Universal Peaceful Acceptance (U.P.A.) of a Pope
As Dogmatic Fact
Table of contents:
1.Introduction: The U.P.A. of a Pope as Infallible Sign of His Legitimacy
2.The U.P.A. and the Dogmatic Fact
2.1. The Nature of the Dogmatic Fact
2.2. The Infallibility of the Church in Dogmatic Facts
2.3. Testimony of Saint Alphonsus Liguori
2.4. Testimony of Cardinal Billot
2.5. Application of Thomistic Principles and of Pastor Aeternus
2.6. Refutation of Objections
2.6.1. Historical doubts
2.6.2. Doubts during a prolonged duration
Conclusion
- Introduction
The Catholic doctrine, as taught by the Church before the disturbances subsequent to 1963, affirms with unshakable certainty that the peaceful and universal acceptance of a pontiff by the entire Church constitutes an infallible sign of the validity of his election and of his legitimacy. This truth rests on the divine promise of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew XVI, 18) and “Behold, I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world” (Matthew XXVIII, 20).
We will see that this acceptance is a dogmatic fact on which the Church is infallible. This will confirm that, always but especially in times of crisis, this acceptance is the proof that it is a true pope and that the absence of such acceptance indicates the vacancy of the Apostolic See.
We will prove that the U.P.A. of a Pope by the entire Church is an infallible sign of his legitimacy.
- The U.P.A. and the Dogmatic Fact
2.1. The Nature of the Dogmatic Fact (see the chapter on this subject)
A dogmatic fact is a historical or objective reality directly linked to divine revelation or to the constitution of the Church, on which the Church renders an infallible judgment.
The universal acceptance of a pope is a dogmatic fact, because it concerns the recognition of the successor of Saint Peter, the living rule of faith.
If the Church, the mystical body of Christ, adhered to a false pontiff, that would be equivalent to adherence to a false rule of faith, which is impossible, because that would contradict the indefectibility of the Church promised by Christ.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica (II-II, q. 1, a. 10, corpus), explains that the authority of the sovereign pontiff is essential to preserve the unity of faith:
“A new publication of the symbol is necessary, we have said, to guard against errors that arise. It therefore belongs to him who has authority to define in the last resort what is of faith, and to define it in such a way that all have only to hold to it with unshakable faith. Now, it is the sovereign pontiff who has authority for that: ‘It is to him that the most serious and difficult questions of the Church are brought,’ say the Decretals. Whence the word of the Lord to Peter when he constituted him sovereign pontiff: ‘I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren’ (Luke XXII, 32). The reason is that there must be only one faith in the whole Church, according to the recommendation of the Apostle (1 Cor. I, 10): ‘Speak ye all the same thing, and let there be no schisms among you.’ Such unity could not be safeguarded if a question of faith raised in matters of faith could not be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, in such a way that the whole Church firmly observes his sentence…”
In the response to the first objection, Saint Thomas specifies:
“To the first objection, it must be answered that, in the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, the truth of faith is sufficiently explained. But, because there have been perverse men who, according to the word of Saint Peter (2 Pet. 3, 16), ‘wrest the apostolic teaching, the other teachings and the Scriptures to their own destruction,’ a clarification of the faith has become necessary over time against new errors.”
This text establishes that the Church, under the authority of the sovereign pontiff, must clarify the faith in the face of errors, which implies that it cannot err in the identification of its visible head, because such an error would introduce a schism or a failure in the faith, incompatible with its role as guide.
2.2. The Infallibility of the Church in Dogmatic Facts
The Church is infallible. See the chapter on “infallibility.” For example, among the multiple arguments, we find:
Pius IX – Syllabus of Errors (1864), condemned proposition 21:
“The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.” — Condemned error (DH 2921).
The infallibility of the Church extends to dogmatic facts necessary for the preservation of the unity of faith and communion. See the chapter on “the dogmatic fact and infallibility.”
A small reminder: the Vatican Council I, in Pastor Aeternus (cap. 4), defines the infallibility of the Roman pontiff:
“Therefore… we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possesses that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church…”
Although Pastor Aeternus focuses on the infallibility of the Roman pontiff in his ex cathedra definitions,
the Thomistic logic and Catholic doctrine imply that the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, cannot err in the identification of its visible head, because such an error would compromise the unity of faith and communion.
Pastor Aeternus (cap. 2) confirms that the primacy of Peter endures in his successors:
“Unde quicumque in hac Cathedra Petro succedit, is secundum Christi ipsius institutionem primatum Petri in universam Ecclesiam obtinet”
(Translation: “Therefore whoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church.”)
The universal acceptance of a pontiff is therefore an infallible ecclesial act, because it reflects the recognition of him who succeeds Peter in the primacy.
2.3. Testimony of Saint Alphonsus Liguori
Saint Alphonsus Liguori, doctor of the Church, confirms this doctrine in Verità della Fede – Works of St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Marietti, Turin, 1887, vol. VIII., P. 720, n. 9.
“It does not matter that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud; it is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by this acceptance he would have become the true Pontiff. But if he had not been truly and universally accepted by the Church for a certain time, during that time the pontifical See would have been vacant, as it is at the death of a Pontiff.”
– Explanation
Indeed, this formulation teaches with certainty that the subsequent, true and universal acceptance by the whole Church renders the individual concerned a true pontiff, even if the initial election had been tainted with illegitimacy or fraud. According to Thomistic logic, this flows from divine providence which infallibly assists the Church in the designation and recognition of its visible head, by virtue of the Christic promises (Mt 16, 18; Mt 28, 20). The Church cannot peacefully and universally adhere to a false pontiff without that contradicting the promised indefectibility; consequently, such acceptance manifests and confirms legitimacy, divinely supplying for any prior vice compatible with this assistance.
– It concerns a pope who is not a public heretic
However, this supplying does not operate for radical vices that would ontologically make accession to the pontificate impossible (for example, a non-Catholic, a public apostate or a notorious heretic before acceptance), because God cannot permit the entire Church to follow a false living rule of faith. Saint Alphonsus implicitly assumes cases where the vice is surmountable by providence (like an irregular election but not null ab initio). He does not employ the terms sanatio in radice nor “infallible effect” in this precise sense; it is a certain doctrine on the effect of universal peaceful acceptance, but not a juridical sacramental mechanism analogous to that of marriages (sanatio in radice).
– A pope who is occultly heretical but not public:
One may ask whether it must be concluded, from the cited texts of Saint Alphonsus Liguori and other authors, that the universal peaceful acceptance (U.P.A.) of a pope constitutes an infallible proof that he is not heretical, even occult.
No, this conclusion does not impose itself with certainty and firmness according to traditional Catholic doctrine. Here is the logical explanation, step by step, according to Thomistic reason and the precise texts:
- What the texts affirm with certainty: The U.P.A.is an infallible sign (cfr. Card. Billot: “signum infallibile”) that the pontiff is legitimate, that is, that he possesses all the required conditions for it, including public and manifest orthodoxy. Billot links this to the Christic promise: the Church cannot adhere to a “false rule of faith” living, since the pope is the proximate rule of faith that the Church always follows (quam re vera semper sequitur). Saint Alphonsus says that by acceptance, the individual “would have become the true Pontiff” (sarebbe divenuto vero Pontefice), assuming a divine supplying for surmountable vices.
- Explicit limit of the texts: These authors treat of the visible and public legitimacy of the pontiff as head of the universal Church. They exclude that God permits a universal adherence to a false public pontiff or to a notorious and manifest heretic, because that would destroy the indefectibility of the Church. They do not speak of occult heresy (internal, hidden, not publicly manifested). An occult heretic, by definition, does not appear as such in the eyes of the Church; his heresy does not affect the public rule of faith as long as it remains hidden.
- Certain theological distinction: According to the firm doctrine (Bellarmine, Suárez, and the Magisterium prior to 1963), a pope can, in theory, be occultly heretical without immediately losing jurisdiction, as long as the heresy is not public and notorious. But a public and notorious heresy (even after election) would entail the automatic loss of office (ipso facto, by divine right), making a real U.P.A.impossible, because the Church would not peacefully follow a manifest enemy of the faith. The U.P.A.therefore infallibly proves the absence of public and notorious heresy, but not the absence of occult heresy, which escapes human knowledge and the visible assistance of the Church.
- Logical consequence: The U.P.A.is infallible proof that the pontiff is not a public or notorious heretic (neither before nor during acceptance), because God does not permit the entire Church to adhere to such. It does not exclude a purely occult heresy, which would not affect visible legitimacy as long as it does not manifest itself. However, in practice, divine providence ensures that the visible head is manifestly orthodox to preserve unity.
Other theologians confirm this common doctrine:
– like Suárez (De Fide, disp. X),
– Ferraris (Prompta Bibliotheca, article “Papa”, col. 1846, n. 69),
– Bouix (Tractatus de Papa, tome II, pp. 683 sq.),
– Wernz-Vidal (Ius Canonicum, tome II)
– Cardinal Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, t. I
– Journet, L’Église du Verbe incarné, t. I
– Van Noort, De Ecclesia Christi
– Prof. Abbé Adolphe Tanquerey – Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae, vol. I, n° 181:
“Adhaesio universalis Ecclesiae est signum certissimum legitimitatis.”
“The universal adhesion of the Church is the most certain sign of legitimacy.
2.4. Testimony of Cardinal Billot
Cardinal Louis Billot, in De Ecclesia Christi (tome I, 1909, pp. 620), exposes this principle:
“Finally, whatever one may still think of the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis (of a heretical pope), at least one point must be held as absolutely certain and placed firmly above all doubt: the adhesion of the universal Church will always, in itself, be an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and consequently also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself. It is not necessary to go far to find the proof of this, but we find it immediately in the promise and infallible providence of Christ: ‘The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,’ and ‘Behold, I am with you all days.’ For the adhesion of the Church to a false Pontiff would be the same as its adhesion to a false rule of faith, seeing that the Pope is the living rule of faith which the Church must follow and which in fact it always follows. […] God can permit that at certain times a vacancy of the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that a doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election. However, He cannot permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff one who is not so truly and legitimately.”
2.5. Application of Thomistic Principles and of Pastor Aeternus
The principle of Saint Thomas in Summa Theologica (II-II, q. 1, a. 10) establishes that the sovereign pontiff is the guarantor of the unity of faith, and that the Church must clarify the faith in the face of new errors. Pastor Aeternus (cap. 2) confirms that the primacy of Peter endures in his successors.
The universal acceptance of a pontiff by the entire Church is a collective act that reflects this primacy, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If the Church could err in recognizing a false pontiff, that would introduce a schism or an error in the faith, which is incompatible with its role as guide, as Saint Thomas affirms in his explanation of the necessity to clarify the faith against errors (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 1, a. 10, ad 1).
2.6. Refutation of Objections
2.6.1. Do historical doubts, like those surrounding the “scandalous” Alexander VI, invalidate this infallibility?
Response: Cardinal Billot (loc. cit.) notes that, despite Savonarola’s accusations, all Christendom adhered to Alexander VI as true Pontiff. This universal acceptance proves his legitimacy, because a manifest heretic, losing his jurisdiction, could not be so accepted. The objection rests on speculations without weight in the face of certain doctrine. For despite his bad life, Alexander VI was a true pope and never uttered heresies. Scandalous pope, but pope. See the chapter on the causes of the loss of the papacy: bad moral life is not part of them.
2.6.2. Could a doubtful election prolonged invalidate this doctrine?
Response: God can permit temporary doubts or a prolonged vacancy, but not a universal acceptance of a false pontiff, because that would be equivalent to a defection of the Church, which is impossible. In current times, the absence of universal peaceful acceptance of the alleged post-conciliar pontiffs because of the recusations by true Catholics of teachings contrary to the faith, confirms the vacancy of the See, in accordance with the doctrine of Saint Alphonsus.
- Conclusion
The peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope by the entire Church is a dogmatic fact, guaranteed by the infallibility of the Church and the providence of Christ, as taught by the majority of theologians. This common doctrine, this truth obliges true Catholics to discern true popes and also the vacancy of the See in the absence of such acceptance, thus preserving the immutable faith.
May this doctrine strengthen the faithful in their fidelity to the Church, while awaiting the restoration of the Apostolic See.