other Carmelites become superiors of the Carmelites, but then there is a plague and all Carmelites die except one who is not a superior, canon law itself makes it clear that all the powers and privileges of Carmelites devolve upon the one survivor...

The government of the Church herself, on the other hand, depends upon divine mission passing down from the apostles. If per impossibile the mission dried up altogether, it could not devolve upon others to whom it had not been transmitted.

But the power to elect the supreme head of the Church is a curious case. It is a power in the Church by divine origin and as a result of divine mission, of which the Church can designate the channel, but which she cannot limit so absolutely as to frustrate her own divine constitution. As long as a validly named Catholic cardinal survives, no election by another could be valid, but when the designated source dries up (the contrary is not guaranteed because the designation of the electors is not divine) the power can and must devolve in accordance with the divine constitution of the Church where there is no positive law to decide.

In addition to epikeia, theologians also note the case of automatic cessation of a law when it is incapable of securing its end. I suspect that Billot meant that if all cardinals vanished, the law of the Church restricting valid elections to them would remain "on the books" but would be in temporary abeyance as far as any binding force was concerned. The natural law and the Church's divine constitution would step in and enable true representataives of the Roman Church to elect validly.

CM,

I am happy that you are reading from these sources.  From all appearances all Cardinals that were lawfully appointed are deceased.  

By the principle of devolution, the right of election would return to the Roman Clergy and the neighboring bishops of Rome.  In the event that electors could not be found or were disputed, then a general council could be called to determine who the electors were, or to elect a pope directly.

The trouble with all of this is that no one since this crisis began has looked at this crisis with the view of ending it.  +Lefebvre was moving in that direction in the 1980's, but for some reason a different course of action was taken.  

We do know by Faith that the entire hierarchy cannot fail and that the diocese of Rome cannot fall away into heresy.  In our present situation, if Catholics are to act to end this crisis, other than prayer, the only course of action is to locate the remaining members of the hierarchy and the Roman clergy.

This crisis can only end with those who have the mission from God to end it.  The rest of us can pray and plead with those sent by God, but are otherwise sheep waiting for our lawful shepherds to act.  

Very interesting reading. My own ideas are identical to the ones of St Bellarmine in this thread.

Whether I will take this theological argument and use it to justify sedevacantism at this stage remains to be seen. I do think that if the traditionalist bishops elected a pope, that the pope would be valid, and that the crisis would be over. Until they do that, we only have one man claiming to be pope, and we assume we should accept him, but what he does places doubts in our minds.

Quote from: MyrnaM

All we really should believe is:

Divine Providence can provide.

Divine Providence did provide.

Divine Providence will provide.

Very true Myrna, but we may also add that He has provided already.  He has provided the Church with a hierarchy and the clergy of Rome, who at any time can end this crisis.  

Are you a sedeprivationist then?

Two points,

1. All these theologians (Billot, St. Robert etc) taught the indefectibility of the Roman Church as a particular Church - namely, that even in an interregnum the Roman clergy will not completely defect or die. The Roman Church, even in an interregnum, fulfills its role as Mother and Mistress of all churches in the universal Church. She is even then the indefectible foundation and the principle of unity, and all Catholics are bound to remain in communion with Her. Msgr. Fenton proves this in depth, with several authorities cited.

2. Second, all are agreed in saying that, ordinarily, after the Cardinals, the right of election indeed belongs to these said Roman clergy. In an extraordinary case, when there are different claims about who the lawful electors are, the power to designate the Pontiff does devolve to the universal Church. But these writers are clear that by that they mean a Council of the world's Ordinaries. It is to them that judgment passes. It seems to me that this would be the case today only if it were proven that there were no more Cardinals, and in our case, no Roman clergy either, or at least that it was impossible to determine who they are.

Who are the Roman clergy who cling to the doctrines of the Catholic Church?  We would need names in order to invite them to elect a truly Catholic pope.  But if we can't name any of the Roman clergy can anyone name an ordinary who still clings to the doctrines of the Church?  I would think that at the very least an ordinary who truly holds the doctrines of the Church and who has a duty to care for souls would at least publicly denounce the heresies of Francis.  So can anyone name such an ordinary?  I will interpret silence as being an answer in the negative.

Quote from: Clemens Maria

Quote from: Nishant

Two points,

1. All these theologians (Billot, St. Robert etc) taught the indefectibility of the Roman Church as a particular Church - namely, that even in an interregnum the Roman clergy will not completely defect or die. The Roman Church, even in an interregnum, fulfills its role as Mother and Mistress of all churches in the universal Church. She is even then the indefectible foundation and the principle of unity, and all Catholics are bound to remain in communion with Her. Msgr. Fenton proves this in depth, with several authorities cited.

2. Second, all are agreed in saying that, ordinarily, after the Cardinals, the right of election indeed belongs to these said Roman clergy. In an extraordinary case, when there are different claims about who the lawful electors are, the power to designate the Pontiff does devolve to the universal Church. But these writers are clear that by that they mean a Council of the world's Ordinaries. It is to them that judgment passes. It seems to me that this would be the case today only if it were proven that there were no more Cardinals, and in our case, no Roman clergy either, or at least that it was impossible to determine who they are.

Who are the Roman clergy who cling to the doctrines of the Catholic Church?  We would need names in order to invite them to elect a truly Catholic pope.  But if we can't name any of the Roman clergy can anyone name an ordinary who still clings to the doctrines of the Church?  I would think that at the very least an ordinary who truly holds the doctrines of the Church and who has a duty to care for souls would at least publicly denounce the heresies of Francis.  So can anyone name such an ordinary?  I will interpret silence as being an answer in the negative.

No one has ever tried to seek them (the hierarchy and the Roman Clergy) out.  The entire resistance to the Conciliar church has always been based on retreating from the antipopes and maintaining the sacraments.  

The reason that you will not get an answer is because the faithful members of the hierarchy and Roman Clergy are in obscurity.  

Mithradylan wrote this on another forum:

Anyways, I came up with a very short(!) list of names who were at least not automatically excluded due to having been recorded saying something completely incompatible with the faith (as most who had information available fell into this unfortunate category).

So, it's not a list of "orthodox" ones, just a list of ones that aren't necessarily excluded from being orthodox. I didn't take notes, only names-- so I'm happy to be corrected on any of these names:

Ján Chryzostom Korec

Fiorenzo Angelini

Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir

Andrés Sapelak

Victorinus Youn Kong-hi

Arinze

Hilarion Capucci

Rifan should be on this list. As lamentable as his case is, I hardly think he could be called a heretic.

I think there is some question about Rifan.

According to this same source (http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/brifan.html) Fr. Rifan was consecrated in 2002 by Castrillón Hoyos, who is a priest (1952), but most probably not a bishop (1971). To me therefore Rifan's consecration is at least doubtful.

Lycobates, +Rifan was co-consecrated by one real bishop: +Rangel, who was consecrated by three bishops of the SSPX.

Bishop Rangel, who was for sure a real bishop, was co-consecrator. Fair enough, but this is not sufficient.
According to the rubrics the co-consecrators do not pronounce together with the consecrator the form of the sacrament (Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum, coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica).
Only the consecrator does so (Quo facto, Consecrator stans, deposita mitra dicit: and Deinde, extensis manibus ante pectus, dicit: in the singular).
Unless Bishop Rangel pronounced (against the rubrics as I have them) the words of the form together with the matter (extension of hands), after the Accipe Spiritum Sanctum, as would have done (but to no avail) Father Castrillón Hoyos, the sacrament remains at least doubtful, I am afraid.
And for all practical purposes a doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all.

Actually Pius XII in his constitution "Episcopalis Consecrationis" (see link here http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-xii_apc_19441130_episcopali-consecrationis_lt.html) says that from then on the other 2 bishops are really co-consecrator and must say the form and impose the hands with the intention of performing the sacrament.

Thank you very much for this link. It is very important.
This would radically change the matter, at least from 1944 onwards, when all assisting bishops, also outside Rome, would have started to apply this praxis of pronouncing the form of the sacrament together with the Consecrator.
The rubrics of the Pontifical would, I suppose, have been changed accordingly, too, as the Pope prescribes at the end of his constitution, but those new editions would not necessarily be available, and used, everywhere, not even today.
(I know that for some of the Thuc-consecrations a Pontifical of 1908 was used, but here there was only one consecrating bishop anyway.
My own library's copy is much older, 1765, and most online versions I know of do not have the change of 1944 either).

This being the case one should examine what was done precisely in Fr. Rifan's case (and others', too), which edition was used and which practice applied.
If Bishop Rangel pronounced the form while imposing (or extending) his hands, the consecration would be valid.

But even if he is a valid bishop he concelebrated the NO "Mass" which is a sacrilege.  I would say the same about Arinze.  I don't know about the others but anyone who is in good standing in the Conciliar Sect has celebrated the new "Mass".  So unless you are a Conciliarist or a Conciliarist-sympathizer, I don't see how you are going to find a Catholic bishop in the Conciliar Sect who is still a member of the Catholic Church.  There might be some but nobody knows who they are and it is not necessary in an absolute sense to find them.  Epikeia would apply in this case.  Finding these phantom bishops would be too difficult and would delay the restoration of the papacy which delay could be the cause of the loss of many souls.