By Armando Savini
A few days ago, I had the opportunity to read an article published on Aldo Maria Valli’s blog: “And what if Pope Bergoglio never existed? Hypotheses of canonical nullity.” The article prompted me to put some of my thoughts in writing, as it highlights some hypotheses that I had already examined some time ago, following a letter I received from a lawyer.
The author of the article hypothesizes the nullity of Bergoglio’s election, based on the hypotheses of deliberate deception and defect of consent, according to canons 1098 and 1101 of the Code of Canon Law, hypotheses already raised by Monsignor Viganò. The anonymous author writes:
This double hypothesis of nullity (ingeniously formulated some time ago by Monsignor Carlo Maria Viganò and applied to the aforementioned conclave by analogy) would mean that on that occasion, Cardinal Bergoglio would have deliberately deceived at least some of his electors (= deception), simulating before their eyes a correct pastoral intention that he lucidly excluded with a positive act of will (= defect of consent), already having in mind to carry out a real revolutionary plan to the detriment of the Catholic Church, as actually happened. Now, if these legal provisions are capable of nullifying a canonical marriage, why should they not also invalidate the act by which Bergoglio accepted the pontifical election, which – complete with a ring on his finger – bound him with a new nuptial bond to the Church of Rome and to the entire universal Church? Can one be the earthly Vicar of the heavenly Bridegroom when, from the beginning, one has intentions contrary to His?
DECEPTION, DEFECT OF CONSENT, COMPROMISES, AND VETO
The discussion of deception and defect of consent is a topic that, in my opinion, is related to the hypothesis of excommunication (latae sententiae) prescribed by articles 78-86 of the apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis to anyone who conspires against the living Pontiff, compromises or imposes a veto during elections. These types of offenses are related to what Cardinal Danneels revealed in chapter XXIV of his Biography and publicly stated regarding the St. Gallen Mafia. If this hypothesis were to be supported, the involved electors would be excommunicated, as well as the elected before his elevation to the Roman Pontiff. In this regard, an examination of article 6 of Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum ex apostolatus officio is interesting, a bull with a mandate for solemn publication:
Nullity of ordinary and papal jurisdiction in all heretics.
Let us add that, if at any time it should happen that a bishop, even if acting in the quality of an archbishop, patriarch, or primate, or a cardinal of the Roman Church, as mentioned, or a legate, or even the Roman Pontiff himself, before his promotion as a cardinal or elevation as Roman Pontiff, had deviated from the Catholic faith or had fallen into some heresy (or had incurred in schism or had caused it), his promotion or elevation was null, void and without any value, even if it had occurred with the concord and unanimous consent of all the cardinals; nor can it be said that it is validated by receiving the office, consecration, possession, or quasi-possession subsequently following the government and administration, or by enthronement or adoration of the same Roman Pontiff or by the obedience given to him by all and by the lapse of any length of time in the said exercise of his office, nor could it be considered in any part legitimate, and it must be judged to be of no force for administering to such persons promoted as bishops or archbishops or patriarchs or assumed as cardinals or as the Roman Pontiff, in spiritual or temporal matters, but rather they all lack any force whatsoever, all and each of their word, action, administration, or whatever follows.
THE CENTRAL THEOREM REMAINS THE DECLARATIO OF BENEDICT XVI
Regarding the alleged nullity of Benedict XVI’s Declaratio, I believe it should also be viewed in light of other elements, such as deception and defect of consent. These are more challenging to prove and, furthermore, less effective, as in the case of a null marriage, they require a judgment issued by the ecclesial authority.
I do not find the hypothesis of a “heretical pope” useful or convincing. First, I consider this hypothesis to be illogical. Since a heretic is “sine comunitate” – that is, excommunicated – and, for this reason, cannot lead the community to which he no longer belongs.
The hypotheses of deception and defect of consent, in turn, should be read in light of the alleged nullity of Benedict XVI’s Declaratio, which they complement. As for the mentioned Declaratio, I would like to offer three considerations that I consider very important.
1) Benedict XVI states that he renounces the active exercise of the ministry and not the Petrine munus, which is “forever.” In the book “Last Conversations” (2016), journalist Peter Seewald asked Benedict XVI:
Q: Do you see yourself as the last pope of the old world or the first of the new?
A: I would say both.
Q: Like a bridge, a kind of connection between two worlds?
A: I no longer belong to the old world, but the new one hasn’t really begun yet.
Q: Are you familiar with the prophecy of Malachy, who in the Middle Ages compiled a list of future popes, also predicting the end of the world, or at least the end of the Church? According to that list, the papacy would end with your pontificate. What if you were indeed the last to represent the figure of the pope as we have known it so far?
A: Anything is possible. Probably this prophecy originated in circles around Philip Neri. At that time, the Protestants claimed that the papacy was over, and he just wanted to demonstrate, with a very long list of popes, that it wasn’t. However, this doesn’t mean it will really end. Rather, his list wasn’t long enough yet.
Benedict XVI said in 2016 that he is the last pope of the old world and the first of the new world, which has not yet begun. But if Benedict closes one era and inaugurates a new one that has not yet started, who is Bergoglio? Someone might object that Benedict XVI was not capable of understanding and willing, but if that were the case, the entire pontificate and all its acts, including those that modified the conclave rules, would have to be questioned.
In the last general audience on February 27, 2013, Benedict XVI said: “The ‘always’ is also a ‘forever’ – there is no return to private life. My decision to renounce the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this.” He clearly states that he is renouncing the active exercise of the ministry and not the munus, as required by canon 332 para. 2 of the Code of Canon Law. Furthermore, unlike Celestine V, who abandoned his habit, seat, and honors, Benedict XVI remains in the Vatican, dressed as a Pope and imparting the apostolic blessing.
The distinction between munus and ministerium – a theme put forward by Andrea Cionci (Codice Ratzinger), and even earlier by Antonio Socci (Il segreto di Benedetto XVI. Perché è ancora Papa) – is at the heart of the matter. As the two journalists have rightly recalled and highlighted, the munus is the gift that God confers on the cardinal elected by the Conclave, subject to the acceptance of the office, while the ministerium consists of administering the munus.
2) The temporal conditions attached to the Declaratio make it invalid.
The second point concerns the addition of accidental elements to legitimate acts, such as the acceptance or renunciation of the supreme pontificate. As explained by attorney Patruno (cf. Socci, A., Il segreto di Benedetto XVI), legitimate acts (actus legittimi) do not tolerate conditions (accidentalia negotii). This means that legitimate acts are immediate, producing their effects at the moment they are pronounced. They concern the “here and now,” and their entry into force cannot be postponed. In other words, it is not possible for a renunciation pronounced on February 11, 2013, to take effect “from February 28, 2013, at 8:00 p.m.”
Article 88 of Universi Dominici Gregis clearly states that immediately after the acceptance of the office, the elected one is the true Pope.
After the acceptance, the elected, who has already received episcopal ordination, is immediately Bishop of the Church of Rome, the true Pope, and Head of the Episcopal College; he effectively acquires full and supreme authority over the universal Church and can exercise it.
Similarly, the renunciation of the supreme pontificate under canon 332 para. 2 of the CDC also has immediate effects.
According to Patruno, “if we were to consider the validity of the renunciation on February 11 and the term (of February 28, 2013, at 8:00 p.m.) as not attached (vitiatur, sed non vitiat), it would be necessary to recognize that the acts performed by Benedict XVI during that time frame (from February 11 to February 28, 2013) are juridically null, as they were performed by someone who would no longer be Pope. Therefore, for example, the motu proprio Normas Nonnullas of February 22, 2013, which modified the rules for papal elections, would be null. Since the Conclave that elected Bergoglio was advanced under the motu proprio Normas Nonnullas, it would also follow the illegitimacy of that Conclave held with those modified rules.” This would mean that in both cases, whether the Declaratio is invalid or valid, the Conclave would still be illegitimate, and the papal election null. In both cases, there would be an antipope. In the first case, because a pope was elected while the legitimate predecessor was still alive. In the second case, the acts performed by a validly renouncing pope would be null and have no effect.
3) A heretical “pope” is illegitimate.
The third point concerns the figure of the Pontiff and the dogma of infallibility, from the perspective of dogmatic theology and canon law. Here, using logic once again, if the Pope, in matters of faith and morals, cannot err, it follows that if a papal pronouncement in matters of faith and morals contradicts the deposit of faith, then – if the Pope is infallible by dogma – it follows that such a Pope is not legitimate. As the dogmatic constitution Pastor Aeternus states, “this See of St. Peter remains always free from all error by the divine promise made to the Lord, our Savior, to the Prince of His disciples: ‘I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail, and you, once converted, must strengthen your brethren.'”
A few days ago, I was reading a book on canon law precisely on this topic. It is a manual by theologian Francesco Mercanti, published in 1820, 50 years before Pastor Aeternus. Well, the theologian explains that a Pope who would utter heresies cannot be a Pope. To prove this, he examines the case of Antipope Vigilius, which I quote below.
“If the Pope could err by approving false doctrine as good and good as false, it would inevitably follow that the Church is not holy, since she would err concerning the faith, teaching that every virtue is good and every vice is bad, and, in fact, she should consider vice as plausible, and virtue as detestable, as presented by her visible head, to whom she must blindly obey as a rule of faith. But the Church is impossible to err since she is the unshakable pillar and foundation of truth: (i) therefore it is equally impossible for the Pontiff to be fallible in the doctrine of Christian conduct.”
“If we talk about Vigilius when he condemned the Catholic doctrine of the two natures of Jesus Christ, we must reflect that, on that occasion, he was not the legitimate Pope, but an intruder in the Pontificate through the work of the heretical Empress Theodora, while Liberius, the legitimate ruler of the universal Church, was still alive. But since (the deceased Liberius mentioned) was canonically elected Pontiff, he excommunicated the Empress without hesitation, along with all her supporters. With a firm, constant, and unshakable heart throughout his painful exile, until his last breath, he was a staunch supporter of the infallible Orthodoxy.” (Mercanti, F., Compendio di Diritto Canonico, Tomo I, pp. 425-426; 429).
Based on the above, it is possible to believe – always in terms of logic – that the central issue lies in the nullity of the Declaratio. Everything else follows in sequence. I do not know if a Pius XIII will come to save us – as hoped by the anonymous author of the already mentioned article – since the Conclave would be composed mostly of presumed invalid cardinals!
Müller: the spirit of the Antichrist speaks through the bishops of the Synod with the approval of Bergoglio.
Personally, I believe that only a divine intervention can fully restore justice, as apostasy, as also affirmed by Cardinal Müller, has reached the highest levels of the Catholic Church. According to the prelate, some bishops and cardinals within the synod launched by Bergoglio would be “abusing the Holy Spirit” to introduce “new doctrines” such as the acceptance of homosexuality, women as priests, and a change in the governance of the Church… It is the spirit of the Antichrist that speaks through them.
“The synodal majority of German bishops…propagate doctrines that contradict the Catholic faith, which Rome disregards recklessly” (Müller, “The Last Pope: A Brief History of the Antichrist,” Cardinalis, No. 5, October 2023).
If the hypotheses mentioned above were validated, that is, if the election of Bergoglio were to be declared null and void, the nullity would be ex tunc. It would be as if the papacy of Bergoglio had never existed. Every action, word, and writing of the Argentine bishop would be erased. All arrangements, including cardinal appointments, would be null and, therefore, without effect. But how is it possible to declare the nullity of the election of the one who sits on the throne of Peter? Who is above a pope (or presumed pope) if not Christ himself? If impiety has reached its peak, we can think that “then the wicked one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of his mouth and annihilate by the manifestation of his coming” (2 Thessalonians 2:8).
