Dogmatic and Legal Proof of the Papacy of Boniface X
Latest Revisions March 20, 2024
Revisions March 8, 2024
Revisions November 10, 2019
October 4, 2019
#1- ANTIPOPE FRANCIS IS A HERETIC
Antipope Francis, the imposter currently inhabiting Rome, teaches that those who do not hold to the Catholic Faith can be saved. Also, he teaches that those who hold and profess doctrines that contradict the Catholic Faith are saved. This is contrary to the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Florence, and numerous other dogmas throughout two thousand years.
As a result, Francis is a manifest heretic who teaches and professes a different faith from the Catholic Faith. His liberal and heretical scandals are so numerous that they are virtually famous, and can easily be found in public discourse.
Prior to Antipope Francis, the author had to write discourses pointing out the Vatican II heresies of Antipope John XXIII to Antipope Benedict XVI, because though still obvious, they were more subtle. With Antipope Francis, there is absolutely no subtlety left. Francis is so obviously heretical even the most unaware have now heard of his scandals. A simple internet search in our modern age will produce a host of scandalous and false statements, including many instances where he praises false religions and declares their adherents are in the way of salvation. The false Vatican II Council (1962-1965) and all the Antipopes who have reigned since, also teach that false religions (and thus their creeds which make them the false religions they are) are “means of salvation”. For example:
“It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.” Antipope Paul VI, Vatican II Unitatis Redintegratio #3 (1964).
“When we say that we recognize the baptism of Christians of other traditions [non-Catholics], we confess that they too have received the Lord’s forgiveness and his grace which works within them. We welcome their worship as an authentic expression of praise for what God achieves… when their blood is spilled, even if they belong to other confessions, they likewise become martyrs to faith, martyrs, united in the bond of baptismal grace” Antipope Francis, L’Osservatore Romano (February 2, 2018).
These sample quotations above from Unitatis Redintegratio of Vatican II, and Antipope Francis contradict the Athanasian Creed defined at the Council of Florence, among many other dogmas:
“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which faith except each one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly…. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.” Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence (1442 A.D.)
“[The Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence, Bull of Union with the Copts (1442 A.D.)
“Those who were not willing to be at agreement in the Church of God, cannot remain with God; although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be for them that crown of faith, but the punishment of faithlessness, not a glorious result (of religious virtue), but the ruin of despair. Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned.” Pope Pelagius II, Dilectionis Vestrae, (585 A.D.).
“Therefore it [the Holy Catholic Church] condemns, reproves, anathematizes, and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever believes opposing and contrary views.”. Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra Bull of Union with the Copts, Council of Florence (1442 A.D.)
The true dogmas are thus clear that heretics who trust in false sects are alien to the Church, being excluded from the kingdom on other grounds, even if they do not have the guilt of a formally heretical conscience. As Augustine preached, men who are heretics are those who, had they remained Catholic, would have been lost for other reasons by sin and the irregularity of their lives.
#2- BECAUSE HE DOES NOT PROFESS THE TRUE FAITH, ANTIPOPE FRANCIS IS DEFINITELY OUTSIDE THE CHURCH
It has been defined and taught by the Magisterium that Holy Mother Church has One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, and that no one who holds a different faith can be inside her. Further, it has defined that all who hold views opposing and contrary to the Catholic Faith are alien to Holy Mother Church.
“Therefore it [the Holy Catholic Church] condemns, reproves, anathematizes, and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever believes opposing and contrary views.” Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra Bull of Union with the Copts, Council of Florence (1442 A.D.)
“The Holy Church of God, which by Divine Providence, We preside over and which is indeed one, preaches and worships one God and firmly and sincerely professes one Faith.” Pope Leo X, ex cathedra, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11 (19 December 1516)
“For, regulars, seculars, prelates, and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, belong to the one universal church, outside of which no one at all is saved, and they have one Lord and one Faith.” Pope Leo X, ex cathedra, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11 (19 December 1516).
"For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, #231(1943).
"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 Magisterium. 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)." Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #9 (1896).
#3- BECAUSE A HERETIC IS NOT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, HE CANNOT BE A POPE, A MEMBER OF IT (THE HEAD OF IT). ALSO, WHEN ANY CARDINAL OR OTHER CLERIC BECOMES A PUBLIC HERETIC HE TACITLY RESIGNS HIS OFFICE.
Therefore, as shown in the previous part, it is a certain fact that heretics, schismatics, and apostates not only automatically and immediately fall outside the Catholic Church. As will be shown in this part, it is also a certain fact that they lose all authority they possess and lose their offices. Leo XIII taught in his infallible Encyclical Satis Cognitum that only those in communion with the Apostle Peter (and therefore are not alien to the Church) can share in the authority of the Apostle Peter. He begins by discussing the criteria to fall outside the Catholic communion:
"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 Magisterium. 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)." Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #9 (1896).
In the same Encyclical, Leo XIII goes on to state that these who are cut off from Catholic unity and communion also cannot have any authority of the Church:
“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church” Pope Leo XIII infallible, Encyclical Satis Cognitum (1896).
Pius XII taught in Humani Generis that the Encyclicals of true Popes like the one quoted (Satis Cognitum) are ordinary magisterium, which is infallible and of the level "he who hears you hears Me” (the voice of Christ Himself). Therefore, one can be absolutely certain that clerics who fall into heresy not only alienate themselves from the Church, but also lose their authority.
“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who heareth you, heareth Me’”- Pius XII, Humani Generis (1950).
Therefore, the teachings in Satis Cognitum that: (1) papal claimants who were heretics when elected (such as John XXIII- Francis) are alien to the Church and (2) heretical papal claimants have no authority in the Church, are completely reliable and infallible, and are the voice of Christ Himself.
Some false traditional groups, including the Society of Saint Pius X, incorrectly teach that it is only a fallible opinion of a few theologians that a papal claimant does not hold office if he holds to heresy. On this basis (that it is a mere fallible opinion), they assert that it cannot be proven that the Vatican II bishops are themselves Antipopes and Anticardinals, and that men should still adhere to them as true Popes. This is completely wrong. As has just been shown, the teaching that a papal claimant loses all authority and jurisdiction in the Church is an infallible teaching of Satis Cognitum and Pope Leo XIII published in 1896, and therefore it is no longer a mere theological opinion. In the time of Doctor Saint Robert Bellarmine, one of the proponents that a Roman Pontiff may lose his office for heresy, it was only a theological opinion. But once this matter was put to rest once and for all when Leo XIII penned Satis Cognitum in 1896 and taught definitively, for all time, that a heretic loses all jurisdiction in the Church, this can no longer be called a mere theological opinion.
This dogmatic principle that heretics cannot share in ecclesiastical authority is secondarily supported in the valid ecclesiastical law of the Church, which adds additional support to the dogmatic pronouncements in Satis Cognitum. The ecclesiastical canons are not necessary for the proof, however. Satis Cognitum alone is sufficient to prove the position, because it is an infallible dogmatic pronouncement from Leo XIII which is the voice of Christ Himself. Nonetheless, the ecclesiastical law forms a secondary proof and additional support to the main argument from dogma in Leo XIII's Encyclical. The ecclesiastical law also teaches that public heretics (such as the Antipopes before their null election) immediately and tacitly resign their office by the operation of the law itself:
“Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric…publicly defects from the Catholic Faith.” -Roman Code of Canon Law 188.4 (1917)
This canon from the 1917 code is the active law of the Catholic Church, and is founded originally in the decretals and bulls of previous pontiffs that were superseded by this canon. The most pertinent past bull that taught the same principle as Canon 188.4 is the bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio promulgated by Paul IV in 1559. This older bull from Paul IV is instrumental and of supreme importance in interpreting and shedding additional light on Canon 188.4.
“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: (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless… (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office, and power.” Pope Paul VI, ex cathedra, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (February 15, 1559).
Therefore, according to canon law, just as according to dogma itself, heretics and apostates tacitly resign their ecclesiastical offices in accord with Canon 188.4 and have no jurisdictional authority in the Church when they publicly defect, i.e. when "appear" publicly to have fallen into some heresy. These laws reaffirm and support the dogmatic declaration of Satis Cognitum itself.
Thus, there were no Popes after Pope Pius XII (who died in 1958), and prior to Boniface X’s papacy, because all the post-1958 claimants were heretics (or even apostates) when they were elected, no longer held communion with the Church, and as a result were also deprived of all offices and jurisdiction in the Church. This is why all of their teachings and documents are filled with heresies. Their teachings no longer had protection of the Holy Spirit, because they where heretics when they were elected and their elections were null. They were men masquerading as Popes, but who never actually became true Popes. John XIII (1958-1963), Paul VI (1963-1978), John Paul I (1978), John Paul II (1978-2005), Benedict XVI (2005-2013), and Francis (2013-present) were never Roman Pontiffs. They were merely abominable heretics masquerading as Pontiffs, deluding the world, and leading it to eternal damnation.
Just as there were no true Popes from 1958 until Boniface X became Pontiff, there were also no true Cardinals since Vatican II (i.e. ones that hold to the Catholic dogmatic definitions of the Middle Ages, such as “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”), because they all publically followed, signed, and approved of the heresies of Vatican II as true and proper beliefs. By their action in approving the Vatican II Council with its heresies, they became heretics and fell away from the Catholic Faith and Church before they even committed their pen to the paper (they fell away the moment they resolved to sign the Vatican II documents) according to Satis Cognitum as indicated above. Nostra Aetate, a document from Vatican II, for example, teaches that false religions are more or less good and praiseworthy. This precise doctrine, as an example, was condemned by true Pope Pius XI in 1938 in Mortalium Animos. Therefore, since they committed themselves to teaching heresy and professing it, they also lost all jurisdiction and authority over the Church according to Satis Cognitum as indicated above, since they ceased to be in communion with the Apostle Peter via their alienation from the Church through heresy. The jurisdiction and authority of the Cardinals and bishops flow only through the Saint Peter and the Roman Pontiff as taught by Pius XII in his infallible encyclical Ad Apostolorum Principis:
"...jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: '...as far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff.'" -Pope Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis (June 29, 1958).
Therefore, just like the papal claimants themselves, the false Cardinals that embraced Vatican II had no authority whatsoever to bind anyone and were not even valid Cardinals once they had approved the Vatican II decrees, and many of them were heretics and apostates even before they approved the Vatican II decrees.
Satis Cognitum is not the only dogmatic declaration that teaches immediate alienation from the Church the moment one becomes a heretic or preaches heresy. This principle that holding or even merely professing and preaching heresy tears one from ecclesiastical communion was also previously defined in the Council of Florence and other places:
“Therefore it [the Holy Catholic Church] condemns, reproves, anathematizes, and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.” Bull of Union with the Copts, Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence 1442 A.D.)
“Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet. For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, #23,1943. See also Satis Cognitum regarding receding from any point of doctrine of the Church’s authoritative magisterium making one alien to the Church.
"In the same way if any should be discovered, whether bishops, clergy or laity, thinking or teachingthe views expressed in his statement by the priest Charisius about the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God or the disgusting, perverted views of Nestorius, which underlie them, these should be subject to the condemnation of this holy and ecumenical synod. A bishop clearly is to be stripped of his bishopric and deposed, a cleric to be deposed from the clergy, and a lay person is to be anathematised, as was said before." Pope Sixtus III, ex cathedra, Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D.
"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have received the washing of regeneration and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body." Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, #22, 1943.
As should be clear by now, based on these dogmatic teachings, only Catholics who profess the Catholic faith are in the Church, and have authority/jurisdiction in the Church. Those who hold, profess, or teach another doctrine than the Catholic Faith have no authority in the Church. This is defined dogma and to deny it is heresy.
#4- CHRIST COMMANDS, BY DIVINE LAW, THAT THE CHURCH HAVE A ROMAN PONTIFF
“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… let him be anathema.” Pope Pius IX, ex cathedra, Vatican I, Session 4 (18 July 1870).
Christ commands the Church to have a Pope by Divine law, even if no other laws regarding how to obtain the Pope (procedural laws) are actively in force.
#5- BONIFACE X WAS NOT REQUIRED BY GOD TO HOLD AN ELECTION
First, as a general point, it should be known that an election is not absolutely necessary to have a Roman Pontiff, and it was not unheard of in history to have a Pontiff without an full election with ballots cast and counted. Therefore, it is not fundamentally contrary to God’s essential moral nature to obtain a Roman Pontiff without a process of election:
Pope Boniface II was APPOINTED (at least in the sense of designation) by Pope Felix IV.
Pope Boniface II APPOINTED Vigilius as his successor, but withdrew the order when he realized it wasn’t popular.
Pope Peter was APPOINTED by Jesus Christ, outside of Rome.
Some canonists, such as Fagnani, despite these examples have asserted an election is necessary by Divine positive law. However, this is only a theological opinion. Not every canonist agreed an election was necessary, and there is evidence against this position. Indeed, the text of scripture itself on the power of Peter "whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" itself implies an implicit power to appoint a successor or disband the electoral procedure if a Pontiff so chose, rather than continue with the historical canons requiring an election. Since no dogma was ever proclaimed that an election of the Roman Pontiff is necessary by Divine law, it is not a binding doctrine that must be followed. A Catholic man in conscience is free to disregard the need for an election, especially in a time like this, when it cannot be held under the canon law, under the principles of probabilism (choosing any non-defined opinion on a moral issue that is reasonably probable). The use of probabilism has been approved by the Roman Pontiffs, and probabilism is also adopted in the canon law (canon 15- a doubtful law does not bind, lex dubia non obligat).
“When a prohibiting law is certain, the subjects of the law are bound to abstain from performing the action which the law forbids, unless they are excused by one of the ordinary exempting causes. On the other hand, when it is certain that no law forbids an action, there is no obligation to abstain from performing it. Between these two extremes there can be varying degrees of uncertainty about the existence or cessation of a prohibiting law....The central doctrine of Probabilism is that in every doubt which concerns merely the lawfulness or unlawfulness of an action it is permissible to follow a solidly probable opinion in favour of liberty, even though the opposing view is more probable... Probabilism, if untrue, is seriously detrimental to the spiritual life of the faithful, since it permits actions which ought to be forbidden, and the Church cannot tolerate or give approval to such a moral system. But the Church during many centuries has tolerated Probabilism, and has given it approval in the person of St. Alphonsus. Hence Probabilism is not a false system of morals. That the Church has tolerated Probabilism is shown from the numerous approved authors, who, since the time of Medina, have defended it without interference on the part of ecclesiastical authority. That the Church has given positive approval to Probabilism in the person of St. Alphonsus is proved from the fact that his works including his treatises in favour of Probabilism, received official sanction from the Decree of 18 May, 1803, the reply of the Sacred Penitentiary of 5 July, 1831 the Bull of Canonization of 26 May, 1839 and the Apostolic Letters of 7 July, 1871 (cf. Lehmkuhl, "Theologia Moralis", I, nn. 165-75).”- Probablism (Article), Harty, J. 1911, Catholic Encyclopedia,
No position is taken here on whether that a papal election is not required by Divine law is merely solidly probable or more than solidly probable. The principle that it is at least solidly probable is enunciated based on the numerous examples already provided for intrinsic proof. Regarding extrinsic proof, the position is also at least solidly probable (has the support of at least five canonists or theologians) and therefore an election is not absolutely to be considered as required by Divine law, and a Catholic man is free to hold the opinion there is no such Divine law requiring election to which he is bound. Indeed, as one example Ferraris outlines the position that the Divine law is necessary but then admits the canonists and theologians who have opposed the position including Victorius, Bonacina, Suarez, Vasquez, Turrianus, Ledesma, and others. (Ferraris, Bibliotheca, Section Papa #1)
But some will argue, yes but since this matter hinges upon the validity of the Pope to be obtained, probabilism cannot be applied. This is the argument of some. This is because the probabilists, at least some, may have maintained that when validity (even merely legal validity) is at stake, or an obligatory legal end, one must have more certainty. However, in this case, we can establish no certainty could ever be obtained regarding validity of the end due to the myraid of possibilities of procedure possibly required to obtain validity. Therefore, since God is not unjust, an election is still not required. This is especially the case since any papacy which asserts its authority on the basis of having had any kind of election without Cardinals is declared null and void by Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. The argument proceeds: we know from Vatican I that the supreme jurisdiction established in Peter and his successors is to last forever in the Church by Christ's command ("Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself, let him be anathema. 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"). We also know there is no clear promulgation of any Divine (as opposed to canonical) legal procedure for election to obtain a valid pope in an emergency (i.e. only the senators theororized by Ferraris, pastors in Rome and to what extent the borders travel, only clergy of any kind, only bishops, only local lay residents if no bishops or instead vagantes clergy that happen to be in Rome, etc...), or whether such an unknown procedure is even required at all as doubted by Suarez, Vazquez and others. Christ would be unjust to require us to obey a particular unknown procedure insufficiently promulgated to obtain a valid pope, especially one so unclear that could be only one of many of the possibilities. Lehmkuhl, "Theologia Moralis", I, nn. 176-8. It is impossible for God to be unjust. Therefore, no election is required by God by following Divine law to obtain a valid pope if there is also no canonical election law of the Church able to be obeyed, unless and until the Divine requirements are sufficiently promulgated by a dogmatic definition.
Further, the discipline of the Church can never be called "deficient and imperfect and subject to civil authority" as taught by Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos. Yet clearly, if the current canonical law of election Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, even as it stands today in the Church after the Great Apostasy, does not accurately reflect the Divine law when one attempts to follow it, then it is deficient and imperfect and subject to be changed by civil authority, or even anyone else who needed to make use of the law. Clearly then, when Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis which is a perfect law limits election only to the Cardinals, even in this time of the Great Apostasy when there are no Cardinals remaining, thus making it impossible to hold the actual election, it is revealing that there is no Divine law that requires an election. If there were a Divine law that required an election, then Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, in this time of the Great Apostasy, would be imperfect. Further, the penalties imposed by Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis would be useless, a thing forbidden by Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei. We know this cannot be the case. Thus, every Catholic can be confident there is no Divine law requiring an election.
Finally, also touching the Divine will, we know that the object of faith cannot be based on any private revelation, or revelation after the death of the Apostles, as defined by Pius X (see below). Therefore, we also know we are not to "wait on God" or wait for some revelation to have a Pope.
Now that We have shown it need not be held that an election is necessary by Divine law, and that such a principle cannot be enforced, We can now show that it is also not necessary according to canon law.
#6- BONIFACE X PERFECTLY OBEYED THE CANONS REGARDING PAPAL ELECTION THAT WERE CURRENTLY IN FORCE AND STILL BINDING ON HIM, AND ALSO OBEYED CHRIST'S COMMAND TO HIM AND ALL CATHOLIC MALES TO OBTAIN A POPE BY ANY MEANS NOT FORBIDDEN BY ECCLESIASTICAL LAW, AND THEREFORE BECAME THE ROMAN PONTIFF
The active canon law of election currently in force today was promulgated by Boniface X’s immediate predecessor, Pius XII, in 1945 in the Apostolic Constitution known as Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. These were effectively the same laws of election promulgated by Pius X, but with some slight amendments to the original laws. The vast majority of these canons requires active and intensive participation by the College of Cardinals appointed by Pius XII and his predecessors. Virtually every single law of the document mentions the Cardinals or some aspect of their jurisdiction. For example, paragraph number six states “the Congregation of Cardinals may be viewed as having two divisions…”, seven states “in the aforementioned Particular Congregations [of Cardinals]… only business of lesser importance be handled”, in eight “let the General Congregations of Cardinals be held in the Apostolic Vatican Palace”, in nine “let the votes of the Congregation of Cardinals be given not by voice” and etc… Virtually every canon of Pius XII’s Constitution, currently in force, invokes the Cardinals and requires their active participation.
Under the principles of canonical interpretation and general moral theology (as well as common sense) accepted and commonly taught by the theologians, including the most eminent ones, a canon (law) ceases to bind when it is impossible to obey.
“Absolute impossibility excuses from the observance of any law… the first part of this principle rests on the maxim: no one is obliged to do the impossible.”- Dominic M. Prummer, O.P., Handbook of Moral Theology (1956).
“No one is obliged to obey a precent which is morally impossible to fulfill (ultra posse nemo tenetur). However, when the whole of an obligation cannot be fulfilled, and the matter is susceptible of division, we are not excused from fulfilling a part. Innocent XI condemned the proposition that a priest who is unable to say the whole of his daily office is therefore excused from saying any portion of it.”- Arthur Preuss, A Handbook of Moral Theology (1925).
As already discussed in the previous parts, it is a verifiable fact that in this time there are no Cardinals left. All of the heretics claiming to be Cardinals profess a faith that is different from the Catholic faith and fell from their offices and authority to bind according to Satis Cognitum. The faith of these false Cardinals might appropriately be called the “faith of the Vatican II sect” or some other thing, but whatever it is, it is definitely not the Catholic Faith as it was proclaimed for two thousand years. In the writings of Boniface X, you will find many of the ancient and venerable dogmas quoted, and these men of Vatican II who call themselves Cardinals do not hold them. This makes them all at least heretics, and some perhaps even apostates who deny the whole array of Christian teaching. It is dogma and canon law that all heretics are deprived of their offices, cannot rule in the Church, and tacitly resign those offices when they openly defect from the Catholic Faith, according to Canon 188.4 of the most recent validly enacted code of canon law, the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, and as infallibly taught by Leo XIII in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum. The heretical men calling themselves Cardinals therefore are deprived of their offices, since they follow the Vatican II Conciliar Documents (promulgated in 1965) which deny almost two millennia of Catholic doctrine, and they follow the Vatican II sect in all of its other errors and heresies taught by its Antipopes (John XXIII- Francis). They have defected and embraced a creed contrary to the Catholic Faith. Further, the current men falsely claiming to be Cardinals today in Rome were appointed by Antipopes after the reign of the last true Pontiff Pius XII, and thus are also not valid Cardinals for this reason. Any elevation to the Cardinalate was null and void for them.
As a result, most of Pius XII’s laws of election in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis are impossible to fulfill because there is no longer a College of Cardinals left to obey those laws as required. Because these laws urge and require the active participation of the College of Cardinals, the laws are not able to be followed without there being such a College. The College of Cardinals no longer exists (because they all became heretics and tacitly resigned their offices).
Therefore, the only laws in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that remain binding and able to be obeyed are the laws addressed to the Catholic faithful who are not Cardinals. All the laws in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that specifically require the Cardinals to do some thing or other are no longer binding, because they are impossible to obey as there are no Cardinals left to obey them. Unlike those canons in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis which command only the College of Cardinals to do something, if a particular canon in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis commands the rest of the Catholic faithful to do something, or prohibits all of the Catholic faithful from doing something, those particular canon laws do continue to bind Catholics. They are still possible to obey as long as there are Catholic faithful who are not Cardinals around to obey them.
When a Catholic examines Pius XII’s Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis in full, he can see that there are only four laws in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that can be observed by the Catholic faithful today who are not Cardinals: (1) the Seat of Peter is to be filled and accepted by a male member of the Catholic faithful, even by someone who was not previously a Cardinal, who accepts the true electoral procedure as far as it was able to be followed without Cardinals; (2) no one but Cardinals can elect the Pope; (3) all previous laws of electing the Pope before Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis are abrogated; and (4) the law of election cannot be performed in any other manner than the one prescribed by Pius XII in Vacantis Apostlicae Sedis on pain of the wrath of Saints Peter and Paul. These are the only canonical laws regarding obtaining a Pope that remain binding, because they are the only four laws or pillars of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that can still possibly be followed by non-Cardinals. As a result, the Chair of Peter is able to be held by the first Catholic male willing to acknowledge these four laws, determine that he has already obeyed them and conformed to the legal requirements (in most cases the Catholic male will have already obeyed them since most Catholic males have not sought to hold a papal election or disobey the other requirements able to be followed), and finally willing to accept the position of Roman Pontiff (as long as he meets the general criterion of natural law and positive law of eligibility for election: being male, not being outside the Catholic Church, being of mature age, being of moral integrity, and being of at least adequate knowledge). The Catholic male who examines the issue knows Christ will honor his elevation to the Pontificate, because he is fully obeying all the requirements in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that require something of him as a non-Cardinal, and therefore could still be obeyed by him. Further, and most importantly, he is also obeying the dogmatic canon defined at Vatican I (discussed in part 4 above) that Christ commands perpetual continuing successors in the primacy. Why is this? Because Christ, through His command to have perpetual successors, speaks to the entire Church when He issues the command, the entire ecclesia of members. At this time, there being no one who exercises jurisdiction ordinarily (even the bishops are vagantes), He will accept the first Catholic male willing to conform to His command. As it is written "And the Lord raised up judges, to deliver them from the hands of those that oppressed them: but they would not hearken to them" (Judges 2:16). So it is in this time, by operation of law, the Lord has raised up the Supreme Judge, Boniface X, and woe to the man who does not agree for the sake of unity to abide by God's desire. For Christ does NOT desire sede vacante, He desires a government under the Roman Pontiff! Lest, we remain in that time which God condemns, which shows that the people are under His judgment, where the saying is "in those days there was no king in Israel: but every one did that which seemed right to himself" (Judges 21:25) because there was no judge. Does Boniface X seek fame or glory? No, he despises it, and would much rather live a private and peaceful life. Is Boniface X willing to confer the dignity of the papacy on one more worthy, absolutely, if one can be found and wishes to bear this great burden, for there is no glory from the world or the hordes of wicked for the papacy in these times. As expressed succinctly in Canon 109, it is by operation of Divine law that confers the office of Supreme Pontiff, from Jesus Christ Himself, when the canonical conditions are fulfilled as best as possible and the position is accepted:
“Those who are taken into the ecclesiastical hierarchy are not bound thereto by the consent or call of the people or secular power, but are constituted in the grades of the power of orders by sacred ordination; into the supreme pontificate, by divine law itself upon the completion of the conditions of legitimate election [now impossible to be obeyed] and acceptance; in the remanding grades of jurisdiction, by canonical mission. (1956).
Like Peter and Boniface II were designated, Boniface was not elected, but like Peter was appointed directly by Christ by operation of the Divine law itself. Indeed, it could be no other way than this, lest the Church rely on private revelation. And it is impossible that any dogma of the faith rest on private revelation. "Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles. -CONDEMNED" Lamentabili Sane Pius X 1907. Indeed, if a papacy could be based on a new revelation, then the object of faith, tied to the person of the Pontiff and the teachings of his magisterium, would ultimately be tied and depend upon some new revealtion, or apparition of some kind. But it has already been defined that this is impossible by Our Predecessor Pius X, who rightly judged that the faith which is relied upon was revealed until the death of the last apostle. Therefore, the true papacy must come by operation of law, as it has now been established with Boniface X.
Some may argue that since we cannot obey the majority of the canons in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, that we are obligated to follow one of the previous election laws that can still be followed. This is incorrect. When Pius XII instituted the most recent papal law of election, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, he specifically abrogated the previous laws of elections implemented by Pius X and all other Pontiffs before him. In fact, attempting to have any kind of election at this time according to laws promulgated before Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis would place one in disobedience to both Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and therefore God Himself, since Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis restricts papal elections only to valid Cardinals and forbids utilizing any previous law of election. Pius XII’s Constitution specifically abrogated all previous laws of election that did not require the Cardinals, and those laws also would have been abrogated anyway, even without a specific declaration of abrogation, according to canon 22 of the 1917 Code. The abrogation of all previous laws of election prior to Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is a prohibition that applies to all the faithful and which can be observed by all the faithful, not only the Cardinals. Therefore, the faithful remain bound to observe and obey this prohibition:
“Wherefore, having seasonably considered the matter, with sure the knowledge and the plenitude of Our Apostolic power, We have undertaken to publish and promulgate this Constitution, which is the same as that given by Pius X, of holy memory, but reformed throughout, 'which,' to use the words of the same Predecessor of Ours, 'the Sacred College of Cardinals shall solely use during the vacancy of the Apostolic See and in electing the Roman Pontiff', the Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica, having therefore been abrogated according as it had been brought forth by Our Predecessor Pius X."–Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, introduction, 1945.
“Since the entire business has been seriously considered, and moved by the examples of Our Predecessors, We therefore ordain and prescribe these things, decreeing that this present document and whatever is contained in it can by no means be challenged, even from the fact that any persons having a right or interest in things said beforehand, or pretending to have an interest in any way whatsoever, do not agree to them, and are not called upon or heard relative to these things, or from whatever other reasons; but rather that these same documents are manifestly and will be always and perpetually true, valid, and effective, and acquire and obtain their own full and undiminished results; and we command those individuals to whom it pertains and will pertain for the time being to vote, that the ordinances must be respectively and inviolably observed by them, and if anyone should happen to try otherwise relative to these things, by whatever authority, knowingly or unknowingly, the attempt is null and void… Notwithstanding, to the extent it is necessary, We declare the Apostolic Constitutions and Decrees published through the Roman Pontiffs Our Predecessors, which all and each having been abrogated, as above, and also even their special mandates and derogations, contrary to Our will.”- Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (1945).
Pius XII thus decreed that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is the sole Constitution to be used during the vacancy to obtain the new Pontiff, and only its laws are to be followed. No previous laws are to be followed, and no one can invent new laws to be followed. The 1917 code also specifically abrogates all contradicting laws:
“A later law, laid down by the competent authority, abrogates a prior law if it expressly says so, OR if it is directly contrary to it, OR if it completely reorders the matter treated in the earlier law.” –Canon #22, 1917 Code of Canon Law.
A law is directly contrary to another law when it lays down a law that tells the subject to do something different than the previous law, which by its own nature therefore negates the necessity of the previous law and contradicts it (what was once forbidden is now permitted or vice-versa). Thus, it was once permitted to elect a Pontiff with bishops and laypersons who were not Cardinals, but that was forbidden by Pius XII’s laws and other laws, thus these previous laws were abrogated for this reason of being directly contrary to Apostolicae Sedis because they permitted what is now forbidden.
As already discussed, one of the laws in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that can still be followed by those Catholics who are not Cardinals, is the law that forbids anyone not in the College of Cardinals from electing the Roman Pontiff.
“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.”- Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis #32 (1945)
It should be noted that this canon 32 of the Constitution, restricting any election solely and exclusively to the Cardinals can still be obeyed by all the faithful and is not impossible to obey. It is not a canon that is directed only to the College of Cardinals, but it relates to and forbids something to be done by all the faithful of the Church. The faithful therefore remain bound to observe this law, since it can still be observed. The purpose of this canon is to restrict the election solely and exclusively to the Cardinals, and it can continue to be observed by the Catholic faithful today who are not Cardinals. This law can continue to be obeyed and fulfilled by all faithful Catholics, nor is it impossible to obey. Hence, this law is one that remains in effect. The mere fact that there are no Cardinals left does not prevent the remaining faithful from obeying canon 32.
Therefore Boniface X, prior to his elevation to the papacy, observed the four requirements described above that remain binding regarding obtaining the next Pontiff. He also obeyed the Divine law instituted by Jesus Christ, and defined as existing at Vatican I, that there be perpetual successors in the primacy. He did this by seeking to become such a successor in obedience to the will of Jesus Christ. He obeyed the law of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that requires the Chair of Peter to be filled by someone, even a non-Cardinal, and he did this by accepting the position of the Roman Pontiff. He perfectly obeyed the law of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that only the Cardinals hold a papal election, by dispensing with the election requirement of counting the votes and collecting ballots, since he was not a Cardinal and was forbidden from holding the electoral procedure of the vote. Finally, he also obeyed and observed Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis in its abrogation of all previous laws of papal election, by not following any previous election laws either. Therefore, Boniface X, in the process of becoming the Pontiff, perfectly fulfilled both Divine law and the current laws of Pius XII governing obtaining the next Pontiff that had not become impossible to obey.
Despite all these clear abundant proofs, some still stubbornly argue that we must have an election of some kind because it just seems right to have one. But, any kind of election other than that promulgated in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is unlawful. The only promulgated laws in the Church that still remain able to be obeyed in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis are the four discussed above. Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis also abrogated all previous laws of election. The argument therefore that we must somehow still have an election is already completely refuted on these points alone.
Nonetheless, assuming for the sake of argument that these irrefutable legal facts just discussed did not exist, how would you even have an election? One is not permitted to just make up his own rules and do whatever he wishes. Even the theological opinion known as epikeia enunciated in places like the Summa Theologica of Aquinas, which is merely an opinion and not binding on anyone, and only allows for the cessation of the original law, in order to fulfill the intent of the lawmaker. While Epikeia replaces a promulgated law with "no such law" (or liberty), it does not allow for the promulgation of a whole new legal or procedural system that allows a layman or citizen to bind other laymen and citizens, such as the creation of a new election procedure. Epikeia can only create an argument for cessation of law in favor of liberty. Further, Epikeia is only a theological opinion, and therefore you cannot use it to bind others to any proposed state of affairs, since it is insufficiently promulgated as a rule or law. Everything the organizer of a new invented election procedure would decide would be utterly arbitrary, and the organizer would have no authority or jurisdiction to create such a procedure. Even being a bishop would not grant jurisdiction or authority to create a new procedure. To have jurisdiction or authority under the 1917 code of canon law, you must be an "ordinary" bishop appointed by the Roman Pontiff to a particular diocese, a process known as incardination. As is clear in many authoritative sources, including the 1917 code, a bishop that is not appointed to lead a diocese is merely a "vagantes bishop", who has no ecclesiastical jurisdiction or authority to lead or teach even laymen. The sole exception to this rule would be a bishop who receives a special appointment from the true Pontiff to exercise jurisdiction without leading a diocese. No bishops with any ecclesiastical jurisdiction exist today, because those that might have retained the Catholic Faith and that were appointed by Pius XII to lead particular dioceses have all passed away.
"Bishops are successors of the Apostles and by divine institution are placed over specific churches that they govern with ordinary power under the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
§ 2. The Roman Pontiff freely appoints them. Residential Bishops are ordinary and immediate pastors in the dioceses committed to them...
§ 2. In the government of the diocese, however, neither personally nor through others nor under any title can they involve themselves before they have first taken up possession canonically of the diocese; but if, before being designated for the episcopate, they have been appointed Vicars Capitulary, officials, or economes, these offices they may retain and exercise after designation [as Bishop].
§ 3. Residential Bishops take up canonical possession of a diocese immediately upon showing the apostolic letters personally or through a procurator to the Chapter of the cathedral church in that diocese in the presence of the secretary of the Chapter or chancellor of the Curia, who records the matter in the acts." -Canons 329 and 334, 1917 code of canon law.
and again Canon 197:
"Ordinary power of jurisdiction is that which is attached to an office by law; delegated [power is that which] is committed to a person."
Therefore, vagantes (wandering) bishops such as SSPV, CMRI, the Sanborn/Dolan movement, and various independent bishops, presently wandering outside of the authority of Boniface X and who have received no office by incardination into a diocese, have no canonical apostolic letters described in these canons from the 1917 Code, have no canonical possession of the dioceses in which they reside and teach, and therefore have no jurisdiction to call a council or bind the laity to anything. As already shown above in the citation from Canon 109, the power of orders are given by sacred ordination, but jurisdiction is given only by "canonical mission". Or again as stated in Canon 108, the developed teaching of the Church separates orders from jurisdiction (although ordinarily the two are conjoined and it is most proper for one with orders to have jurisdiction rather than a layperson). Indeed, this is how a layman can be the Supreme Pontiff even before his ordination, as taught in the canons and by Pius XII:
“3. By divine institution, the sacred hierarchy in respect of orders consists of Bishops, priests, and ministers; by reason of jurisdiction, the supreme pontificate and the subordinate episcopate; by institution of the Church other grades can also be added.” –Canon #108, 1917 Code of Canon Law.
Vagantes have therefore no place over the dioceses in which they reside nor do they govern, not having been placed over those churches. They have no authority to teach, bind, or organize their dioceses, even though they pretend to do so. They participate in the order of bishop, but not in the subordinate episcopate. The only cleric with jurisdiction at this time is the one in possession of the Roman Pontificate, Boniface X. All therefore, who prefer to remain with SSPV, CMRI, or independent bishops, know that you are schismatics attaching yourself to bishops who have no authority over you and who have obstinately rejected Boniface X, and defy the authority of Boniface X, the actual Roman Pontiff who alone is the source of all jurisdiction.
What about previous law, can Catholics go back to some previous law to have an election? All previous laws of election were expressly abrogated by Pius XII as discussed above, who forbade any attempt to use the previous laws again in contravention of his new law. Further, before Pius XII, Pius X also abrogated all previous laws to his election law. Even if these abrogations could somehow be disregarded (an impossibility), the first law of election promulgated by Nicaea requires the participation of the faithful, clergy, neighboring bishops, and the approval of the metropolitan. Where are the Catholic diocesan bishops around Rome? There are none. Where are the faithful? Shall we simply arbitrarily say that any faithful throughout the world may participate? Or should only the remaining true Catholic clergy participate? Rome has primacy over the churches, shall only Roman clergy participate, or only Roman clergy and faithful, or in these times should all participate? Who will be in charge of organizing such an election and who will make the decision? Who will decide how much advertising will be enough? Shall we spend $1,000, $1,000,000, $10,000,000 or more? How do we know that the faithful have been effectively informed? The questions are endless. After Constantine and even before, the clergy of Rome were clearly known to all, they held the dogmas, they organized the proceedings. They were the officials who performed the acts required and recorded the votes, and affirmed the acclamation of the faithful, which were familiar to them in their parishes. In this time, it is almost impossible to easily find true Catholic clergy or true Catholic faithful. They no longer attend church buildings designated “Catholic”, and for most if not all, there is no bishop that holds to all the true Catholic dogmas where they may assemble and receive the sacraments without entering into communicatio in sacris with heretics. To attempt to assemble whatever motley crowd of genuine Catholics you could into some place for an election, once all the questions of who should actually participate are resolved in some arbitrary fashion, it would require extensive advertising, and who knows how many undesirables would be attracted. You would also have to test to see whether they held the Catholic Faith, each and every one of them, as far as possible, since heresy is so rampant and so many deny at least one dogma today. You couldn’t just take someone’s word that they are a Catholic according to their own perverted understanding, as there have been no real Catholic bishops teaching the faithful for decades. Who would be willing to finance such a risky venture to spend millions and millions on motion picture, broadcast wave, and print advertising? Should the Church enslave itself to non-Catholics and obtain financing from them? Could they even obtain financing? Talk about a risky venture where you would still end up with a Church that has very few faithful, very few donations, how would these non-Catholic moneylenders ever be repaid? Perhaps the future Pope would abolish the debts as well, by decree? There are no known Catholics who hold to all the dogmas willing to pour millions into such a venture.
Continuing with the false argument that one can invent a whole election procedure, some cite Ferraris or other fallible canonical doctors and sources as a veritable law by which to obtain the Roman Pontiff. Ferraris itself admits that there is no consensus among the fallible canonists and doctors on how to obtain a Roman Pontiff if all the Cardinals were to be extinguished:
"If all the Cardinals (God forbid) were to die before the election of the Pontiff and none were left, scholars do not agree on who would have the authority to elect the Pontiff. Many say that in this case, the election would fall to the canons of the Lateran, whose church is the Pontiff's own seat above all the world and the City, and they consider this opinion more probable and safer than others, as stated by Abbot, Hostiensis, Ludovicus Romanus in c. Licet 6 de Electione; Imola in Clementine Ne Romani 2 de Electione; Barbosa there, n. 23, and in De Iure Ecclesiastico Universali, book 1, n. 75; Saint Antoninus, part 3 of the Summa, title 22, § 2, num. 5; Lavorius, Variarum Resolutionum, vol. 1, title 4, chapter 6, n. 27; Azorius, part 2, book 4, n. 2, question 11; Dionysius, on the true erection of the four Patriarchal sees, chapter 16, n. 13; Cardinal Petra, vol. 4 Commentary on Const. 5 of Clement VI, num. 20, and on Const. of Gregory XI, n. 14. Others, however, assert that in such a case, the election of the Pontiff would fall to a General Council, because the Pontiff is not only the pastor of the city of Rome but of the entire universal Church. So Decius in the cited chapter Licet 6 de Elect.; Augustine of Ancona in Summa, question 5, article 3, and others. Some, however, say that at such times the election of the Pontiff pertains to the Patriarchs. So Baldus, in law Ubi absunt ff. on Guardians and Curators; Conradus in Templo omnium iudicum, book 1, § 2, num. 6." -Ferraris Bibliotheca Canonica Iuridica Moralis Theologica 1890 Ed., Art. Papa, #44.
Since, as Ferraris admits, there is no consensus or unanimity among the doctors, there is no way to derive authority from using the fallible doctors. In fact, both Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis and the 1917 code of canon law forbid using the doctors if there is an express prescription regarding electing the Roman Pontiff, which the Church certainly has in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, which can still be obeyed, at least as far as possible, in this time without Cardinals. Those canons impossible to obey would not oblige according to the moral canonists and the natural law itself, but the rest are an express prescription that according to canon 20 must be obeyed even before any fallible doctors:
"If on a given matter there is lacking an express prescription of law, whether general or particular, the rule is to be surmised, unless it concerns the application of a penalty, from laws laid down in similar cases; [then] from the general principles of law observed with canonical equity; [then] from the style and practice of the Roman Curia; and [finally] from the common and constant opinions of the doctors." -1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 20
Here of course, there does remain an express prescription of law on the election of the Roman Pontiff, even if most of its canons are now impossible to follow. To then obtain the Roman Pontiff, the express prescription is followed as far as possible. Let's say one wanted to disobey Canon 20 and use the opinions of the fallible doctors instead- it would be impossible even if there were a consensus on any of the possible methods, for every method fails in this time. The Lateran Basicila has gone apostate, all the bishops who had jurisdiction have gone apostate to call any kind of general council and it is forbidden for a general council to be called unless it is convoked by a Roman Pontiff in accordance with Canon 222, and finally all the Catholic Patriarchates also followed the Second Vatican Council and went apostate. Therefore, the notion that one must "follow the doctors", fallible authorities, falls flat on its face in every respect. Indeed, Pius XII himself also stated clearly and unequivocally, echoing Canon 20's requirement that the express prescription be followed before any other source, that his procedure must now be the sole law of election, to be preferred therefore over the theory of any doctor:
"Since the entire business has been seriously considered, and moved by the examples of Our Predecessors, We therefore ordain and prescribe these things, decreeing that this present document and whatever is contained in it can by no means be challenged, even from the fact that any persons having a right or interest in things said beforehand, or pretending to have an interest in any way whatsoever, do not agree to them, and are not called upon or heard relative to these things, or from whatever other reasons; but rather that these same documents are manifestly and will be always and perpetually true, valid, and effective, and acquire and obtain their own full and undiminished results; and we command those individuals to whom it pertains and will pertain for the time being to vote, that the ordinances must be respectively and inviolably observed by them, and if anyone should happen to try otherwise relative to these things, by whatever authority, knowingly or unknowingly, the attempt is null and void." -Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945.
No, the fact is, that the only active canon laws of election governing papal elections at the time Boniface X became the Pope, were the four laws in Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis able to be observed by all the faithful. Other than these four canons and the Divine law requiring perpetual successors, there were no other laws that were binding on Catholics, because Pius XII had abrogated all previous laws, and there were no Catholic Cardinals left to obey the remaining laws in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that were specifically addressed only to them.
#7- THE ROMAN PONTIFF HAS FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO GOVERN THE CHURCH BEFORE HE IS CONSECRATED BISHOP OF ROME
The man who accepts the papacy from Christ, either because he accepts the results of a canonical election or due to any other cause, becomes immediately the Roman Pontiff. Even before his ordination, he obtains two of the three authorities given by Christ to the Church: the teaching authority, and the ruling authority.
“It is customary to speak of a threefold office in the Church: the office of teaching (prophetic office), the priestly office, and the pastoral office (governing office), and also of threefold authority of the Church, that is, the teaching authority, ministerial authority, and ruling authority” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Sägmüller, J.B. (1910). Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction).
The man elected to the papacy immediately obtains the teaching and pastoral offices. However, he does not gain the priestly office until he is ordained. This is taught both explicitly and implicitly in numerous canon laws and commentaries regarding the same:
“Even if a layman were elected pope, he could accept the election only if he were fit for ordination and willing to be ordained. But the power to teach and govern, as well as the divine gift of infallibility, would be granted to him from the very moment of his acceptance, even before his ordination.” -Pope Pius XII, Guiding Principles of the Lay Apostolate, 1957
“The Roman Pontiff, legitimately elected, immediately upon accepting the election, obtains by divine law the full power of supreme jurisdiction.” 1917 Roman Code of Canon Law, Canon 219
“It is clearly understood that if, after an election has been held, a time of war, or the endeavors of any man who is prompted by the spirit of malignity, shall prevent him who has been elected from being enthroned according to custom in the apostolic chair: nevertheless he who has been elected shall, as pope, have authority to rule the Holy Roman Church and to have the disposal of all its resources, as we know blessed Gregory to have done before his consecration.” Pope Nicholas II, Bull In Nomine Domini on Election of the Roman Pontiff, 1059.
"When the canonical election has taken place, the junior Cardinal Deacon summons the Secretary of the Sacred College, the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonies and two Masters of Ceremonies into the chapel, and the Dean of the Sacred College in the name of all asks the one elected whether he accepts the office. He must express his acceptance or refusal of the office within the period of time determined by the Sacred College by majority vote of the Cardinals. The moment he accepts, he is the true Pope and obtains and may exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world. The Dean asks him what name he chooses. The acceptance of the office and the choice of a name are then certified by document. This done, the Cardinals show the first "adoration" to the new Pope and the Te Deum is sung, after which the first Cardinal Deacon announces the new Pope to the people, before whom after a short interval the new Pope appears and gives the blessing Urbi et Orbi. This is followed by the second "adoration" by the Cardinals. The Conclave is then opened at the command of the Pope and this is certified by document. Those outside who are accustomed to be admitted are then brought in for the "adoration." The third adoration by the Cardinals is left for a time to be set by the Pope and announced by the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonies. If the one elected is not a priest or bishop, he is to be ordained or consecrated by the Dean of the Sacred College, who in this case wears the palium. In the absence of the Dean, this privilege belongs to the Subdean; and if he, too, is absent, to the senior Cardinal Suburbicarian Bishop. Finally, the coronation of the new Pope by the first Cardinal Deacon takes place.'" Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis Pius XII, #7, December 8, 1945
"Convenientibus duabis partibus in unum quempiam, ille verus et indubiatus est Pontifex." (Cermoniale Marcelli)
“Si denique plures invenerint duas tertias partes suffragiorum obtinuisse, vel etiam ultra duas tertias, tunc in suffragiorum paritate, nullus erit electus, in imparitate vero, ille est canonicus papa, qui superat alium etiam in uno suffragio... Si sit sub-diaconus vel infra, non ponatur ei stola et ita indutum educunt, ac super predictam sedem rursus sedere jubent. Demum domini cardinales imponunt novo Pontifice, pluviale rubeum preciosum et mitram auro et gemmis ornatam, illumque sedere faciunt super altare, cui Cardinales omnes reverentiam exhibent per ordinem, pedes, manus, et os deosculantes.” (Ceremoniale Gregory XV, the rules containing the election of the Roman Pontiff).
We see from the Ceremoniale of Gregory XV, the one elected is the canonical Pope immediately upon the conclusion of the election and his acceptance. If the Pope is a subdeacon or lower ("sub-diaconus vel infra"), he is still seated on the throne and venerated as a layman even before his consecration and elevation to any of the orders. If the new Pope being venerated on the Papal Throne is merely a layman, he wears no stole of the cleric. If the true Pope was a deacon upon his elevation, he wears the stole over his left shoulder while on the throne. If the Pope was a bishop or priest on his elevation, the stole is to hang from his neck in front while on the throne. In all cases he is placed on the throne, and venerated as the Pontiff. By being placed on the throne, his papal jurisdiction was recognized even before he received any orders or received his position as bishop of Rome. This canon clearly demonstrates, beyond all doubt, and as confirmed by the other previous citations, that being the Roman Pontiff does not depend on already being the bishop of Rome, or even already being a bishop generally. The jurisdiction of the Pontificate comes apart from already being a member the episcopate.
The enemies of God thought that they could defeat God’s Church by taking the See of Rome and the bishopric there. But they were overcome by the greater wisdom of God, who has clearly taught in the inerrant and protected sources of law and dogma, that any layman can become the Pontiff, simply by being the first to accept the open position from Christ, if there were ever an emergency where the electors (in this case the Cardinals) all died (spiritually or materially) and there was no normal canonical way to have the Pope. Once the College of Cardinals was destroyed by heresy, Christ still commanded by Divine law that Church to have a Pope. The Divine law to have a Pope is the same as the Divine law demanding perpetual successors, never to be rescinded, and memorialized in Catholic dogma at Vatican I. The Chair was thus open, by Divine law, to any willing Catholic man that would accept it. Therefore, like Peter, Boniface X simply accepted the papacy offered to him (and to all other generally qualified Catholic men at the time) by Jesus Christ. Thus, Boniface X is more like Peter in this respect of accepting something offered by Christ without any other prior conditions, than perhaps any other Pontiff.
Further, we see from the dogmatic canons of the Council of Florence that the one who accepts the election is straightaway given the adoration, there is no waiting until any required ordination:
The holy synod decrees that the person elected as pope is obliged to express his consent to the election in the manner stated below. It is fitting that this consent should be made to the cardinals, if the person elected is present in the curia, or to one of the cardinals or someone mandated by them if he is not present there, in the presence of a notary and at least ten persons. After he has been informed of the election, he is bound to act within a day of the demand. If he does not do so, his election is annulled and the cardinals must proceed in the Lord's name to another election. But if he expresses his consent, as stated above, the cardinals shall straightaway[or 'immediately'] make due obeisance to him as supreme pontiff. Once the obeisance has been made by the cardinals, nobody has any right to challenge his pontificate. -Council of Florence, Decree "On the Election of the Supreme Pontiff" Session 23, 1436
#8- THE ROMAN CHURCH AND HER CLERGY ALSO CONFIRM THE PAPACY OF BONIFACE X
Not only does the Roman Pontiff possess the primacy of authority, but so does the Roman Church in his absence, as defined at Vatican I.
“For this reason it has always been necessary for every church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world–to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership.” -Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, S4, C2 (1870).
“Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church.” -Pope Pius IX, Vatican I, S4, C2 (1870).
Further, insofar as her laws are concerned, the Roman Church continued to promulgate, up until the time of Boniface X’s election, Vacantis Apostolicase Sedis as the valid law of election. Therefore, so long as Boniface X sought to obey Vacantis Apostolicase Sedis to the best of his ability, he was not only obedient to the Roman Pontiff, but also to the Roman Church since the death of Pius XII. Therefore, the Roman Church itself also approved his papacy.
#9- CONCLUSION
This is how it can be known that Boniface X is the true Roman Pontiff. All everywhere throughout the world who claim the name of Catholic must register with this Apostolic See if they wish to be saved, and submit to its authority and jurisdiction. All the faithful are able to visit the Apostolic See, ask questions of the Apostolic See, and present all cases to this Apostolic See for decision.
Anyone who remains sedevacantist (believes the Papal Throne is “Vacant”) or loyal to the Vatican II sect after seeing the proofs on this website are surely schismatics in rebellion against the Apostolic See.
#10- THE HIDDEN POPE ARGUMENT
The arguments of Boniface X's jurisdiction on this page are irrefutable. But let's say, as some have argued, that there was some hidden Pontiff somewhere for which we have no evidence, that ascended to the papal throne before Boniface X did, that also holds the Catholic Faith. If such a one exists, would Catholics not probably see him by now given that this is the internet age, where information transfers speedily from one location to another? At this time, there is absolutely no evidence there is any other such Pontiff. In cases of doubt of fact that can be reduced to a doubt of law (i.e. which Pontiff is one commanded to submit to, Boniface X or some other hidden one), when the matter involves means of salvation (submission to the Pontiff), the Catholic must always follow the most likely option. Since there is ample evidence that the Catholic Boniface X exists and has claimed the papacy, and no evidence that anyone else with Catholic Faith has, the weight of the evidence rests in Boniface X's favor. When one weighs the case, there is much evidence for Boniface X as presented here. However, there no evidence for any other Pontiff. Therefore, by weight of the evidence, according to the moralists one is obligated to submit to Boniface X as the safer course. The principle of safer course for means of salvation, is expressed in many places among the moralists, including the following manualist:
"There are cases, however, when we are obliged (because some law requires it) to follow a safer course, that is, not to expose ourselves or others to some great harm. Thus, we must follow the safer side in the following cases: (a) when there is question concerning something essential for the salvation of ourselves or of others, for the law of charity forbids that any risk be taken in this supremely important matter." -Moral Theology, A Complete Course Based on Saint Thomas and the Best Modern Authorities at 678, John A. McHugh O.P. and Charles J. Callan O.P. 1958.
When it comes to doubt of fact, the safer option is that which is most likely based on all available evidence at hand after diligent inquiry into available information.
"Judgments are morally certain, when error is impossible according to what is customary among mankind, the opposite of what is held by the mind being so unlikely that it would be imprudent to be moved by it... A person is morally certain that a conclusion he has drawn about his duty in a particular instance is correct, if he believes that he has overlooked no means of reaching the truth. Testimony and inference, since they come from free and fallible agencies, may lead into error; but, when they appear to have the requisite qualities indicative of truth, they are for the most part reliable and in practical life have to be considered as such." Id. at 643.
In any investigation looking into there is some hidden Pope, the investigation should be proportionate to the gravity of the matter, but should not become absurd or ridiculous:
"Doubt and Suspicion.—The following are the duties of a person whose state of mind about his obligation is one of doubt or suspicion:
(a) If he has no time to resolve his hesitation but must decide at once, he should follow the rules given for a perplexed conscience [Rules of perplexed conscience are: if decision cannot be delayed, the alternative that seems the lesser evil should be chosen; if decision cannot be delayed and the party cannot decide where the lesser evil lies, he is free to choose either side] Example: Sempronius is ordered by his father to go on an errand; by his mother, to remain at home. He does not know whom he should obey, but argues that there can be no harm in performing the errand, since he feels that he is forced anyway. Sempronius’ impromptu decision proceeds from a sense of moral responsibility; it is good, and as certain as he is able to make it.
(b) If a person has time to resolve his hesitation... the attention given to his problem should be proportionate to the gravity of the duty in question, its importance for third parties, etc... Example: If a layman is uncertain whether a practice he follows in his business is dishonest, he should consult a priest; if the priest is uncertain, he should refer to his theology and study the matter until he is able to give a well-founded, morally certain judgment." Id. at 656.
According to the moralists removing every slight doubt from the investigation need not be used to obtain moral certainty, but only wide moral certitude need be obtained from the investigation:
"Moral certitude is of two kinds: (a) certitude in the strict sense, which excludes not only the fear of error, but every doubt, prudent and imprudent, great and small, Example: Titus thinks of a way in which he could easily make money dishonestly; but his conscience sees that the thing is manifestly wrong and decides without the slightest fear or doubt that it must not be done; (b) certitude in the wide sense, which excludes all fear of error and every serious or prudent doubt, but not one or other slight and imprudent doubt. Example: Caius was baptized by an excellent priest, but the date was omitted in the register. The doubt occurs to Caius that perhaps something essential was also omitted, and that it may be his duty to seek another Baptism. His doubt is unreasonable. Moral certitude in the wide sense is sufficient for a safe conscience, even in matters of great importance, since it is frequently the only kind of certitude one can have, and he who would strive to be free from every slight and baseless suspicion would be soon involved in a maze of scruples and perplexities. Example: If the Caius above referred to were to yield to his doubt and be rebaptized, a similar doubt about the second Baptism might easily arise in his mind, and he would be no more contented than before." Id. at 645 and 646.
If after investigation, in the case of determining whether to follow Boniface X as the true Pontiff, with a persisting negative doubt about the fact of a hidden Pontiff, according to the moral authorities recourse may be had to the reflex principle "a fact should not be taken for granted, but must be proved." Thus a hidden Pontiff should not simply be assumed or taken for granted, but must be proved.
"Reflex principles by the aid of which a negative doubt may be solved, when the question is about the existence or non-existence of some fact connected with obligation, are the following: (a) If the fact at issue is one about which presumption may be had from general or personal experience, the doubt may be settled by the principle: 'In uncertainty decide according to what usually happens.' Examples: Titus is uncertain whether his boy of seven years has the use of reason and is bound to go to Mass. As a rule, children attain discretion at the age of seven; and hence Titus should take his boy to Mass. Fr. Caius is uncertain whether he has said Terce. His experience is that such uncertainties on his part have always been baseless in the past; hence, he may consider that he has said Terce as usual. (b) If the fact at issue is one about which no presumption is afforded, either from general or personal experience, recourse may be had to the principle: 'A fact should not be taken for granted, but must be proved.' Examples: Sempronia doubts whether her practice of saying the Rosary daily was the result of a vow; but, as there is no proof or circumstantial evidence of a vow, it may be held that her practice originated in a resolution. Caius, a stranger, claims that Titus owes him for an unpaid debt of his father. Titus knows nothing of the alleged debt, and the only substantiation for its existence is the word of the stranger. Titus is not obliged to pay." Id. at 657.
Alternatively, there is at least a strong presumption in favor of the fact of Boniface X, as considered separate from his legal proofs, (that he exists and is really claiming the papacy and willing to canonically demonstrate his membership in the church through profession of faith):
"Strong presumption is based on circumstances or signs [his written treatises, ability to communicate with him, ability to visit and see him] so moving that they permit one to infer a fact as being their natural... accompaniment or result. This kind of presumption suffices in solving the doubts we are considering. Example: If Caius, spoken of above, has no individual recollection of any circumstances bearing on the payment of his debt to Titus, but knows that it was his invariable custom to pay all his debts promptly, the presumption that he paid this debt is strong." Id. at 658.
In summation, it is important to distinguish between evidence and speculation. One might speculate all they wish that there is some other Pontiff. But, there is no evidence for such a Pontiff (either testimony (written or oral), direct observation, or physical objects). Such a fact should not be taken for granted, but must be proved. There is a great deal of evidence, on the other hand, for Boniface X. Indeed, by reason of our nature, a man can move upon nothing but the available evidence in such matters, at least according to natural knowledge. Like in a court of law, one must decide based on the preponderance. This is how one establishes the safer course according to the moralists- he weighs the evidence, and pure speculation is discounted as without support. Since such a one is following the safer course by submitting to Boniface X and otherwise obeying God, God will see he is doing what is right according to his best lights. In this case, it is always true as Pius IX and Pius XI taught, that those who are invincibly ignorant of the true religion, if it is actually the case that Boniface X happens not to be the true Pontiff, if they cooperate with the grace of God to the best of their lights, they will eventually come to the true Catholic Pontiff. But in the meantime, since submission to the Pontiff is absolutely necessary for salvation by a necessity of means (Unam Sanctam, Boniface VIII, ex cathedra), it is absolutely essential to use the available information at hand and accept the weightier positive evidence in favor of Boniface X, and must submit to the Pontiff one actually sees before him.
apostolicsee@romancatholicism.net