Refutation of the Cassiciacum Thesis

There is a theory in circulation, by those who are ignorant of Divine and canon law, as well as Church dogma, called the Cassiciacum Thesis. This thesis was originally proposed by Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers. It is also commonly known by the name "Sedeprivationism". This thesis is contrary to numerous points of dogma and canon law as will be discussed below. As a result, its adherents are heretics and it is throughly disproved.

WHAT IS THE CASSICIACUM THESIS (SEDEPRIVATIONISM)?
The Cassiciacum Thesis uses a misapplication of Thomistic philosophy, and Canon 209 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, to attempt to argue that the Church supplies jurisdiction to Antipopes and Anticardinals to elect the next Pope and designate additional Cardinals. Usually, they use Canon 209 to build their case:

"In common error or in positive or probable doubt about either law or fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction for both the external and internal forum." -Canon 209, 1917 Code of Canon Law

The thesis further states that while those elected and designated do not hold their offices unless and until they convert to the Catholic Faith, they nonetheless occupy their positions at least materially even if not formally. Therefore, this theory attempts to permit certain sedevacantists who reject the Antipopes of Vatican II (and its Anticardinals) to become sedeprivationists and allow that while they can reject the authority of these Antipopes and Anticardinals, they at least have jurisdiction insofar as they can appoint and elect successors, and that the moment any of these appointed and elected ones actually converted, they would then fully occupy their offices with all respective rights. By adopting this position, they wrongly exclude from possibility that someone other than those so designated in this process could become the Pope (such as Boniface X through his application of canon law as indicated in his proof of jurisdiction). They believe that this thesis is either the outworking of the natural law regarding the nature of societies, or alternatively is simply conferred by canon law. As we will show from the canon laws and dogmas that have defined natural and Divine law below, the theory fails on both of these bases.


ARGUMENT I- THIS ARGUMENT ALONE COMPLETELY REFUTES SEDEPRIVATIONISM, THE REMAINING ARGUMENTS AFTER THIS ARE SIMPLY ADDED REASONS TO REJECT IT: IT WAS DECLARED IN SATIS COGNITUM AND VATICAN I THAT BY DIVINE LAW (SUPERIOR TO CANON LAW) NONE OF THOSE OUTSIDE THE CHURCH ARE ABLE TO SHARE IN PETER'S AUTHORITY OR COMMAND IN THE CHURCH (EXERCISE JURISDICTION) AND THAT CHRIST COMMANDS PERPETUAL SUCCESSORS WHO BY DEFINITION MUST HAVE FULL POWER
It was taught in Satis Cognitum #15 by Leo XIII, which is the voice of Jesus Christ and the Church's authentic Teaching Office, that none of those outside the Church and communion with the Apostle Peter are able to share in Peter's authority. This obviously would include a heretic like Antipope Francis who denies numerous dogmas through his false profession of his new religion. As taught in Satis Cognitum #9, if anyone holds to a single heresy, he is outside of Catholic communion and alien to the Church.

"The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own... The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authentic Teaching Office. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. 'No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic' (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88)."- Satis Cognitum #9, Leo XIII, 1896.

Therefore, the Antipopes of Vatican II are outside of Catholic communion with the Apostle Peter, since they have held to many heresies. As a result, according to Satis Cognitum, Francis and the other Antipopes of Vatican II have no authority (jurisdiction) to appoint Cardinals:

"Jesus Christ, therefore, appointed Peter to be that head of the Church; and He also determined that the authority instituted in perpetuity for the salvation of all should be inherited by His successors, in whom the same permanent authority of Peter himself should continue....It is consequently the office of St. Peter to support the Church, and to guard it in all its strength and indestructible unity. How could he fulfil this office without the power of commanding, forbidding, and judging, which is properly called jurisdiction? It is only by this power of jurisdiction that nations and commonwealths are held together... No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter is able share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command [or preside] in the Church."-Satis Cognitum ##11-15, Leo XIII, 1896.

Based on Satis Cognitum and the Church's authentic teaching office, authority cannot be shared by anyone unless they are in communion with the Apostle Peter and the Catholic Church by being free of any heresies.

According to the words of Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum is not only part of the authentic Teaching Office, but is intended to exposit on the very Divine Constitution of the Church (the Church as established by Divine law). Therefore, when it states that those outside the Church cannot rule inside the Church, based on this context it pertains to Divine law itself, and cannot be altered by any later canon law. Leo XIII writes:

"But since the successor of Peter is one, and those of the Apostles are many, it is necessary to examine into the relations which exist between him and them according to the divine constitution of the Church...From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest...These things enable us to see the heavenly ideal, and the divine exemplar, of the constitution of the Christian commonwealth, namely: When the Divine founder decreed that the Church should be one in faith, in government, and in communion, He chose Peter and his successors as the principle and centre, as it were, of this unity...No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter is able to share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command [or preside] in the Church." -Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #14-15, 1896.

or in Latin "Nemo igitur, nisi cum Petro cohaereat, participare auctoritatem potest, cum absurdum sit opinari, qui extra, Ecclesiam est, eum in Ecclesia praeesse." -Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #15, 1896.

Therefore we see from this section of Satis Cognitum, that the failure of jurisdiction for one not in communion with Peter is founded not merely on canon law, but on the Church's very Divine constitution, the edifice which rests upon Peter who is the Divine principle and center of unity of government.

Thus we see from this Divine Constitution of the Church that the power of jurisdiction cannot flow from any priest or bishop who is outside the Church. How then does one address the following apparent contradicion: Canon 209 teaches jurisdiction is supplied in cases of common error, whereas Satis Cognitum teaches heretics cannot share in Peter's authority? It is reconciled in the following way: jurisdiction if it is to be supplied in Canon 209 must be directed to someone in the Latin Church unless it treats of things that belong by their nature to the Oriental, since the 1917 code is mainly to and for the Latin Church only, not to heretics outside the Catholic Church. The canons therefore cannot confer rights or administer duties outside of their jurisdiction. However, despite this, there are some exceptions where clearly jurisdiction is adminsitered from those outside, such as receiving penance in danger of death from declared heretical ministers. How can this be? Because while the jurisdiction is not licit (i.e. not the will of God), nonetheless it is valid. There are many instances in the canons where something may be valid (achieve a certain desired end) but nonetheless be according to an illicit or illegal process. Merely because the supplied jurisdictional act ends up valid, because the attempt to exercise it was illicit due to the fact that the minister was a heretic, it was still not the will of Christ that it be exercised but was allowed and valid nonetheless for the good of the ignorant or desperate faithful seeking the sacraments from the heretical minister. Even by the mere fact that the jurisdiction is illicit, the expressed will of Christ is then that it should not be exercised. Thus, even if by some argument the Cassiciacum adherents could say their theory provides a valid election (insofar as the election process itself, they do not assert that the Antipope's acceptance of the position is valid), it is nonetheless clearly illicit according to Satis Cognitum, and therefore they cannot claim it is the will of Christ that their process is the one used to designate the future Pontiff.

"Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this [Code] applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental." -Canon 1, 1917 Code of Canon Law

Further, the common error exception to Canon 209 is interpreted by the canonists to be among the faithful only and redounds only to the benefit of the faithful.

"The commonness of the error is not to be judged by the number of those who actually approach a certain agent for jurisdictional ministration. For, though it is true that the Church does not supply until the act is being posited and only for the duration of the act, it is likewise true that the Church does not supply in individual instances unless and until a certain condition is present: namely, a real danger to the common good of the faithful. But this danger can, and does, exist from the very moment that a sufficiently large number of the faithful mistakenly believe that an incompetent agent has the powers necessary for the performance of certain jurisdictional acts. For, at the very moment these persons might go to this agent and correspondingly would receive an invalid ministration because of his lack of the necessary faculties. Thus, even before a single individual approaches this agent, the state of common error, as required by canon 209, can exist. Thus, it is clear that common error need not be practical. Speculative error suffices, i. e., the error of those faithful who, because of their mistaken belief, might go to this putatively competent agent." -Miaskiewicz J.C.L., Supplied Jurisdiction According to Canon 209 An Historical Synopsis and Commentary- A Dissertation, The Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies No. 122

The maintenance of an apostate hierarchy and false sect does not benefit the faithful and has no direct authority over the faithful (the members of the Catholic Church) as regards their internal affairs and the governance of the Catholic Church. The Cassiciacum Thesis seeks to subvert their ability to obtain a true Pope or hierarchy with ordinary jurisdiction, putting the ability to attain this at the mercy of heretics and subverters in a completely different and alien sect. As Pius XII taught, anyone divided in faith or government, such as the Vatican II sect, is not even living in the unity of Christ's body.

It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit."-Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, #22, 1943 A.D.

Therefore, both sedevacantists (before Boniface X became Pope) and Vatican II sect members could not have both been in Christ's body, since they had different authorities (in one case where the papal throne is vacant, in another case the Vatican II Antipope). Given that the Vatican II sect is apostate, it is clear before the ascension of Boniface X to the papal throne, sedevacantism constituted the true government of the Catholic Church. Canon 209 is supposed to be implemented for the "good of the Church", but it benefits the faithful nothing to have their Church government blocked by a false diabolical sect. It is absurd to imagine that the Catholic Church, at the time consisting only of sedevacantists immediately before Boniface X, could be subject to the whims of a false diabolical sect in its choice of its own false head. The faithful were only those who already were not confused into thinking Francis could be a true pope, and who were all already aware that Antipope Francis had no authority. What would most benefit such faithful would be to obtain a true Pope for the faithful as soon as possible, not wait on a false sect to convert to the true Church.

Indeed, to declare that supplied jurisdiction has designated heretics and apostates to true Apostolic See, is also to say that Christ Himself has abandoned His Divine command to the Church to have continuing successors in the primacy, because Christ is in fact actively blocking, by His own supplied jurisdiction, the ability to have a continuing succession for so long as the heretics or apostates are designated to the Apostolic See by the false cardinals. Christ's command becomes instead to only have occasional blocks of successors, depending on whether people outside the Church (in this case Vatican II sect members) believe an Antipope outside the Church is a heretic or not. Instead, Christ commands the Church to have continuing successors, and not just any successors, but successors with the fullness of power.

Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Thus we see that it is dogmatically defined that Christ commands perpetual successors inside the primacy. Further, this primacy is defined in a very specific manner, it is not some vague material possession of the See with limited powers to designate offices. Rather, Christ commands perpetual successors that have a true primacy of jurisdiction, as defined at Vatican I:

On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter: We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord....On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs: That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time... So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Therefore:

On one hand, to the extent the Cassiciacum adherents maintain that the Antipopes are in fact actual Roman Pontiffs halfway, or materially, they deny these dogmas of Vatican I that the Roman Pontiff carries the "absolute fulness" of their supreme power, when they state they only have occasional power to designate. We also see from Vatican I that this papal primacy and permanent succession that Christ commands in the primacy is not some trifling thing, or a mere material possession, but Christ commands perpetual successors in full primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church.

On the other hand, when the Cassicacum Thesis proponents attempt to argue that the "material Pope" is really no Pope at all, but just a heretic designated to receive the office only if he converts, blocking any true Catholic from accessing it, they are declaring that Christ is permitting a heretic to block the perpetual succession. He is not actually a successor in the primacy, but only a potential successor. By doing this, they are in fact denying the dogma quoted above that Christ commands and institutes perpetual successors in the primacy, since they are stating that Christ is actively blocking this perpetual succession inside the primacy by instituting an apostate or heretic designee who does not occupy the office or primacy and also blocks access of others to the office.

Thus, no matter which way the slippery Cassicacum adherent wants to go (the occupant is a pope or is not the pope or is both), by the nature of their doctrine, they are a heretic in both respects.

ARGUMENT II- CANON 209 SHOULD SUPPLY FULL JURISDICTION, NOT ONLY JURISDICTION FOR ELECTION AND DESIGNATION
If the sedeprivations are right in their argument that Canon 209 supplies jurisdiction to heretical Antipopes and Anticardinals, then they cannot assert that the Antipopes and Anticardinals only have the authority to appoint future cardinals and elect future pontiffs. Yet this is exactly what they do. Canon 209 supplies any available jurisdiction, not only jurisdiction to perform certain very specific acts like designation or appointment. Canon 209 has no language restricting the supplied jurisdiction. Yet, sedeprivationists only allow the Antipopes and Anticardinals the powers of designation and election to fill offices. Sedeprivationists have to falsely restrict Canon 209 in this way because of all the heresies and errors taught by the Teaching Office and canons of the Antipopes after Vatican II. They know it is impossible to admit that full supplied jurisdiction is conferred, despite Canon 209 claiming it is conferred, because if they did admit this, then they would have to deny the dogmas defined by Pius VI (in Auctorem Fidei- see below) and Gregory XVI (in Mirari Vos- see below) that the discipline and rules of the Church (either in its canons or authentic Teaching Office) can never be imperfect, crippled, contrary to natural law, or leading to superstition and materialism:

"The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced 'in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinuished from that which is proper to discipline,'' it adds, 'in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism'; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,--false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous."- Auctorem Fidei #78, Pius VI, 1794

"Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced." -Mirari Vos #9, Gregory XVI, 1832.

Sedeprivationists would be forced to deny these defined dogmas, because of all the errors and bad rules promulgated by the Antipopes. These bad rules include Antipope Paul VI's decree promulgating the heretical Vatican II documents to the glory of God and Antipope John Paul II binding them on the faithful through the 1983 false code of canon law. Unfortunately for them, Canon 209 doesn't permit sedeprivationists to grant jurisdiction in only their limited way. Either the jurisdiction is fully supplied in all matters, or it is not supplied at all. Since the Antipopes have taught countless errors in their authentic false Magisterium, it is clear jurisdiction has not been supplied at all, unless you want to deny the dogmas of Gregory XVI and Pius VI.


ARGUMENT III- IT IS CLEAR FROM PAST CANON LAW AND DOGMA THAT THERE IS ALSO NO DIVINE OR NATURAL LAW GIVING ANY LIMITED AUTHORITY TO ANTIPOPES AND ANTICARDINALS
It is not possible that there is either a Divine or even natural law giving limited authority to Antipopes and Anticardinals. We know this, in part, because the in the past the Church enacted canon laws that nullify any appointment of Cardinals by heretics who are elected to the papacy. See Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio where, in addition to preventing a heretic from assuming the office of the papacy, it also indicates:

"In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy...each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone." -Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio #6, Paul IV, 1559.

One can already anticipate the objection that this citation is inapplicable, because this is mere canon law, not Divine law, and we are trying to show that it is not Divine law that Jesus Christ would supply jurisdiction to an Antipope to appoint Cardinals. But, we can show from this canon law that it is also not Divine law that Christ would supply jurisdiction. How? Because the canon laws of the Church can never lead to superstition, or be imperfect or crippled (such as crippled by Divine law). This is a dogma of the Catholic faith expressed in a few places:

"The prescription of the synod about the order of transacting business in the conferences, in which, after it prefaced 'in every article that which pertains to faith and to the essence of religion must be distinuished from that which is proper to discipline,'' it adds, 'in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstitution and materialism'; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,--false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous."- Auctorem Fidei #78, Pius VI, 1794.

"Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced." -Mirari Vos #9, Gregory XVI, 1832.

Therefore, since at one time the Church enacted a canon and disciplinary law that a heretic elected to the papacy has no jurisdiction to appoint successors (his acts are null and void from the beginning), then it is clear it cannot also be Divine law, since Divine law would then be crippling and rendering imperfect this canon law. Since the Church enacted these canon laws, it is clear there is also no Divine law requiring papal jurisdiction be supplied to a heretic elected to the papacy. Further, the argument advanced by some that Cum Ex Apostolatus was only sanctioned by Pope Paul IV and not the Church, and therefore these dogmas regarding "laws enacted by the Church" do not apply, is specious. If a part of a whole enacts something, the whole also enacts it. If the hand of the body of any human writes something, the entire human wrote something. If the head of the body of Christ sanctioned something, the entire body of Christ sanctioned something. The only exception to this would be if a lesser authority tried to sanction something prohibited by a higher authority, only in this case would the Church as a whole not be sanctioning it, since the attempt by the lesser authority to sanction it is voided by the higher authority. In the case of a Pontiff, however, there is no higher authority. Thus, you can be sure if the Pontiff sanctions something, so does the Church. The whole is the summation of its parts.


ARGUMENT IV- CANON 209 ONLY SUPPLIES JURISDICTION, NOT THE OFFICE OR POSITION

It is the law of the Catholic Church that only Cardinals can elect the Roman Pontiff, and only the Roman Pontiff can designate and appoint Cardinals.

"Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff from throughout the whole world who are at least constituted in the presbyteral order [and who] are notably outstanding for their doctrine, piety, and prudence in conducting affairs." -Canon 232, 1917 Code of Canon Law.

"Cardinals are created and published by the Roman Pontiff in a Consistory"- Canon 233, 1917 Code of Canon Law.

"The right of electing the Roman Pontiff pertains solely and exclusively to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, having excluded and in every respect removed any intervention at all of any other Ecclesiastical dignity or lay power of any rank or order without distinction." -Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis #32 (Law Regarding Papal Election), Pius XII, 1945.

While Canon 209 supplies jurisdiction, it does not supply the office which by definition is the only office capable of conferring a position. Thus, a layman could only have the jurisdiction a Catholic layman could exercise by office, and a priest the jurisdiction a priest could exercise in his position, and a bishop a bishop, and an apostolic administrator an apostolic administrator, and so forth. A priest or layman cannot be supplied an office he does not occupy. Likewise, a heretic could not receive any jurisdiction at all, since he is outside the Church and his position does not permit any jurisdiction at all by Divine Constitution of the Church (see Argument I above, Satis Cognitum). Since the Vatican II Antipopes and Cardinals never actually occupied the offices that they claim, they cannot perform the functions prescribed by canon law only for those offices, no matter whether jurisdiction itself is supplied.


ARGUMENT V- THE CASSICIACUM THESIS DENIES THE FORMAL/MATERIAL DISTINCTION AS ACTUALLY TAUGHT BY SAINT THOMAS

Further, the Cassiciacum thesis denies the definition of formal taught by the Doctor Saint Thomas. For Thomas declared "the principles whereby a thing is defined are regarded as the formal constituent in regard to the individualizing matter" (Summa Theologiae, P1, Q3, A3). What defines the Roman Pontificate is its position as head of the Church and the powers that this position wields. Part of the definition of being the Roman Pontiff is the power to appoint to offices. To declare that that the Vatican II Antipopes are only "materially" Pontiffs, yet have powers that belong to the definition of what it means specifically to be Pontiff (the power to appoint offices), is to deny the definition and distinction between formal and material that is taught by the Doctor himself, and make their own confounded and false definition, thus denying the philosophy of the Doctor Saint Thomas.


ARGUMENT VI- EVEN IF THE CASSICIACUM THESIS IS A VIABLE OPINION, IT IS ONLY ONE OPINION OF MANY ON HOW TO OBTAIN THE NEXT POPE, THE MOMENT ANOTHER OPINION WAS FOLLOWED AND A POPE WAS ACTUALLY OBTAINED BY AUTHORITY OF THAT OPINION, THE CASSICIACUM THESIS BECOMES IRRELEVANT

As has often been discussed by the doctors, in matters that are genuinely unclear, one is free to follow one of any viable opinions to obtain a result that must be obtained for the good of the Church (see proof of jurisdiction if Boniface X section 5). The moment a Pope is obtained by following any of the viable opinions, those opinions that assert some other method become irrelevant, since a Pope has in fact been obtained. Thus, since Boniface X became Pope thorugh one of the viable opinions, and in fact a powerful opinion, since it is backed by the canon law of Pius XII which should always perfectly reflect Divine law, all other opinions including the Cassiciacum Thesis have become irrelevant, since the required result- a Pontiff- has been obtained.