Is questioning the legitimacy of Francis’ pontificate falling into the

“sedevacantist error”?

Clearly not. But let us go by parts.

In the first place, what do those who question us with the query of our title mean by
“sedevacantist error”?i

Stated in simple words, it is said that the “sedevacantist error” occurs every time some
group of people, starting from a private judgment, refuses to recognize a Pope who
has been validly elected and peacefully accepted as such by the whole of the Churchii.

Very well, but… what is it meant when one speaks of a validly elected Pope, and what
exactly does the peaceful acceptance of a certain Pope by the whole of the Church
mean?

The question about the validity of the election of a Roman Pontiff refers to the
verification of objective and well-defined circumstances. To know if a specific pontiff
was or was not validly elected, it is enough to determine if the formal requirements
that the norms of the Church (canon law) establish for all papal elections were fully
respected in his particular election, for example: if the Papal election was made when
the See was effectively vacant (because the previous Pope died or because he resigned
validly), if the person elected could really occupy the charge or office of Pope (i.e., if
this was, in fact, a male –never a woman could validly be “Popess”–, Catholic –in full
communion with the Church of Christ–, etc.), if all the steps or stages of the election
procedure were properly fulfilled (with observance of the pertinent rules), etc.
Currently, the applicable norms for papal elections are found in the Apostolic
Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG), issued in 1996. Additionally, in the event
that the papal election takes place as a consequence, not of the death but of the
resignation of the previous pontiff, the requirements for the validity of such an act of
resignation are provided for in the Code of Canon Law (CCL), issued in 1983 (especially
in canons 124 § 1, 125, 126, 187, 188 and 332 § 2).

Does the foregoing mean that, every time a Roman Pontiff is elected, the faithful must
nervously and scrupulously undertake all kinds of inquiries aimed at elucidating
whether the applicable canonical norms were actually complied with? Of course not!
Let us bear in mind that the normal thing in the life of the Church is that papal
elections be valid, in accordance with canon law. In fact, in the history of the Catholic
Church, since her foundation, there have been much more than two hundred valid
pontificates, and only approximately forty invalid pontificates iii. This being the case,
inquiries into the (in)validity of a specific pontificate are only necessary (and morally
justified) when there are serious doubts about it.
Precisely at this point we come across the second question that we had left announced
a few paragraphs above, in relation to what the peaceful ecclesial acceptance of each
Pope in particular would mean. And the fact is that, obviously, if there are serious
doubts regarding the validity or legitimacy of a specific pontificate, it is because said
pontificate has not been peacefully accepted by the whole of the Church. So, if a
specific pontificate has been peacefully accepted by the whole of the Church (because
no serious doubts have arisen about its legitimacy), it is not possible for the faithful to
deploy canonical inquiries that could lead to the opposite conclusion (that is, to the
invalidity of the corresponding papal election).

It is precisely under this “argument” that, many times, all of us who question (or, as in
our case, flatly and openly deny) the validity of Francis’ pontificate are challenged. This
“argument” is linked to the doctrine of pacifica universalis ecclesiae adhaesio (peaceful
and universal acceptance of the Church), and our “adversaries”, especially Robert
Siscoe and John Salza, develop it like this:

“The doctrine of the pacifica universalis ecclesiae adhaesio indicates that the fact that
the election of a certain Pope is not immediately challenged (or, contrario sensu, is
accepted by the Church as a whole, under the criterion of a “moral” and not
necessarily “mathematical” unanimity), at the time such an election becomes known, it
is an infallible sign that all the canonical conditions necessary for its validity have been
fulfilled. As Francis’ election was not immediately challenged (contrario sensu, it was
accepted by the Church as a whole, by “moral” unanimity), it must be understood that
said election was necessarily valid”.

Before giving a concrete answer to this “argument”, let us dwell on the fact that the
doctrine of the pacifica universalis ecclesiae adhaesio bears a certain relation to
infallibilityiv. Careful! This is not about a dogma (a truth that the magisterium of the
Church has taught in a definitive way, and that in the same way must be believed or
upheld by all the faithful), but about a dogmatic fact (a concrete fact necessarily linked
to some or some truths of faith). Let us explain ourselves, with the help of Siscoe
himself: if the Church could not have infallible certainty (that is, believe in a definitive
way and without the possibility of error) about the legitimacy of the Roman Pontiffs, it
would happen that the very truths of faith, the teachings that have been declared by
the ecclesial magisterium as definitive or divinely revealed, would be uncertain.
Indeed, how could the Church have infallible certainty, for example, about the dogma
of the Immaculate Conception, if she did not also have infallible certainty of the
legitimacy of Pope Pius IX, who promulgated it? Thus, it is not possible that, resorting
to their own private judgment, one or another group of faithful and/or pastors
question or refute the legitimacy of a pontiff who has been peacefully and universally
accepted by the Church.
Have we then agreed with Siscoe and Salza in the “argument” that they, based on their
own version of the pacifica universalis ecclesiae adhaesio, have constructed and
applied to Francis’ particular case? Of course not! And here are our reasons:

Even admitting that the doctrine in question (pacifica universalis ecclesiae adhaesio)
does indeed exist and has binding force for the faithful, we must say that some aspects
of its content are obviously indeterminate and/or problematic and that, therefore, its
concrete configuration in Francis’ case is absolutely doubtful.

In the first place, one might question the requirement that the contestation of a
particular papal election must take place “immediately” in order for the adhaesio to be
excluded. In fact, one of these questionings could be linked to the very basis for this
doctrine as offered by some of the authors frequently cited (cf. Msgr. Van Noort), a
basis according to which the infallible legitimacy of the election of a Pope who has
been unanimously accepted as such by the Church rests on the very infallibility of the
Universal and Ordinary Magisteriumv. Indeed, let us ask ourselves: if, for a certain
teaching to be proposed as definitive by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium –that
is, by the bishops scattered around the world, in communion with the Pope–, and then
to be considered infallible, the effective exercise of the pontificate is required, and this
exercise in turn supposes a certain passage of time, how can we deny that the
configuration of the pacifica universalis ecclesiae adhaesio should take place gradually
or demand, for its exclusion, that the contestation of the election should be presented
instantly? Both the adhesion and the separation of the bishops in relation to the
Pontifical Magisterium, admit gradualness.

Some other of the authors cited in support of this doctrine (cf. Cardinal Journet) points
out that it operates both negatively and positively: either because the respective papal
election is not immediately contested, or because it is accepted immediately by those
present and gradually by the rest. Faced with this statement, one might ask from the
outset: why should gradualness be allowed exclusively with regard to the positive
modus of the doctrine? That is: why should the gradualness referred to the
“absentees” be taken into account only for the acceptance of the election and not for
its contestation? Since contestation and acceptance are two sides of the same coin,
gradualness or instantaneousness should apply equally to bothvi.

On the other hand, in Francis’ specific case, it has been said that his legitimacy was
accepted “in the weeks and months after his election”, and that doubts about the St.
Gallen mafia and Benedict XVI’s resignation only arose in the following year, or “many
months later”, that is to say, “too late” –in other words, it has also been said that “no
Catholic objected to Francis’ election until much later”. Also at this point, then, we can
ask questions: what is the “cutoff” time for contestations? Who determines it, and
based on what?vii
Furthermore, who has verified, and how has he done it, this supposed “absolute”
absence of “opportune” objections to Francis’ election? Has there been an exhaustive
search on the web, a worldwide consultation, an investigation in all countries, in all
languages, to conclude the immediate unanimous acceptance, by the Church, of
Francis’ legitimacy? Truly, have those who affirm such unanimity proven it, was it
possible for them to prove it?

Well, here we can say that the defenders of the pacifica, either did not develop their
investigations sufficiently, or did not present all of their results. Indeed, it is known
that the Declaratio itself issued by Benedict XVI began to generate public suspicions of
invalidity –suspicions that would obviously automatically raise a shadow of illegitimacy
with respect to the immediate “successor” in the pontificate– even when the 2013
conclave had not been celebrated, or when Francis’ “pontificate” still did not raise
accusations for substantial or material reasons. At first, these suspicions were
essentially linked to factors of a metaphysical –or “ontological” viii–, “ecclesiological” or
of faithix, juridicalx and linguisticxi nature, but also to the analysis of the typical
elements of “pontifical dignity” that the resignee decided to maintain or adopt –such
as the titles His Holiness and Pope Emeritus, and the coat of armsxii–, and of the
clarification made by Benedict himself at his last General Audience (on February 27,
2013), in the sense that he had resigned from the active exercise of the ministry xiii –
which clearly differs from the charge (munus) or ecclesiastical office (officium
ecclesiasticum) of Roman Pontiff.

Regardless of the considerations that the basis of these suspicions may merit, the truth
is that they existed, before and during the months following the conclave, and
excluded in themselves, in relation to Francis, the configuration of the pacifica
universalis ecclesiae adhaesio.

Now, how many voices of rejection towards the legitimacy of Francis’ election were
necessary? Addressing the point more abstractly, what is it meant when, dealing with
the acceptance of the papal election, “the Church as a whole” is mentioned? What
does it mean, how to recognize, the “moral unanimity” of the Church regarding such
acceptance? If the criterion for identifying the configuration of the pacifica universalis
ecclesiae adhaesio is not mathematical unanimity, what relevance can be given to the
quantitative aspect, or is this to be considered totally irrelevant? For the rest, how
should the question of “moral unanimity” be approached in times of generalized
apostasy, as those present –indisputably– are?

In short, the doctrine of the pacifica universalis ecclesiae adhaesio raises more
questions than answers, and in no way can it be considered, in the current
circumstances, as an obstacle to canonical investigations, nor to the corresponding
denounces, on the (in)validity of Benedict XVI’s “resignation” from and Jorge Mario
Bergoglio’s “election” to the pontificate.
Thus, given that in Francis we find a dubious pontificate –Papa dubius, Papa nullus,
Saint Robert Bellarmine tells us– we do not have to keep silent about the evidence of
his illegitimacy.

We are not sedevacantists! Habemus Papam: H.H. Benedict XVIxiv. There is not, there
has never been, a “general and peaceful acceptance” of Francis’ pontificate. Francis is
no true Pope, but anti-Pope. Truth be told!
i
Who are the ones who challenge us in this way? It can be said that the most outstanding are the North Americans
Robert Siscoe and John Salza, whose writings are available here: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/.
ii
The term "sedevacantist" is properly used to designate those who refuse to recognize, as true (legitimate, valid)
Popes, all those who were successively elected after the death of H.H. Pius XII, which occurred in 1958 (in order: John
XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI). A very serious error, and in fact a schism (cf. canon 751 of the
Code of Canon Law (CCL): “It is called […] schism, the rejection of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion
with the members of the Church submitted to him”), which unfortunately has been gaining strength, like a most
contagious and dangerous plague, in the current (and unprecedented) context of crisis of the Church and the
pontificate.
iii
An invalid or illegitimate “Pope” (whose election has not fully complied with the norms of canon law) is called an
“anti-Pope”. We see then that the qualifier “anti-Pope” has nothing to do with the moral qualities of the person in
question; the word simply refers to a juridical, canonical matter.
iv
Infallibility is a charism given by God, which ensures that certain teachings (magisterium) of the Church are
preserved from error (the charism of infallibility does not cover all the teachings of the Church, but only those that
come from certain ecclesiastical authorities –the Pope or the bishops in communion with him–, deal with certain
matters or issues –faith or customs–, and are carried out under certain circumstances –when said authorities address
the Universal Church, as pastors, doctors and judges in the aforementioned matters, and propose the doctrine or
teaching in question as definitive, that is, as an obligatory object of faith).
v
The teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium are sheltered by the charism of infallibility. According to
canon 749 § 2 of the CCL, such magisterium is configured when the bishops, “dispersed throughout the world but
maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, teaching in an authentic
way together with the Roman Pontiff himself the matters of faith and customs, agree that an opinion should be held
as definitive”.
vi
One could also refer to the cases in which Siscoe and Salza, by citing certain authors in support of this doctrine,
misrepresent the meaning of the respective quotations, improperly inferring the requirement of immediacy in
contesting the papal election, not originally stated by the quoted authors. This has happened, for example, with the
following quote from John of St. Thomas: “as soon as men see or hear that a Pope has been elected, and that the
election is not contested, they are obliged to believe that that man is the Pope, and to accept him”. Obviously, the fact
that, when verifying an uncontested papal election, every Catholic must immediately accept the Pope thus elected,
does not imply that the possible objections must be presented immediately. In this case, the original passage, “that
the election is not contested”, is modified by “that the election is not immediately contested”. A second example is
worth taking, now from a quote from Cardinal Billot, according to which “from the moment in which the Pope is
accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a
possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever [e.g., a vacant munus] necessary for legitimacy.
For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the
existence of all the required conditions”. What part of the sentence allows us to understand that the adhaesio is an
instantaneous phenomenon? Does the fact that Billot alludes to the “moment” of acceptance allow us to infer such a
thing? Could not this moment be the point of arrival (in the definitive certainty), after the gradual consolidation of the
ecclesial adherence to the elected Pope?
vii
To offer additional proof of how debatable and debated is the very content of the doctrine of the pacifica universalis
ecclesiae adhaesio, we quote here Father Calderón, who maintains that said general acceptance is not “properly […]
an infallible judgment or proposition [ …], but [a] supernatural perception, by the light of faith, of the authority of
Christ shared by the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Of course, it is a difficult act to judge, because it only reaches infallibility
when it is properly established by the universal Church. The silence of the Church in the case of doubtful elections or
councils is not a sufficient criterion”. Cf. CALDERÓN, Álvaro. La lámpara bajo el celemín. Cuestión disputada sobre la
autoridad doctrinal del magisterio eclesiástico desde el Concilio Vaticano II. Buenos Aires: Río Reconquista, 2009; p.
115. Although we believe that Father Calderón’s considerations about the documents of the Second Vatican Council
and the magisterium of the post-conciliar Popes are radically wrong (and may even represent a serious threat to the
faith of the little ones, who, therefore, should not even read them), we are not unaware of the intellectual height and
precision of his (abstract) theoretical disquisitions, and we quote him on this occasion to show that the content and
precise scope of the pacifica universalis ecclesiae adhaesio is not at all peaceful among theologians. Thus, while Siscoe
and Salza argue that the mere silence of the Church in the face of a certain papal election is simply equivalent to its
peaceful and universal acceptance, Father Calderón defends the opposite.
viii
https://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2013/02/rinuncia-impossibile-filosoficamente-e.html;
http://www.internetica.it/dimissioni-BenedettoXVI.pdf.
ix
https://josephmaryam.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/benedicto-xvi-verdadero-pero-inutil-papa/;
https://josephmaryam.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/benedicto-xvi-el-ultimo-verdadero-papa/;
https://josephmaryam.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/solo-puede-haber-un-papa/;
https://josephmaryam.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/la-iglesia-ha-errado-el-camino/;
https://josephmaryam.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/el-pecado-del-papa-benedicto-xvi/;
https://josephmaryam.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/pastores-que-no-ensenan-la-verdad/;
https://josephmaryam.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/una-iglesia-sin-papa/;
https://josephmaryam.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/la-razon-del-pecado-de-benedicto-xvi/;
https://josephmaryam.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/la-silla-de-pedro/;
https://josephmaryam.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/signos-para-discernir-lo-que-es-francisco/;
https://josephmaryam.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/francisco-no-es-papa/;
x
file:///C:/Users/USER/Documents/Eleccion_(no)_canonica_Bergoglio/Renuncia_Benedicto/
Incumplimiento_requisitos_formales/Violi_the-resignation-of-benedict-xvi-between-history-law-and-conscience.pdf;
file:///C:/Users/USER/Documents/Eleccion_(no)_canonica_Bergoglio/Renuncia_Benedicto/
Incumplimiento_requisitos_formales/violi_abstract.pdf.
xi
https://fr.novopress.info/132011/un-acte-nul-etranges-fautes-de-latin-dans-la-renonciation-de-benoit-xvi/;
http://unafides33.blogspot.com/2013/02/errori-di-latino-nella-dichiarazione-di.html;
https://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2013/02/clamorosi-errori-di-latino-nella.html.
xii
http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2013/02/la-nostra-vigilante-cronaca-assomiglia.html;
https://www.italiaoggi.it/archivio/ratzinger-vuol-tenere-lo-stemma-1828297.
xiii
http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2013/06/montezemolo-ha-provato-togliergli-lo.html;
http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2013/07/vi-pare-normale-ma-tale-lo-stanno.html;
https://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.com/2013/08/la-risposta-di-mattia-rossi-con.html.
xiv
Of course, at the death of H.H. Benedict XVI the See will be vacant, which does not mean that we will become
“sedevacantists”. “Sedevacantists”, as we indicated in note [ii] above, are those who stubbornly affirm that the See
has been vacant since the 1960s, despite the fact that during all these years the See has been effectively, objectively,
occupied by validly elected Popes. There is, then, a great difference between being a “sedevacantist” (believing and
defending that the See is or has been vacant when it is not objectively so) and recognizing the fact of the “Vacant See”
when it truly occurs (as will happen, we insist, at the death of Pope Benedict XVI).