© Copyright 2008, T. Stanfill Benns (None of what appears below — in whole or in part — may be used without the express and written permission of the author.)

If one wishes to determine what to look for in deciding if such and such a man claiming to be pope is valid, one need look only to the template provided by Angelo Roncalli (John 23) to avoid following yet another false pope.

Promoting oneself as pope prior to election

There are numerous documented instances of grave doubts concerning Roncalli's validity, here and elsewhere (see “Free downloads” on the top bar), so no one should have any reason to complain that there is not enough evidence to decide the case. Even before his “election,” Roncalli was busy disqualifying himself as a papal candidate. Belligrande writes: "The election of the patriarch of Venice at the Conclave of 1958 was known in advance… Cardinal Eugenio Tisserant [wrote] to an abbot professor of Canon Law, in which the French cardinal declares illegal the election of John XXIII, because [it was] 'wanted' and 'arranged' by forces 'extraneous' of the Holy Spirit,"  (Cfr. "Vita" of September 18, 1977 pg. 4 "Le profezie sui papi nell'elenco di San Malachia", by "Il Minutante"). Leroux notes this same fact, quoting from an entirely different source: "As to the Council, I wrote to Cardinal Roncalli, (former Nuncio to Paris, to whom I was an advisor) on Aug. 14, 1954, to announce his future election (to the papacy)…I asked for a meeting with him…to study his first work, the Council…I specified, 'would you please reflect on these things because there is no time to waste. Right from the accession to the pontifical throne, the plan must unfold instantly and take all the politicians by surprise,"  (December, 1961 issue of the French periodical, “The Echoes of the Supernatural.” Another proof might be added here. The “pro multis” mass books circulated by those subject to Roncalli, issued in January of 1959, would need to have been in preparation several months prior to receiving their imprimatur. People forget that the printing process went much more slowly in those days.

In his papal election law “Vacante Sede Apostolica,” Pope St. Pius X laid down a series of what most canonists consider to be latae sententiae (ipso facto) excommunications reserved strictly to the Supreme Pontiff. These excommunications were retained whole and entire in Pope Pius XII’s “Vacante Apsotolica Sedis.” Those applicable to Roncalli’s case read: (6) “The discussion of a successor to a Roman Pontiff while he is still living and without consulting him; the promise to vote for such a future candidate; and all deliberation and discussion on this subject at private gatherings.” Also (8) “Agreements, compacts, promises, or any other obligations made or assumed by Cardinals which may restrict their freedom of voting or not voting for some one or several candidates,” (Revs. Woywod-Smith.) These same authors report that any promises or agreements made to elect a certain one or by the one elected to do such and so when elected are “null and void.” Therefore absolute freedom in election is to be enjoyed, and no pressure to elect or reluctance to elect a certain candidate should be exercised. Revs. Bouscaren-Ellis state the same. Would these excommunications have barred Roncalli from voting? No; not in themselves, anyway. Only his Masonic sympathies and affiliations and other public heresies deposed him pre-election. Would they have barred him from being elected? Commenting on the election of a pope, Woywod-Smith write: “The only motive of the electors is to be the election of the one who is best fitted to govern the universal Church fruitfully and usefully.” Below the worthiness of the candidate for election will be examined.

The old laws governing canonical elections

Neither Roncalli nor the many false popes who followed him, both in Rome and elsewhere, governed the Church fruitfully or usefully, but only to Her intended destruction. This is because those claiming such election were never worthy candidates to begin with. Rev. Anscar Parsons, in his work, “Canonical Elections,” tells us that, “The election of the Holy Father has been the prototype for the election of inferior prelates.” The meaning of this statement needs to be explained. We know from other articles on this site (see sidebar, “Why Only Clergy can Elect a Pope”) that Pope Pius XII’s 1945 constitution on papal election solely governs papal election today. We also know that this law, with only minor additions/modifications is a nearly identical restatement of the papal election law first written by Pope St. Pius X in 1904. And Pope St. Pius X’s election law was one of the first works that constituted the codification of Canon Law. In his law, Pope St. Pius X summarized the best, most useful elements of all previous papal election laws, then abrogated these former laws with the issuance of his new election law.

But not all these laws were hence abrogated in every detail. Only those former laws specifically retained in the Code either implicitly or explicitly remain in force, (Can. 6§6). Apparently, from the statement just made by Rev. Parsons, the laws retained during the codification under the heading “Of Elections,” issued from all the particulars of those older laws both abrogated by and included in Pope Pius X’s election law. These laws survived and are now the laws governing canonical elections. We know from the case concerning the Bull of Pope Paul IV, “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio,” that anytime a previous particular of the old law is retained in the Code, that part of the law can be consulted as “the old law,” and Can. 6§4 specifically states: “In case of doubt whether some provision of the Canons differs from the old law, one must adhere to the old law.” Canon 18 also states that, “If the meaning of terms remains doubtful or obscure, one must adhere to the old law.”

Because Pope St. Pius X’s election law was abrogated directly by Pope Pius XII post-Code, it cannot be used as “the old law.” Pope Pius XII’s election law now “exclusively” governs papal elections, and the only time there can be any question concerning the law is when it is unclear or inapplicable in some particular point. The senior members of the Universal Church alone (the bishops) can now make such decisions on these points in the absence of the cardinals and act upon those decisions, under the provisions of Can. 178.  Since even the bishops are not available at this time, priests and laity, based on pre-1958 teaching, may do what is necessary to arrive at certitude where the law is concerned, but must refrain from acting, because Divine law forbids them to do so. Which brings us to the application of the laws for canonical elections to the case of Roncalli and any others upon whose foot the shoe might fit.

First of all, we have Canons 165 and 166. Canon 165 nullifies an election when even one elector voting does not belong to the electoral body, or fails to possess a special privilege allowing him to vote. Canon 166, like Pope Pius XII’s election law, nullifies the election in which laymen (or anyone other than the cardinals or those rightfully succeeding them) meddle in any way. Canon 167 §3 excludes anyone suffering from infamy of law or anyone under censure from participating in the election. Pope Pius XII’s law allows this, but makes no provision for what happens if one voting under censure happens to be elected. (This will be addressed further below.) Canon 167 §4 bars all who have joined or publicly adhered to a heretical or schismatic sect from voting. Can. 169 §1 declares that a vote is invalid if it is obtained by force, fear or deceit; or the voter was led directly or indirectly to cast his vote for a certain person or several persons separately, (echoing current papal election law). Now Roncalli was guilty of incurring the censure attached to the papal election law for promoting himself as a papal candidate — or at least allowing his name to be discussed in this vein during the lifetime of Pope Pius XII. Therefore he was leading people at least indirectly to discount the election of other candidates. His appearance as a benevolent and charitable old man was deceit at its finest.

As Rev. Parsons and other canonists note, unworthy candidates cannot be elected. Candidates considered unworthy are any who are legally infamous, anyone who has adhered to an heretical or schismatic sect or those laboring under some other censure. Now Roncalli and those cardinals who intended to elect him were laboring under censure. Pope Pius XII teaches that such cardinals may vote, but the election law does NOT state that such cardinals may be elected. In fact the censure referred to here is one that can be lifted only by the Roman Pontiff, and the Roman Pontiff is not able to absolve himself. So it appears that cardinals laboring under such excommunication would need to refuse acceptance if elected, pending absolution by the Pope. Because there is a question in this matter, we must go to the laws on canonical election. There we find, under Can. 167 §3, that one under censure may not participate in the election; and if he cannot participate, then he cannot be elected, either. When an entire college elects an unworthy candidate, they are “automatically deprived, for that particular election, to hold a new election,” (Can. 2391 §1).  And 2391 §3 applies this ipso facto deprivation to clergy and the laity as well, where nomination is concerned. Parsons poses the question: “Is an election of an unworthy person void from the beginning? It seems that it is, for the law says that the chapter is deprived of the right to proceed…” to a new election.

What constitutes tacit resignation

There is something else to consider as well where the false Traditionalist “popes” are concerned. Anyone who, after his appointment, has failed to assume the office within the prescribed time limit, is considered to have tacitly resigned, (Can. 188 §2).  Also, Revs. Bouscaren-Ellis, commenting on Can. 192 §1 state that one may be unwillingly deprived of an office by operation of the law, in cases where the law declares privation from office as a penalty, and “in certain other cases, (see Canons 2396-2398).” Canon 2398 states: “If anyone who has been raised to the episcopacy neglects to receive consecration within three months as provided by Can. 333…and if thereafter he persist in the same negligence for another three months, he is ipso iure deprived of the episcopacy.” Canon 333 states: “Unless prevented by legitimate impediment, the person promoted to the episcopate must…receive the consecration and go to his diocese…” The old laws concerning the ordination of those elected to a pastoral office would allow up to a year to receive Orders. In the case of priests elected “pope” who are illicitly or invalidly ordained, and laymen invalidly elected who are not ordained for many years, even though claiming “legitimate impediment,” it is clear that for this and other reasons, their offices are considered as having been tacitly resigned. This is true even though such offices were never truly received; those so elected would — even under normal circumstances — be considered deprived of office, so there is no need to even request their “resignation.” This is not even to enter into the lack of apostolic succession in these cases, which is the real reason for these laws. This already has been discussed elsewhere, (“Only true bishops are successors of the Apostles,” see sidebar). Any circumstance that would prevent one from being or becoming a true successor of the Apostles, if in existence at the time of election, would necessarily disqualify that candidate for election, for no one can be validly elected if he is not certainly already a successor of the Apostles or can present positive proofs that he is able to become one.

Already, above, the case of one who promoted himself as papabile prior to election, or obtained election by means of deceit, has been considered. But there are yet a few more pointers to remember about Roncalli when judging his reign. First of all, he specifically called the false V2 council to address the “rights” of the laity. Those neo-Gallicanists still championing these rights are only the reincarnation of both the first Gallicanist antipope, John 23 as well as the second John 23 of V2 fame, who took this antipope’s name for obvious reasons.  Secondly, Roncalli announced his intention to reform Canon Law. This was verified by Cardinal Tardini, who wrote: “One can say that the principal goal of the council will be more particularly ecclesiastical discipline, the renovation of the Code of Canon Law which might be altered…” This alteration became a reality during the usurpation of Karol Wojtyla, who “rewrote” the Code in 1983. Thirdly, Roncalli denied the necessity of honoring the decisions of his predecessors, demonstrating, as C. Leroux says in her “Son of Perdition,” that when one does not wish “to subject oneself to divine institutions, the simplest answer is to transform the laws…or to pretend that one has the power to do so.”  In this she referred to the Bull of Pope Sixtus V, which John 23 arbitrarily violated by increasing the number of cardinals from 70, as established by Sixtus V, to 85.

As Rev. Cicognani observes, changes to the law are odious and are to be made sparingly. Revs. Woywod-Smith state under Can. 22 that “Changes in the law are made solely by the Holy See, and only for serious reasons and after mature deliberation…It is a fundamental principal that the general presumption is always in favor of the old law remaining unchanged.” So if those considered doubtful “popes,” at best, change the laws, then in doubt the old laws always remain in force under Can. 6 §4. Doubt concerning the validity of these false popes suffices, for those not able to gain a more advanced degree of certainty; a doubtful pope is no pope. For those who are certain of the invalidity of their elections, and/or tacit resignation, these usurpers must explain, if they deny this, how they can possibly escape the consequences of so many canons and remain Catholic. The truth is they cannot, and whether considered invalid from the start or having tacitly resigned according to Can. 188 §4, the results are the same.

This is good news for those who believe the papal usurpers should formally resign. In reality, no resignation is necessary: whether invalid from the start or having tacitly resigned, the law is already ipso jure in effect. All that needs to be done is to announce that the law declares them as non-entities and to regard them as such. Catholics who strive to defend the Faith as it existed during the reign of Pope Pius XII and obey all that went before need only point to the 1917 Code of Canon Law.