(LifeSiteNews) — In a recent article on LifeSiteNews, Bishop Athanasius Schneider defended the legitimacy of the papacy of Pope Francis by appealing to the doctrine of Universal and Peaceful Acceptance (UA). In a reply to Bishop Schneider, Dr. Mazza in his own article offered what he claimed was a historical exception to UA, thereby suggesting the universal acceptance of Pope Francis does not prove the validity of his papacy. This present article addresses certain difficulties with Dr. Mazza’s counterargument.
Briefly, the doctrine of UA holds that a man whose election to the papacy is universally and peacefully accepted by the Catholic episcopate and faithful is in fact the real, true pope. Whatever defects may have been present in the conclave that elected him were healed. This unanimous acceptance of the man elected pope “is an infallible sign — an infallible “effect” — of his legitimacy.” [1]
This unanimous acceptance is a “sign” or “effect” that a given pope is a real, and valid one, but it is not the cause of his legitimacy. Thus, it is possible for a papal election to yield an objectively valid and true pope but, for some reason, not be followed by the unanimous acceptance of the man’s papacy by the Catholic bishops and faithful. While the lack of “universal acceptance” does not necessarily mean a man elected pope is not a valid, real pope, the manifestation of “universal acceptance” does mean the man elected pope, is indeed a valid, real pope.
The necessary implication of the above for our present circumstance with Pope Francis is also clear, as unwelcome as it may be. Given Francis was universally accepted as pope after his election by the moral unanimity of the Catholic episcopate and faithful, it necessarily follows “all of the conditions” [2] for his election were satisfied, and thus the vacancy of the See of Peter — as one of those conditions — must have been satisfied at the time of election; therefore, Benedict’s resignation was valid.
Universal acceptance
Bishop Schneider in his article essentially makes the argument above, offering the following point in his article based on the traditional understanding of the doctrine of UA. His Excellency wrote:
Concretely, the sanatio in radice of an invalid pontifical election was expressed in the peaceful and morally universal acceptance of the new Pontiff by the episcopate and the Catholic people, and in the fact that this elected, supposedly invalid, Pontiff was named in the Canon of the Mass by practically the entire Catholic clergy. [3]
The reader should note well above that Bishop Schneider defines UA as involving the “morally universal acceptance of a new Pontiff by the episcopate and the Catholic people.” It is important to keep in mind His Excellency’s definition to understand the fundamental flaw in the argument made in Dr. Mazza’s reply to Bishop Schneider.
Of Bishop Schneider’s view of the doctrine of Universal Acceptance above, Dr. Mazza replied in part:
…while this theological opinion may possibly be true in principle, it must be viewed against the facts of history. The principle does not appear to be valid when the real pope is still alive. [4]
Thus, Dr. Mazza clearly suggests there is at least one prior case of a man being universally accepted as pope, who was not in fact a real pope. Appealing to history, the case offered by Dr. Mazza involves the election in 1378 of Pope Urban VI and the election, several months later, of Clement VII, who is regarded as an anti-pope. Dr. Mazza explains:
In September 1378, the entire college of cardinals universally and peacefully accepted Cardinal Robert of Geneva as “Pope” Clement VII. According to Schneider’s reasoning, any illegality in his election should have been healed in the root by his unanimous acceptance by the college. But down through the centuries he has been viewed as an antipope—the man who started the Great Western Schism.
Universal peaceful acceptance seemingly does not work when the true Pope is still living, as in the case of Urban VI at the time of Clement, or Benedict at the time of Francis. [5]
As noted earlier, Dr. Mazza wants to use the case of Pope Urban VI and anti-pope Clement VII to argue the universal acceptance of Francis is not a proof Francis is or ever was a real pope. Dr. Mazza’s argument may be boiled down to the following two propositions:
-
- Given Clement VII was elected ‘pope’ while Urban VI was still a living, legitimate pope; the universal acceptance of Clement VII could not heal Clement VII’s invalid election and make him the real pope.
- Therefore, similarly, given Francis was elected ‘pope’ while Benedict XVI was still a living, legitimate pope; the universal acceptance of Francis could not heal Francis’s invalid election and make him the real pope.
The force of Dr. Mazza’s historical argument rests entirely on whether he is correct in saying the anti-pope Clement VII was “universally accepted” as a true pope. If he is wrong, then the case has no bearing on the case of Pope Francis, who was universally accepted after his election.
RELATED: Benedict XVI’s own words prove that his resignation was invalid: a reply to Bishop Schneider
The difficulty with Dr. Mazza’s argument is evident from the start. He appears to change the definition of universal acceptance, speaking of it as being the “unanimous acceptance by the college,” i.e., the college of cardinals. However, His Excellency explicitly and correctly said UA involves the unanimous acceptance by the “episcopate and Catholic faithful.” That is neither a small nor unimportant distinction.
Dr. Mazza has essentially moved the goal post. The unanimous election by the Cardinals alone – apart from any other consideration – is not what is meant by the doctrine of “universal and peaceful acceptance” of the Church. That is not what His Excellency stated. As John of St. Thomas wrote (italics added):
…the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. [6]
So, again, the doctrine of UA involves – as His Excellency said — the “morally universal acceptance of the new Pontiff by the entire episcopate and the Catholic faithful.” Since Dr. Mazza granted that Pope Urban VI was a legitimate pope, there is no need to enter a discussion here as to how or when this acceptance was manifested.
The only relevant question for our discussion regarding the case of Pope Urban VI and anti-pope Clement VII is as follows. Was anti-pope Clement VII received with the “morally universal acceptance of the episcopate and Catholic faithful”?
If the answer to this question is “yes,” Dr. Mazza can rightfully claim “universal acceptance” does not necessarily prove Francis was ever a real and true pope. If the answer is “no,” Dr. Mazza’s case fails, and he must either give up this line of argumentation, or search for a valid example.
Let’s explore the question.
Was anti-pope Clement VII ‘universally accepted’ by the Church?
A summary of the history of the Urban VI – Clement VII controversy is as follows. Pope Urban VI was elected on April 8, 1378. There is no need to go into the particulars here, but as described by JND Kelly, in his Oxford Dictionary of Popes, by August 2, 1378, many of the Cardinals who elected Urban VI subsequently declared that his election was invalid, “as having been made, not freely, but under fear.” [7]
Speaking of these cardinals, JND Kelly wrote that “On Aug. 9 they informed the Christian world that he (Urban VI) had been deposed as an intruder.” [8] This, in turn, led to a series of events culminating in the election of Clement VII on September 20, 1378, only a few months after Urban VI’s election of April 8, 1378.
As word spread throughout Christendom that there were now two claimants to the papal throne, Urban VI and Clement VII, Christendom divided into competing camps in support of one or the other of the two. Indeed, an online Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Western Schism states, “Christendom was quickly divided into two almost equal parties”[9], while an article on Urban VI states that the “obedience of Urban was more numerous, that of Clement more imposing.”[10] The former of these two articles gives the following breakdown of the support between the two papal claimants:
The greater number of the Italian and German states, England, and Flanders supported the pope of Rome (i.e., Urban VI). On the other hand, France, Spain, Scotland, and all the nations in the orbit of France were for the pope of Avignon (i.e., Clement VII). [11]
In The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, J.N.D. Kelly gives additional details, writing that those siding with the anti-pope Clement VII included France, Burgundy, Savoy, Naples, and Scotland, while those siding with Urban VI included England, Germany, “most of Italy,” and Central Europe.[12]
Given the above, it is abundantly apparent that anti-pope Clement VII was never “universally accepted” by the Church either positively or negatively. To the contrary, Christendom was divided because of Clement’s election. The bishops and faithful in the different blocs of countries supported the claims of one or the other of the two papal claimants. Indeed, this would be the beginning of the great Western Schism which would last about 40 years and would involve as many as three rival claimants to the papal throne at the same time.
In view of the history outlined above, one cannot argue – as did Dr. Mazza in his article [13] – that Clement VII was universally accepted by the Church. Consequently, the case of Urban VI and Clement VII has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether Pope Francis is a real pope or not.
Elsewhere in his reply, Dr. Mazza speaks of the case of anti-pope Anacletus, who he notes, was “elected and accepted by the overwhelming majority of electors and clergy.” However, here to, as in the case of Clement VII, if we are speaking of the doctrine of Universal Acceptance, properly understood, we are speaking of acceptance by the great majority of Catholic bishops and faithful – and not just the election or acceptance by the “majority of electors and clergy” in Rome.
In the case of Pope Innocent vs. anti-pope Anacletus, while Anacletus had possession of Rome following his election, “Europe came out in favour of [Pope] Innocent, with the exceptions of Aquitane, Scotland, Milan, and certain other cities of north Italy, and southern Italy.” [14] In sum, the historical record clearly shows, anti-pope Anacletus was never universally accepted by the Catholic episcopate and faithful.
Dr. Mazza attempted to argue the peaceful and universal acceptance of Francis is not a proof he is or has ever been a real and true pope because Clement VII was also universally accepted – even though he was an anti-pope. However, as has been demonstrated above, antipope Clement VII was never universally and peacefully accepted by the Catholic episcopate and faithful. Consequently, neither the case of Clement VII nor – for that matter – of Anacletus have any bearing on whether Francis is or has ever been a real pope or not. Therefore, Dr. Mazza’s argument fails.
Final Thoughts
Reflecting on the ongoing debate over Pope Francis, there is, perhaps, a natural, even understandable inclination for us as Catholics to set limits to the sort of hypothetical nightmare scenarios that we believe God might allow to befall the papacy based on what we know to have already happened in the past. God might allow another Alexander VI, another Honorius, another John XXII, etc., to be pope, as we have had these types before – but certainly God would not allow a ‘Francis’ to be elected a real pope!
However, such thoughts and feelings neglect that those who lived through the papacies of these “bad,” prior popes might have thought them unimaginable as well given their own understanding of the Lord’s promises to St. Peter. However, we must guard against the degree of hubris required to suggest God would allow “those sorts of popes” but not one far worse like a ‘”Francis” – thereby imposing our own limits upon God as to what He might permit, either to test us, or to chastise us.
We live in particularly corrupt and faithless age. Why then should we be surprised to see what we do with some or many of the people, priests, bishops, cardinals – and even the pope – in the Church in our own day? Certainly, Pope Francis is a terrible pope – the worst ever, in my opinion.
There is, therefore, understandably, a certain visceral appeal arising from theories that purport to solve easily our current dilemma of having a “Francis.” However, an honest pursuit of the truth does not allow us to short cut or bend the evidence, logic, reason, theology, the canons, historical precedent, etc., to find or concoct a gimmicky theory to “undo” his election. Unfortunately, all the theories – inclusive of all the publicly available evidence – that attempt to undo the conclave of 2013 have come up short, inclusive of the one examined above. Propounding or accepting these sorts of theories is also dangerous because they tend toward schism.
As to whether Francis has committed error, or heresy, or even lost the papacy, is certainly an interesting and important debate. However, at this late date, it is practically – if not certainly – impossible that any significant number of cardinals and bishops would even take up the question publicly, or, if they did, would even reach a consensus to take definitive action. Therefore, we are, for the moment, at something of an impasse. It is more probable that the resolution to this crisis will come later rather than sooner. That may be unwelcome thing to hear, but it is the reality.
Although the accusations are far more serious with regard to Pope Francis, I suspect a future pontificate will judge his case in a manner similar to how Pope St. Leo II, judged the case of one of his predecessors, Pope Honorius. Pope Leo II spoke of Honorius “who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.” [15]
However, lest the reader get too exuberant at even this prospect, there were forty years between the death of Pope Honorius and the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and Pope St. Leo II’s confirmation of it. In our case, patience and perseverance will be required. So, relax. Take a deep breath. Pray. Frequent the sacraments. Know and live your faith. A restoration will come. But it will come in the Lord’s good time, not our own. In the meantime, don’t jump off the Barque of Peter into the raging waters, chasing after the tendentious theories of the moment.
ENDNOTES
[1] John F. Salza and Robert J. Siscoe, True or False Pope: Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors, (STAS Editions, Winona, Minnesota: 2016). Kindle Version, p. 475 (Kindle). They write: “Theologians explain that the unanimous acceptance of a Pope, by bishops and the faithful, is an infallible sign — an infallible ‘effect’ — of his legitimacy.”
[2] Ibid, p. 478 (Kindle). Salza and Siscoe’s citation of Cardinal Billot: (emphasis added): “…the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself…”
This quote from Billot, cited by Salza and Siscoe, is from: Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, Volume p. 612-613
[5] Ibid.
[6] See article by Robert Sisco, “Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope” ( https://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html, accessed 12/18/2024). The footnoted quote is from Mr. Sisco’s citation of John of St. Thomas from the latter’s treatise entitled “Treatise on the Peaceful and Universal Acceptance.” Speaking as to “When Does His Legitimacy Become Infallibly Certain?”, Mr. Sisco writes below, then quotes John of St. Thomas:
John of St. Thomas proceeds to explain precisely when the universal acceptance becomes sufficient to prove that the man is a legitimate Pope. He wrote:
“All that remains to be determined, then, is the exact moment when the acceptance of the Church becomes sufficient to render the proposition de fide. Is it as soon as the cardinals propose the elect to the faithful who are in the immediate locality, or only when knowledge of the election has sufficiently spread through the whole world, wherever the Church is to be found?
“I REPLY that (as we have said above) the unanimous election of the cardinals and their declaration is similar to a definition given by the bishops of a Council legitimately gathered. Moreover, the acceptance of the Church is, for us, like a confirmation of this declaration. Now, the acceptance of the Church is realized both negatively, by the fact that the Church does not contradict the news of the election wherever it becomes known, and positively, by the gradual acceptance of the prelates of the Church, beginning with the place of the election, and spreading throughout the rest of the world. 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.”
[7] J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. (Oxford University Press; Oxford – New York), p. 227]
[8] Ibid, p. 227.
[9] Salembier, Louis. “Western Schism.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. <https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm>.
[10] Mulder, William. “Pope Urban VI.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. <https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15216a.htm>.
[11] Salembier, Louis. “Western Schism.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. <https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13539a.htm>.
[12] See Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 227.
[13] Dr. Mazza makes the same sort of argument regarding the case of Urban VI and Clement VII. In his debate/discussion with Matt Gaspers, the question of Universal Acceptance came up (see Mazza’s comments beginning 31:05). See my discussion of the similar difficulties with Dr. Mazza’s argument (see https://romalocutaest.com/2024/04/15/dr-mazza-ph-d-and-universal-acceptance-another-failed-argument/).
[14] See Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 169.
[15] Chapman, John. “Pope Honorius I.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. <https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm>.
Steven O’Reilly is the author of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI and of PIA FIDELIS: The Two Kingdoms (Book I of coming trilogy). He is the publisher of the blog Roma Locuta Est (www.RomalocutaEst). He is a graduate of both the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and is a former intelligence officer.
RELATED: Is Francis really the pope? — The debate