Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: Conclavism Revisited  (Read 4457 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15060
  • Reputation: +10006/-3162
  • Gender: Male
Conclavism Revisited
« on: June 02, 2022, 09:40:20 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Of all the forms of sedevacantism, conclavism (ie., electing a pope) is the red headed stepchild, and yet for the radicalness of this avenue, there is a certain attractive logic to it, inasmuch as it solves the “indefinite interregnum” issue.

    In the course of working out my Vigano fantasy (ie., a very small minority group of Roman bishops/cardinals with ordinary jurisdiction declare the fact of Francis’s heresy, and in a subsequent declaration, announce that God has deposed him), the issue of convening a conclave arises.

    My question is: What are the minimal requirements for a legitimate conclave? Must a certain number of cardinals participate?  If so, can necessity dispense with the canonical requirements (as Msgr. Benson does that n his book Lord of the World)?  Would today’s state of necessity justify similar recourse?  How far can this principle be carried (eg., Vigano elected by a handful of Romans vs Pope Michael elected by his mom)?

    More issues: In Lord of the World, the hierarchy survived, though whittled down to a few (who therefore retained jurisdiction), but some sedes declare the entire hierarchy deposed (and therefore ordinary jurisdiction and formal apostolicity vanished with it).  

    Is conclavism a solution for such as these?  What about electing another St. Pius X (who’s orthodoxy and traditionalism is perfect in every way, but who’s election is nevertheless viewed as illegitimate because of the absence of jurisdiction)?

    Is conclavism ultimately the only solution to the present crisis (ie., which presumes the present conciliarists will never convert/revert to real Catholicism), or is it no solution at all, so long as there’s someone in Rome generally recognized as pope (and would really only have the effect of cleaving the Church with another schism)?

    So back to the question:

    1) What are the requirements for a valid conclave;

    2) To what degree can necessity dispense from these?

    3) Who would and would not be happy with such a solution?
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 32669
    • Reputation: +28929/-581
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Conclavism Revisited
    « Reply #1 on: June 02, 2022, 10:22:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 02, 2022, 09:40:20 AM
    So back to the question:

    1) What are the requirements for a valid conclave;

    2) To what degree can necessity dispense from these?

    3) Who would and would not be happy with such a solution?

    I don't think anyone can answer your questions with any authority, finality, or security. If they could, you could take the answers and act on them -- and you, Sean Johnson (and the priests/bishops you work with) would solve the Crisis in the Church. Deo Gratias!

    But as I've said many times, this Crisis won't be undone so easily. My personal opinion is that the Crisis in the Church is akin to a supernatural mystery, that only God can personally untangle or solve. As evidence for my opinion: I present to you the last 52 years of Crisis. We've had holy priests/bishops, learned priests/bishops, both in and out of the Roman authority structure, and NO ONE has been able to slay the dragon. I conclude it is because said dragon is not slayable by a man. And I think that's a pretty logical conclusion, if I do say so myself.

    See my thread about the "One Ring". There is no "One Ring" in Tradition, before whose power all are forced to obey OR fall into malice/bad will. No, we just have a bunch of MINOR "rings of power" -- the Ring of Lefebvre whose "power" (let's say the virtues and reputation of the man +Lefebvre: personal charm, truth, logic, prudence, etc.) built up the SSPX. The Ring of Simplicity which spawned many Sede groups. The Ring of Peter which attracts many souls to the FSSP and Indult groups. And so on. 

    What we need is the ONE RING which will attract every Catholic of Good Will and compel them to join up. A Ring that will answer ALL the questions and doubts. So far that Ring has proven to be elusive, if it even exists yet. Only God can bring said Ring to the table.

    52 years of evidence is a lot of evidence. Many things have been tried during that time. Dare I say *everything* has been tried during that time?

    And as +Williamson points out, solutions like +Lefebvre (a well known, holy, orthodox bishop who established himself before the Crisis, holding Truth and Authority together by force of his personality) is no longer possible -- those who lived and worked in the age of +Lefebvre are all dead. By that I mean "those who served the Church with honor and distinction in the 1950's". Therefore all the bishops and Trad personalities alive today were at least THEOLOGICALLY TRAINED and did all their PRIESTLY WORK after the Crisis, even if they weren't physically born after 1970.

    A man born in 1970 would be 52 years old today. Not exactly a wet-behind-the-ears spring chicken! But that is nothing; what really matters are your first memories, after 5 years old. So a man born in 1965 would have his first memories either of the Novus Ordo or a Trad chapel somewhere. And a man born in 1965 would be 57 today -- 8 years away from RETIREMENT AGE. He would already qualify for membership in the AARP.
    Logged
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    Paypal donations: matthew@chantcd.com

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 14706
    • Reputation: +6059/-904
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Conclavism Revisited
    « Reply #2 on: June 02, 2022, 10:45:37 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 02, 2022, 09:40:20 AM
    1) What are the requirements for a valid conclave;

    2) To what degree can necessity dispense from these?

    3) Who would and would not be happy with such a solution?
    #1, My guess is that aside from the death or resignation of the pope, assembling a conclave to elect a pope means a new requirement must be established - is that even possible?
    #2, Any dispensation(s) would need to be based on other precedents that have been set under similar circuмstances in the Church's history....unless that is taken care of in item #1.
    #3, I think a lot more people would be unhappy than happy.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Cryptinox

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1168
    • Reputation: +251/-92
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Conclavism Revisited
    « Reply #3 on: June 02, 2022, 10:59:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • If you aren't sedeprivationist but still a sede, what would make most sense would just be a Catholic male accepting the papacy without an election. After all, Vacantis Apostolicas Sedis forbids anyone but the Cardinals from holding a conclave. If you are totalist, you have to maintain all the Cardinals are gone. Given that God doesn't demand the impossible and the faithful aren't bound by private revelations, it would make sense for someone accepting the papacy without an election being sufficient as that is the only thing in Vacantis Apostolicas Sedis that is possible to obey. (Not saying this is true for sure but it is the most consistent position to take if you are a totalist)
    Logged
    I recant many opinions on the crisis in the Church and moral theology that I have espoused on here from at least 2019-2021 don't take my postings from that time as well as 2022 possibly too seriously.

    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12489
    • Reputation: +8270/-1581
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Conclavism Revisited
    « Reply #4 on: June 02, 2022, 11:25:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • What is a "totalist"?  In context I can guess, but would appreciate an "official" definition.

    This stuff is getting as convoluted as sorting out the 32,000 sects of Protestantism, a corollary of "opinions are like … um… noses; everybody has one."
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46551
    • Reputation: +27415/-5066
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Conclavism Revisited
    « Reply #5 on: June 02, 2022, 11:34:44 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on June 02, 2022, 09:40:20 AM
    Of all the forms of sedevacantism, conclavism (ie., electing a pope) is the red headed stepchild, and yet for the radicalness of this avenue, there is a certain attractive logic to it, inasmuch as it solves the “indefinite interregnum” issue.

    In the course of working out my Vigano fantasy (ie., a very small minority group of Roman bishops/cardinals with ordinary jurisdiction declare the fact of Francis’s heresy, and in a subsequent declaration, announce that God has deposed him), the issue of convening a conclave arises.

    Sure, but it's not really a problem limited to SVism, as you admit that it's part of our fantasy as well.  With the Cajetan / John of St. Thomas position, you need to come up with some mechanism whereby Bergoglio would be declared deposed in ADDITION to then subsequently covening a conclave.  With St. Robert Bellarmine position (taken by most SVs), you only technically need to convene a conclave, since the See would be vacant on its own.

    In any case, this is why St. Robert took his position.  No authority can actually judge a Pope, so there's no competent authority that can judge a Pope guilty of heresy and to have left the Church, since until the declaration he'd still be the pope.  It's a real problem for Cajetan and John of St. Thomas.  Of course, Sisco & Salza spent a large part of their tome trying to twist St. Robert into basially having the same opinion as Cajetan (even though St. Robert explicitly rejects it).

    Let's say that 50 Cardinals believed the See vacant.  What happens if the rest of the Cardinals don't agree and of course the Pope refuses to accept that judgment?

    As for the requirements for a legitimate conclave in such a scenario, that's a very sticky question, which gets more sticky if the illegitimate pope appointed most of the Cardinals.

    I believe this is a mess that only God's intervention will fix.
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46551
    • Reputation: +27415/-5066
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Conclavism Revisited
    « Reply #6 on: June 02, 2022, 11:40:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Under normal circuмstances, a legitimate conclave has to be empowered by the Pope while he's still alive, at least implicitly by his appointing Cardinals.  There would be nothing stopping a Pope from abolishing the college of Cardinals and determine some other mechanism for electing the next Pope.  He could likely even designate his successor by name.

    I believe that it's customarily the Dean of the College of Cardinals who convenes a conclave after the death of a pope.  But in the case of someone actually occupying the See of Peter (materially), I doubt you'd get a unanimity of Cardinals agreeing that the See is vacant ... ESPECIALLY now that nearly all of them are Modernists.

    There's no solution here except when God decides to intervene and fix this mess.
    Logged

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1485/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Conclavism Revisited
    « Reply #7 on: June 02, 2022, 04:43:43 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • A conclave is a specific type of election.  There isn't even any divinely instituted requirement that a pope be elected never mind by a college of Cardinals, never mind by a a conclave of the Cardinals.  There is a tradition that the first couple of successors of Peter were designated by Peter, himself.  The only requirement is that the candidate be a Catholic male who is not otherwise prevented from entering the clerical state (maybe because he is married with young children).  There is no notion of validity as far as how a candidate is selected.  The proper term is legitimacy.  But a candidate is considered legitimate if he is a Catholic male and is capable of entering the clerical state and the Roman clergy accept his candidacy/claim.  Even if all the other rules specified by the latest papal docuмent concerning papal elections are violated, if the Roman clergy accept the candidate peacefully, then the candidate is in fact the pope.  The history of papal elections is full of scandal.  The papacy has actually been bought from time to time.  But even in those cases, the acceptance of the Roman clergy was considered as legitimizing the election.  As long as the candidate is Catholic and either already is a cleric or at least willing to enter the clerical state, then he would be pope.  If necessary, he would have to agree to be ordained and/or consecrated.  That is important since arguably the Novus Ordo has invalid orders.  So any scenario that involves someone attached to the Novus Ordo would have to include ordination/consecration.  And of course, the candidate must be Catholic.  The Novus Ordo is objectively a non-Catholic sect.  So the candidate would have to renounce the Novus Ordo.  I don't see Vigano as going to those lengths.  He may think V2 is a disaster but I don't think he will ever admit that his consecration is doubtful.  He has too much invested in that.
    Logged

    Offline bodeens

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1513
    • Reputation: +804/-160
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Conclavism Revisited
    « Reply #8 on: June 02, 2022, 06:43:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Clemens Maria on June 02, 2022, 04:43:43 PM
    A conclave is a specific type of election.  There isn't even any divinely instituted requirement that a pope be elected never mind by a college of Cardinals, never mind by a a conclave of the Cardinals.  There is a tradition that the first couple of successors of Peter were designated by Peter, himself.  The only requirement is that the candidate be a Catholic male who is not otherwise prevented from entering the clerical state (maybe because he is married with young children).  There is no notion of validity as far as how a candidate is selected.  The proper term is legitimacy.  But a candidate is considered legitimate if he is a Catholic male and is capable of entering the clerical state and the Roman clergy accept his candidacy/claim.  Even if all the other rules specified by the latest papal docuмent concerning papal elections are violated, if the Roman clergy accept the candidate peacefully, then the candidate is in fact the pope.  The history of papal elections is full of scandal.  The papacy has actually been bought from time to time.  But even in those cases, the acceptance of the Roman clergy was considered as legitimizing the election.  As long as the candidate is Catholic and either already is a cleric or at least willing to enter the clerical state, then he would be pope.  If necessary, he would have to agree to be ordained and/or consecrated.  That is important since arguably the Novus Ordo has invalid orders.  So any scenario that involves someone attached to the Novus Ordo would have to include ordination/consecration.  And of course, the candidate must be Catholic.  The Novus Ordo is objectively a non-Catholic sect.  So the candidate would have to renounce the Novus Ordo.  I don't see Vigano as going to those lengths.  He may think V2 is a disaster but I don't think he will ever admit that his consecration is doubtful.  He has too much invested in that.
    Yes, you highlight the need for humility in this situation... If Vigano asked +ABL line to conditionally consecrate him we would be in the game (anyone remotely serious would accept him) but I think TPTB will kill Vigano and  have probably told him as much if he did this. There is no way Francis hasn't thought about Vigano accepting orders from a non NO line... The hidden background information is really the meat of his decision making in this, he may in fact be humble enough to accept conditional consecration but know he will be murdered and is biding his time or something. Who knows, but time for this particular solution is running out.
    Logged
    Regard all of my posts as unfounded slander, heresy, theologically specious etc
    I accept Church teaching on Implicit Baptism of Desire.
    Francis is Pope.
    NO is a good Mass.
    Not an ironic sig.

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46551
    • Reputation: +27415/-5066
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Conclavism Revisited
    « Reply #9 on: June 02, 2022, 10:19:39 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: bodeens on June 02, 2022, 06:43:32 PM
    [Vigano] may in fact be humble enough to accept conditional consecration ...

    I think he is.  He was humble enough to admit that he has been wrong to offer the NOM for all these years and was wrong about Vatican II and the entire NewChurch.  So in my mind this wouldn't be too much of a stretch.
    Logged

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2037/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Conclavism Revisited
    « Reply #10 on: June 02, 2022, 10:40:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on June 02, 2022, 10:19:39 PM
    I think he is.  He was humble enough to admit that he has been wrong to offer the NOM for all these years and was wrong about Vatican II and the entire NewChurch.  So in my mind this wouldn't be too much of a stretch.
    Is he humble enough to admit he was wrong to help the "Father of the Vaccine" get elected?
    Logged
    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2037/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Conclavism Revisited
    « Reply #11 on: June 02, 2022, 11:13:30 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: Miser Peccator on June 02, 2022, 10:40:16 PM
    Is he humble enough to admit he was wrong to help the "Father of the Vaccine" get elected?

    Instead of just "downvoting" please share evidence.

    The reality is:  No.  He is not sorry.

    "How do you know he's not sorry? That's an internal forum issue..."

    How do we know?

    Easy:  Because he is still supporting Trump.  He even lies to cover for him.

    Trump is still pushing the Trump-juice and wants everyone including children and babies to "get shot",

    and Vigano is still supporting mass murderer Trump.



    Logged
    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline Dingbat

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 173
    • Reputation: +111/-16
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Conclavism Revisited
    « Reply #12 on: June 02, 2022, 11:25:25 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Miser Peccator on June 02, 2022, 11:13:30 PM
    Instead of just "downvoting" please share evidence.

    The reality is:  No.  He is not sorry.

    "How do you know he's not sorry? That's an internal forum issue..."

    How do we know?

    Easy:  Because he is still supporting Trump.  He even lies to cover for him.

    Trump is still pushing the Trump-juice and wants everyone including children and babies to "get shot",

    and Vigano is still supporting mass murderer Trump.
    Sorry Miser, that was me. I do not support Trump and do think it is silly for Vigano to say that none of this would have happened under him. However, I think there are far more wicked people out there that we could be directing our anger towards, rather than Vigano. I'm not convinced that he is anything other than misguided on this issue really. He does seem to be bearing good fruit in other areas too. Of course nobody is perfect and there is a lot of confusion right now. People are going to mess up. I don't understand why we have to jump on those who are at least apparently trying to stand up for something. Seems like it might be better to just pray for him in this case that he may follow the truth wherever it may lead. 
    Logged

    Offline Miser Peccator

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4351
    • Reputation: +2037/-458
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Conclavism Revisited
    « Reply #13 on: June 02, 2022, 11:34:33 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!3
    • Quote from: Dingbat on June 02, 2022, 11:25:25 PM
    Sorry Miser, that was me. I do not support Trump and do think it is silly for Vigano to say that none of this would have happened under him. However, I think there are far more wicked people out there that we could be directing our anger towards, rather than Vigano. I'm not convinced that he is anything other than misguided on this issue really. He does seem to be bearing good fruit in other areas too. Of course nobody is perfect and there is a lot of confusion right now. People are going to mess up. I don't understand why we have to jump on those who are at least apparently trying to stand up for something. Seems like it might be better to just pray for him in this case that he may follow the truth wherever it may lead.

    This is farrrr bigger than just "not being perfect".

    Vigano helped a mass murderer get elected.

    Instead of admitting his mistake and calling out the mass murderer

    Vigano is still supporting the mass murderer.

    "There are far more wicked people..."

    What level of wickedness are you willing to support?

    Do you support pro-abortion candidates?

    That would be a grave sin.

    Supporting mass murderer Trump is no less sinful.



    Logged
    I exposed AB Vigano's public meetings with Crowleyan Satanist Dugin so I ask protection on myself family friends priest, under the Blood of Jesus Christ and mantle of the Blessed Virgin Mary! If harm comes to any of us may that embolden the faithful to speak out all the more so Catholics are not deceived.



    [fon

    Offline bodeens

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1513
    • Reputation: +804/-160
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Conclavism Revisited
    « Reply #14 on: June 03, 2022, 01:41:00 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Miser Peccator on June 02, 2022, 11:34:33 PM
    Do you support pro-abortion candidates?
    This is a false dichotomy that traps Dingbat into saying she is pro-abortion if she supports or thinks Vigano may be right about some things. This is outright uncharitable. Nobody here supports abortion. This is the kind of textbook consensus breaking that was leaked by Snowden. Are you interested or otherwise invested in keeping SV/SP/RnR/Indult separated? We agree on many things but this is your most bizarre and unnuanced position. 

    Nobody thinks this solution is ideal but we absolutely need a pope.
    Logged
    Regard all of my posts as unfounded slander, heresy, theologically specious etc
    I accept Church teaching on Implicit Baptism of Desire.
    Francis is Pope.
    NO is a good Mass.
    Not an ironic sig.
    Pages: [1] 2 3
    « previous next »