Universal Peaceful Acceptance (U.P.A.) of a Pope
as a Dogmatic Fact
Table of contents
- Introduction: the U.P.A. of a Pope as an Infallible Sign of his Legitimacy
- 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 the Thomistic Principles and of Pastor Aeternus
2.6. Refutation of the Objections
2.6.1. Historical doubts
2.6.2. Doubts during a prolonged duration
- Conclusion
List of sources
- Introduction
Catholic doctrine, as taught by the Church before the disturbances subsequent to 1963, affirms with unshakeable certainty that the universal and peaceful 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 upon 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).
English source texts of Scripture (Douay-Rheims):
Matthew XVI, 18: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Matthew XXVIII, 20: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
We shall see that this acceptance is a dogmatic fact upon 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 an acceptance can be caused by the vacancy of the Apostolic See.
We are going to 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, upon which the Church pronounces an infallible judgment.
The universal acceptance of a pope is a dogmatic fact, because it concerns the recognition of the successor of Saint Peter, living rule of the faith.
If the Church, mystical body of Christ, adhered to a false pontiff, that would be equivalent to an adhesion 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 for preserving the unity of the faith.
English source text (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Benziger Brothers, New York):
“I answer that, As stated above (Objection 1), a new edition of the symbol becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, ‘to whom the more important and more difficult questions that arise in the Church are referred,’ as stated in the Decretals. Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Luke 22:32): ‘I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.’ The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Corinthians 1:10: ‘That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you’: and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church, so that the whole Church may hold firmly to his decision.”
In the reply to the first objection, Saint Thomas specifies (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 1, a. 10, ad 1).
English source text (same edition):
“Reply to Objection 1. The truth of faith is sufficiently explicit in the teaching of Christ and the apostles. But since, according to 2 Peter 3:16, some men are so evil-minded as to pervert the apostolic teaching and other doctrines and Scriptures to their own destruction, it was necessary as time went on to express the faith more explicitly against the errors which arose.”
This text establishes the theological consequence that if the Church, under the authority of the sovereign pontiff, must clarify the faith in the face of errors, that implies that she cannot err in the identification of her visible head, because such an error would introduce a schism or a failure in the faith, incompatible with her 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 one finds:
Pius IX – Syllabus errorum (8 December 1864), condemned proposition XXI (DH 2921):
“The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true one.” — Error damnatus (DH 2921).
The infallibility of the Church extends to the dogmatic facts necessary for the preservation of the unity of the faith and of communion. See the chapter on “the dogmatic fact and infallibility”.
A brief reminder: the First Vatican Council, in Pastor Aeternus (18 July 1870, cap. 4; Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. VI, 1870–1871, p. 47), defines the infallibility of the Roman pontiff.
English source text of the definition (common English rendering of Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4):
“we teach and define as a dogma revealed by God: the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, fulfilling his office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, that a doctrine concerning faith or morals must be held by the whole Church, enjoys, by the divine assistance promised to him in the person of Saint Peter, that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed when she defines doctrine concerning faith and morals. Consequently, these definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves and not by virtue of the consent of the Church.”
Although Pastor Aeternus concentrates on the infallibility of the Roman pontiff in his ex cathedra definitions, Thomistic logic and Catholic doctrine imply that the Church, guided by the Holy Ghost, cannot err in the identification of her visible head, because such an error would compromise the unity of the faith and of communion.
Pastor Aeternus (18 July 1870, cap. 2; Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. VI, 1870–1871, p. 42) confirms that the primacy of Peter endures in his successors.
Latin source text:
“Unde quicumque in hac Cathedra Petro succedit, is secundum Christi ipsius institutionem primatum Petri in universam Ecclesiam obtinet.”
English source text (common English rendering of Pastor Aeternus, chapter 2):
“Therefore whoever succeeds to the Chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ Himself 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, Part III, chap. VIII, n° 9, in Opere dogmatiche di S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, single volume, tome VIII of the Opere, Turin, Giacinto Marietti, 1880, p. 720.
Italian source text:
“basta che poi sia stato accettato da tutta la chiesa come papa, attesochè per tale accettazione già si è renduto legittimo e vero pontefice.”
English source text of this passage: no complete published English edition of Verità della Fede was verified. The following is a literal English rendering of the Italian words cited:
“it suffices that he was afterwards accepted by the whole Church as pope, since by such acceptance he has already been rendered a legitimate and true pontiff.”
The surrounding sentences, as given in the original document, run thus in English:
“It does not matter that in past centuries some Pontiff was elected illegitimately or seized the Pontificate by fraud; it suffices that he was afterwards accepted by the whole Church as Pope, since by that acceptance he has already become the legitimate and 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 at the juridical level. That of course does not hold at the divine level, for example a public heretic can never be pope, but a heretic will never be accepted by the whole Church either.
According to Thomistic logic, this follows from the divine providence that infallibly assists the Church in the designation and recognition of her visible head, by virtue of the Christic promises (Mt 16, 18; Mt 28, 20). The Church cannot adhere universally and peacefully to a false pontiff without that contradicting the promised indefectibility; consequently, such an acceptance manifests and confirms the legitimacy, divinely supplying for any prior vice compatible with that assistance.
It is a question of a pope who is not a public heretic.
However, this supply does not operate for radical vices that would render ontologically impossible accession to the pontificate (for example, a non-Catholic, a public apostate or a notorious heretic before the acceptance), because God cannot permit that the entire Church follow a false living rule of faith. Saint Alphonsus implicitly supposes cases where the vice is surmountable by providence (such as an irregular but not null ab initio election). He does not employ the terms of sanatio in radice nor of “infallible effect” in that 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 occultly heretic but not public:
One may ask whether one must conclude, from the cited texts of Saint Alphonsus Liguori and of other authors, that the universal peaceful acceptance (U.P.A.) of a pope constitutes an infallible proof that he is not a heretic, 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 is that the U.P.A. is an infallible sign:
- Cardinal Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, tome I, 3rd edition, Prati, Giachetti, 1909, quaestio XIV, thesis XXIX, § 3, p. 620.
English source text of the same passage, published English rendering from a later edition of the same work:
“But whatever you finally think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis, at least one point must be maintained as completely unshaken and firmly placed beyond all doubt: the adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself.”
Saint Alphonsus says that by the acceptance, the individual “has already become the legitimate and true Pontiff” (« già si è renduto legittimo e vero pontefice »), supposing a divine supply 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 permit a universal adhesion 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 (read Bellarmine and Suárez below), a pope can, in theory, be occultly heretic 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 the office (ipso facto, by divine right), rendering a real U.P.A. impossible, because the Church would not follow peacefully a manifest enemy of the faith. The U.P.A. therefore proves infallibly 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.
See Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, book II, chapter XXX, examination of the second opinion.
Latin source text:
“Adde, quod fundamentum hujus opinionis est, quod haeretici occulti sint extra Ecclesiam, quod esse falsum nos prolixe ostendimus in lib. 1. de Eccl.”
English source text (Ryan Grant translation of De Romano Pontifice, Book II, chapter 30):
Bellarmine rejects the opinion that even interior heresy causes loss of the pontificate, and teaches that occult heretics remain of the Church, are parts and members, and that therefore a Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. The foundation of the contrary opinion is that occult heretics are outside the Church, which he shows to be false in Book I on the Church.
Likewise Francisco Suárez, Tractatus de legibus ac Deo legislatore, book IV, chapter VII, n° 7.
Latin source text:
“Jam ergo, si fides amittatur per solam interiorem haeresim, manifestum videtur tunc non amitti potestatem hanc.”
English source text (literal rendering of the verified Latin):
“If therefore the faith is lost by a merely interior heresy, it seems manifest that this power is not then lost.”
- Logical consequence: The U.P.A. is infallible proof that the pontiff is not a public or notorious heretic (neither before nor during the acceptance), because God does not permit that the entire Church adhere to such a one. 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 watches that the visible head be manifestly orthodox in order to preserve unity.
Other theologians confirm this common doctrine:
such as Suárez (De fide, disp. X, sect. VI, n° 5–6 and 10, Opera omnia, t. XII, Paris, Louis Vivès, 1858, pp. 317–318),
Ferraris (Prompta Bibliotheca, t. VI, Venice, Gaspar Storti, 1772, article “Papa”, art. II, n° 69–70, p. 38),
Bouix (Tractatus de Papa, ubi et de Concilio Oecumenico, tome II, Paris–Lyons, Jacques Lecoffre, 1869, p. 684),
Wernz-Vidal (Ius Canonicum, tome II),
Cardinal Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, 3rd ed., Prati, Giachetti, 1909, q. XIV, thesis XXIX, § 3, pp. 620–621,
Journet, L’Église du Verbe incarné, t. I, La hiérarchie apostolique, excursus VIII, V, pp. 977–978 of the reprint of the Complete Works, Éditions Saint-Augustin,
Van Noort, De Ecclesia Christi; revised English version checked: Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, Christ’s Church, The Newman Press, 1959, n° 89–90, pp. 112–114,
Prof. Abbé Adolphe Tanquerey – Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae fundamentalis, vol. I, 15th ed., New York–Cincinnati–Chicago, Benziger Brothers, 1914, n° 840, pp. 544–545.
2.4. Testimony of Cardinal Billot
Cardinal Louis Billot, in De Ecclesia Christi, sets forth this principle (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, tome I, 3rd ed., Prati, Giachetti, 1909, quaestio XIV, thesis XXIX, § 3, pp. 620–621).
English source text of the same passage, published English rendering from a later edition of the same work:
“But whatever you finally think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis, at least one point must be maintained as completely unshaken and firmly placed beyond all doubt: the adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself. One need not fetch from afar proof of this claim. The reason is that it is taken immediately from the infallible promise of Christ and from providence. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and Behold I am with you all days. To be sure, for the Church to adhere to a false pontiff would be the same thing as if she were to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact, as will be still more clearly apparent in what is to be said later. By all means God can permit that at some time or other the vacancy of the see be extended for a considerable time. He can also allow a doubt to arise about the legitimacy of one or another man elected. But He cannot permit the entire Church to receive someone as pontiff who is not a true and legitimate pope. Therefore, from the time he has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, we cannot further consider the question of a possible mistake in the election or of a possible deficiency of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy, because the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals the mistake in the election and infallibly indicates the existence of all requisite conditions.”
2.5. Application of the Thomistic Principles and of Pastor Aeternus
The principle of Saint Thomas in the Summa Theologica (II-II, q. 1, a. 10) establishes that the sovereign pontiff is the guarantor of the unity of the 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 Ghost. 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 her role as guide, as Saint Thomas affirms in his explanation of the necessity of clarifying the faith against errors (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 1, a. 10, ad 1).
2.6. Refutation of the Objections
2.6.1. Do historical doubts, such as those surrounding the “scandalous” Alexander VI, invalidate this infallibility?
Answer: Cardinal Billot notes that, despite the accusations of Savonarola, the whole of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI as true Pontiff. This universal acceptance proves his legitimacy, because a manifest heretic, losing his jurisdiction, could not be thus accepted. The objection rests upon speculations without weight in the face of the certain doctrine.
English source text of Billot on this point (same published rendering):
“It is certainly well known that in the time in which Savonarola was writing his letters to princes, all Christendom adhered to and obeyed Alexander as the true pontiff. Therefore, by that fact, Alexander was not a false pontiff. Therefore he was not a heretic, at least he was not in the heretical state that, in removing the essential element of membership in the Church, as a consequence of its very nature strips a man of pontifical power or of any other ordinary jurisdiction whatsoever.”
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: a bad moral life is not among them.
2.6.2. Could a prolonged doubtful election invalidate this doctrine?
Answer: 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 failure of the Church, which is impossible.
In the present crisis, the “acceptance” of the modernists is neither universal nor peaceful among true Catholics (those who reject the council and the novelties). The recusations of the faithful attached to the traditional faith (even if minority in number) prove the absence of a real U.P.A., confirming the vacancy since 1964. The visible Church persists in the remainder of the faithful Catholics.
- Conclusion
The universal and peaceful 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 the majority of theologians teach. This doctrine obliges true Catholics to discern the vacancy since 1964 and to remain faithful to Tradition, while awaiting the restoration of the Apostolic See by divine Providence.
May this doctrine therefore strengthen the faithful in their fidelity to the Church, while awaiting the restoration of the Apostolic See.
List of sources
Sacred Scripture:
Matthew XVI, 18.
Matthew XXVIII, 20.
Luke XXII, 32.
1 Corinthians I, 10.
2 Peter III, 16.
English source texts: Douay-Rheims version, as cited above for Matthew XVI, 18 and XXVIII, 20.
Luke XXII, 32: “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.”
1 Corinthians I, 10: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment.”
2 Peter III, 16: “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”
Magisterium:
Pius IX, Syllabus errorum, 8 December 1864, condemned proposition XXI (DH 2921).
First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus, 18 July 1870, cap. 2 and cap. 4; Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. VI, 1870–1871, pp. 42 and 47. English source texts given above.
Doctors of the Church:
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 1, a. 10, corpus and ad 1. English source text: Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Benziger Brothers, New York. Text given above.
Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Verità della Fede, Part III, chap. VIII, n° 9, Opere dogmatiche, tome VIII, Turin, Giacinto Marietti, 1880, p. 720. Italian source text given above. No complete published English edition of this work was verified.
Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, XXX. English source text: Ryan Grant translation, Mediatrix Press, as cited above.
Theologians:
Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, t. VI, Venice, Gaspar Storti, 1772, article “Papa”, art. II, n° 69–70, p. 38.
Francisco Suárez, De fide, disp. X, sect. VI, n° 5–6 and 10, Opera omnia, t. XII, Paris, Louis Vivès, 1858, pp. 317–318.
Dominique Bouix, Tractatus de Papa, tome II, Paris–Lyons, Jacques Lecoffre, 1869, p. 684.
Cardinal Louis Billot, S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, tome I, 3rd edition, Prati, Giachetti, 1909, quaestio XIV, thesis XXIX, § 3, pp. 620–621. English source text of the same passage given above from a later-edition rendering.
Adolphe Tanquerey, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae fundamentalis, vol. I, 15th ed., New York–Cincinnati–Chicago, Benziger Brothers, 1914, n° 840, pp. 544–545.
Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, tome II. Place, year, edition and pages not indicated in the original document.
- Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, Christ’s Church, The Newman Press, 1959, n° 89–90, pp. 112–114.
Charles Journet, L’Église du Verbe incarné, t. I, reprint of the Complete Works, Éditions Saint-Augustin, pp. 977–978.
Francisco Suárez, De legibus ac Deo legislatore, IV, VII, n° 7. Latin and English given above.