The WM Review@TheWMReview
The inconsistency of trads castigating those calling on an investigation into papal legitimacy
Anti-"sedes" like to tell us that St Robert Bellarmine's "Fifth Opinion" – that the "heretic pope" loses office ipso facto – requires the involvement of the Church.
(It does, but not in the form of a legal process as they imagine)
But then if someone says, "OK, let's do something to ask churchmen to get involved to deal with this..." they're told they're insane or doing something useless.
On the contrary, those anti-sedes ought to welcome such an effort – either because it will achieve the necessary end, or because it will vindicate the claim of the Leo XIV.
The cherished 'Fourth Opinion' requires working for such an end, so why do its alleged adherents condemn it?
Similarly, the distinction between the Fifth Opinion and the Fourth Opinion is that in the latter, the "heretic pope" is not deposed ipso facto, but can and should be deposed.
The essence of the fourth opinion is that something needs to be done. Something needs to be done in the fifth opinion too, in terms of some sort of declaration could been needed before proceeding to a new election, but it's not the essence of the position as in the fourth.
In the Fifth, something has already happened (or, on the same principles something has been prevented from happening, viz. the accession of the heretic to office), enabling us to act accordingly in the immediate term. Similarly, the same principle that prevents these men from being popes also prevents many of the key figures in the alleged hierarchy from being legitimate too; hence there is not a great deal of point in agitating for them to do anything. The task is more about a) holding fast and sanctifying ourselves and our families, and b) spreading knowledge of true principles.
There really is no middle ground. Any "trad" claiming to hold the fourth opinion should be asked what they're doing to have these men deposed.
But you can tell that the anti-"sedes" who claim to hold this position don't really believe it – because if they did, and if they believed that the Novus Ordo hierarchy in general were legitimate, they'd be working night and day to get these churchman to have the man deposed.
And they certainly wouldn't be telling someone trying to get these churchmen involved that they are insane or doing something counter-productive. Again, they ought to welcome such an endeavour. So why don't they?
Fourth v. Fifth is a sideshow
FINALLY: The discussion between the Fourth and Fifth opinions is really a sideshow. The fundamental point is the impossibility of the Church having engaged herself in the sorts of official acts we have seen since Vatican II, if she had a true pope reigning. That is the reason for concluding that there is an extended vacancy; the principles behind the Fifth opinion are simply one explanation of this fact.
So, if someone managed to demonstrate that what Bellarmine really meant in the Fifth Opinion really is what we've called the "Sixth Opinion" (i.e., a hybrid with the Fourth Opinion, in which "ipso facto" somehow means "not ipso facto", etc) then our answer would be: "OK." Because it doesn't change anything.
1. The external facts which drove to the conclusion of the vacant see – ie the official acts of the Conciliar Church – remain, and do not somehow become acceptable or compatible with Catholic ecclesiology by default, due to Bellarmine's Fifth Opinion meaning something different.
2. The principles behind the Fifth – or, another way of putting it, the principles behind his refutation of the Fourth – remain in play. These principles are that an open heretic, who does not form part of the visible unity of faith taught and professed, is not a member of the Church; and that he who is not a member is also not the head, which is a type of member. This, ultimately, is why the voluntaristic rethinking of the Fifth cannot hold; but even if that is what Bellarmine meant about loss of office, we are talking about someone being prevented from attaining office by the nature of things.
Problems do not vindicate contrary positions by default
As alluded to above, the claims of Leo XIV etc are not vindicated by what might be implied by our conclusions. And this for several reasons:
1. The conclusion – these men have not been legitimate popes – is based on unimpeachable logic, being the only acceptable way of reconciling a true appreciation of the facts and the doctrine. What needs to be done – and what is never done, because it cannot be – is a refutation of the logic itself – not the pointing to an implication of the conclusion. But even then, the refutation of our position would not involve the vindication of our opponents, who have to do their own positive work in explaining themselves – and given that they frequently seem unaware of the real factors that need addressing, we have not much hope of this.
2. Because the implications may or may not be a logical outcome of the conclusion; and indeed, with many of these cases, we either deny that they are logical outcomes (e.g., we do not agree that the disappearance of the hierarchy is a logical outcome), or we deny that the implication has the significance which is attributed to it (e.g., the very grave inconvenience and difficulties caused by this conclusion do not mean that it is not true).
All in all, the methods adopted by anti-"sedes" are so lacklustre and inadequate that they almost serve as further arguments towards the extended vacancy of the Holy See, which we should pray God brings to an end – and they should not condemn those who try to work towards this.
You can see a lot of relevant material about Bellarmine's thought here:
wmreview.org/p/top-five-bel…
