Papal Election by Father Ricossa
Introduction
This lengthy study (originally published in Sodalitium) reviews Bp. Mark Pivarunas CMRI’s 2002 Pro grege letter, specifically his answer to Fr. Peter Scott (SSPX) who claims that forty-plus years without a pope would “destroy the visibility of the Church and the possibility of a future canonical election.” To defend sedevacantism, Pivarunas cites Cajetan—via Msgr. Charles Journet—arguing that, if the cardinals defect, papal election devolves upon the “universal Church.” The anonymous author accepts Pivarunas’ proof that the Holy See is vacant but shows that “universal Church” in Cajetan means an imperfect general council of bishops holding ordinary jurisdiction. Because strict (total) sedevacantism concedes no such bishops today, only the Cassiciacum (material-formal) thesis can preserve apostolic succession and a future election.
Key Quotes
“The universal Church and the Council are one and the same… distinguished only as represented and representative.”
“It is impossible for the Church to be left without a Pope and without the power to elect a Pope.”
“Titular bishops or those consecrated without papal mandate, lacking jurisdiction, are excluded from any papal election—even in extraordinary circumstances.”
“Traditionalists who hand the papacy over to laymen or priests unwittingly adopt the modernist error of a democratic Church.”
“According to the Thesis, the cardinals and residential bishops created by a merely material pope retain the potentia to elect, should they return to the public profession of the Faith.”
Key Messages
Two SSPX Objections Restated
Fr. Scott repeats Abp. Lefebvre’s twin charges: a decades-long interregnum contradicts indefectibility, and the absence of lawful electors makes any future conclave impossible.Historical Interregna Do Not Refute Sedevacantism
Pivarunas answers the first point with Fr. E. J. O’Reilly’s judgment on the Western Schism: even if opinions differ about legitimacy, a prolonged vacancy per se would not undermine Christ’s promises.Who Is the “Universal Church”?
Cajetan equates the “universal Church” with an imperfect general council composed of bishops and prelates with jurisdiction. Canon 223 (1917 Code) confirms this juridical criterion: cardinals, patriarchs, residential bishops, and Abbots-nullius have a deliberative vote because they govern portions of the flock.Strict Sedevacantism Lacks Electors
If all current residential bishops were appointed by anti-popes, embrace Vatican II errors, or remain in communion with John Paul II, they either lack valid office or have forfeited it through heresy. Bishops consecrated without papal mandate possess no jurisdiction; titular bishops may even be excluded from a council. Consequently, strict sedevacantism cannot identify a single lawful elector, much less convene a conclave.Cassiciacum Thesis Preserves Potency of Election
Fr. Guérard des Lauriers’ material-formal solution maintains that conciliar occupants and the hierarchy they constitute remain materially in office. Thus cardinals and residential bishops still exist in potentia as electors; once they abjure error, or the claimant abjures and thereby receives the form, apostolic succession revives without rupture.Duty of the Faithful
Catholics must safeguard the Faith, refuse the counterfeit conciliar authority, pray for the hierarchy’s conversion, and avoid lay-run “conclavist” elections that violate divine and ecclesiastical law.
Conclusion
From a sedevacantist standpoint, the article concedes Msgr. Pivarunas’ demonstration of a vacant Holy See yet exposes the Achilles’ heel of total sedevacantism: it cannot show where the divinely guaranteed power of election resides. By revisiting Cajetan, Journet, canon law, and magisterial decrees, the author proves that only prelates possessing jurisdiction may elect, and that this juridical substrate survives today solely on a material level. Hence the Cassiciacum Thesis uniquely upholds indefectibility, apostolic succession, and future restoration, while keeping Catholics from the twin errors of conciliar submission and reckless “do-it-yourself” conclaves.
Introduction
This lengthy study (originally published in Sodalitium) reviews Bp. Mark Pivarunas CMRI’s 2002 Pro grege letter, specifically his answer to Fr. Peter Scott (SSPX) who claims that forty-plus years without a pope would “destroy the visibility of the Church and the possibility of a future canonical election.” To defend sedevacantism, Pivarunas cites Cajetan—via Msgr. Charles Journet—arguing that, if the cardinals defect, papal election devolves upon the “universal Church.” The anonymous author accepts Pivarunas’ proof that the Holy See is vacant but shows that “universal Church” in Cajetan means an imperfect general council of bishops holding ordinary jurisdiction. Because strict (total) sedevacantism concedes no such bishops today, only the Cassiciacum (material-formal) thesis can preserve apostolic succession and a future election.
Key Quotes
“The universal Church and the Council are one and the same… distinguished only as represented and representative.”
“It is impossible for the Church to be left without a Pope and without the power to elect a Pope.”
“Titular bishops or those consecrated without papal mandate, lacking jurisdiction, are excluded from any papal election—even in extraordinary circumstances.”
“Traditionalists who hand the papacy over to laymen or priests unwittingly adopt the modernist error of a democratic Church.”
“According to the Thesis, the cardinals and residential bishops created by a merely material pope retain the potentia to elect, should they return to the public profession of the Faith.”
Key Messages
Two SSPX Objections Restated
Fr. Scott repeats Abp. Lefebvre’s twin charges: a decades-long interregnum contradicts indefectibility, and the absence of lawful electors makes any future conclave impossible.Historical Interregna Do Not Refute Sedevacantism
Pivarunas answers the first point with Fr. E. J. O’Reilly’s judgment on the Western Schism: even if opinions differ about legitimacy, a prolonged vacancy per se would not undermine Christ’s promises.Who Is the “Universal Church”?
Cajetan equates the “universal Church” with an imperfect general council composed of bishops and prelates with jurisdiction. Canon 223 (1917 Code) confirms this juridical criterion: cardinals, patriarchs, residential bishops, and Abbots-nullius have a deliberative vote because they govern portions of the flock.Strict Sedevacantism Lacks Electors
If all current residential bishops were appointed by anti-popes, embrace Vatican II errors, or remain in communion with John Paul II, they either lack valid office or have forfeited it through heresy. Bishops consecrated without papal mandate possess no jurisdiction; titular bishops may even be excluded from a council. Consequently, strict sedevacantism cannot identify a single lawful elector, much less convene a conclave.Cassiciacum Thesis Preserves Potency of Election
Fr. Guérard des Lauriers’ material-formal solution maintains that conciliar occupants and the hierarchy they constitute remain materially in office. Thus cardinals and residential bishops still exist in potentia as electors; once they abjure error, or the claimant abjures and thereby receives the form, apostolic succession revives without rupture.Duty of the Faithful
Catholics must safeguard the Faith, refuse the counterfeit conciliar authority, pray for the hierarchy’s conversion, and avoid lay-run “conclavist” elections that violate divine and ecclesiastical law.
Conclusion
From a sedevacantist standpoint, the article concedes Msgr. Pivarunas’ demonstration of a vacant Holy See yet exposes the Achilles’ heel of total sedevacantism: it cannot show where the divinely guaranteed power of election resides. By revisiting Cajetan, Journet, canon law, and magisterial decrees, the author proves that only prelates possessing jurisdiction may elect, and that this juridical substrate survives today solely on a material level. Hence the Cassiciacum Thesis uniquely upholds indefectibility, apostolic succession, and future restoration, while keeping Catholics from the twin errors of conciliar submission and reckless “do-it-yourself” conclaves.
Introduction
This lengthy study (originally published in Sodalitium) reviews Bp. Mark Pivarunas CMRI’s 2002 Pro grege letter, specifically his answer to Fr. Peter Scott (SSPX) who claims that forty-plus years without a pope would “destroy the visibility of the Church and the possibility of a future canonical election.” To defend sedevacantism, Pivarunas cites Cajetan—via Msgr. Charles Journet—arguing that, if the cardinals defect, papal election devolves upon the “universal Church.” The anonymous author accepts Pivarunas’ proof that the Holy See is vacant but shows that “universal Church” in Cajetan means an imperfect general council of bishops holding ordinary jurisdiction. Because strict (total) sedevacantism concedes no such bishops today, only the Cassiciacum (material-formal) thesis can preserve apostolic succession and a future election.
Key Quotes
“The universal Church and the Council are one and the same… distinguished only as represented and representative.”
“It is impossible for the Church to be left without a Pope and without the power to elect a Pope.”
“Titular bishops or those consecrated without papal mandate, lacking jurisdiction, are excluded from any papal election—even in extraordinary circumstances.”
“Traditionalists who hand the papacy over to laymen or priests unwittingly adopt the modernist error of a democratic Church.”
“According to the Thesis, the cardinals and residential bishops created by a merely material pope retain the potentia to elect, should they return to the public profession of the Faith.”
Key Messages
Two SSPX Objections Restated
Fr. Scott repeats Abp. Lefebvre’s twin charges: a decades-long interregnum contradicts indefectibility, and the absence of lawful electors makes any future conclave impossible.Historical Interregna Do Not Refute Sedevacantism
Pivarunas answers the first point with Fr. E. J. O’Reilly’s judgment on the Western Schism: even if opinions differ about legitimacy, a prolonged vacancy per se would not undermine Christ’s promises.Who Is the “Universal Church”?
Cajetan equates the “universal Church” with an imperfect general council composed of bishops and prelates with jurisdiction. Canon 223 (1917 Code) confirms this juridical criterion: cardinals, patriarchs, residential bishops, and Abbots-nullius have a deliberative vote because they govern portions of the flock.Strict Sedevacantism Lacks Electors
If all current residential bishops were appointed by anti-popes, embrace Vatican II errors, or remain in communion with John Paul II, they either lack valid office or have forfeited it through heresy. Bishops consecrated without papal mandate possess no jurisdiction; titular bishops may even be excluded from a council. Consequently, strict sedevacantism cannot identify a single lawful elector, much less convene a conclave.Cassiciacum Thesis Preserves Potency of Election
Fr. Guérard des Lauriers’ material-formal solution maintains that conciliar occupants and the hierarchy they constitute remain materially in office. Thus cardinals and residential bishops still exist in potentia as electors; once they abjure error, or the claimant abjures and thereby receives the form, apostolic succession revives without rupture.Duty of the Faithful
Catholics must safeguard the Faith, refuse the counterfeit conciliar authority, pray for the hierarchy’s conversion, and avoid lay-run “conclavist” elections that violate divine and ecclesiastical law.
Conclusion
From a sedevacantist standpoint, the article concedes Msgr. Pivarunas’ demonstration of a vacant Holy See yet exposes the Achilles’ heel of total sedevacantism: it cannot show where the divinely guaranteed power of election resides. By revisiting Cajetan, Journet, canon law, and magisterial decrees, the author proves that only prelates possessing jurisdiction may elect, and that this juridical substrate survives today solely on a material level. Hence the Cassiciacum Thesis uniquely upholds indefectibility, apostolic succession, and future restoration, while keeping Catholics from the twin errors of conciliar submission and reckless “do-it-yourself” conclaves.