What makes a Conclave Illicit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TradCatholic22
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TradCatholic22

Guest
Can a Conclave be declared illicit by a prelates who see the Pontiff being elected falsely? What makes a Conclave illicit? Have there ever been illicit Conclaves?
 
The only example I can think of is the Great Western Schism, during which there were three claimants to the Papacy. Of course, there was only one real pope, but there was so much confusion at the time, that it was unclear (even to Saints who lived at the time), which person was the true Pope.

But it should also be noted (as a refutation against the Sedevacantists) that universal acceptance of a person elected by a conclave, has always been considered an infallible sign that he is indeed the Pope.

Why do you ask?
 
Texas_Longhorns said:
The only example I can think of is the Great Western Schism, during which there were three claimants to the Papacy. Of course, there was only one real pope, but there was so much confusion at the time, that it was unclear (even to Saints who lived at the time), which person was the true Pope.

But it should also be noted (as a refutation against the Sedevacantists) that universal acceptance of a person elected by a conclave, has always been considered an infallible sign that he is indeed the Pope.

Why do you ask?
Click to expand...
I ask this because my friend keeps presenting to me a scenario. A scenario in which there are only 3 cardinals- the Dean of the College and two voting cardinals. In the first two rounds, the Conclave could not come to a decision, but in the third round they do. The two voting cardinals voted, one voted for himself and the other for his fellow Cardinal, who in turn is ascended to the Papacy. My friend claims that this would be an illicit Conclave and the cardinal who was elevated in this scenario should be branded an Anti-Pope since it was not 2/3 majority.

I told him since in this scenario, there were only three living Cardinals and no one to elevate a bishop to the cardinalate, that the election would indeed be valid because the Church would be in infinite period of Sede-Vacante if one was not elected and the electors saw the Dean to be a poor choice.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Why would it be illicit? I don’t think Universi Dominici Gregis stipulates a minimum number of cardinal electors.
Click to expand...
I do not see why it would be illicit either. My friend is adamant that it is ‘heresy’ and they elected an ‘Anti-Pope’, and that the cardinal who was elected should be excommunicated, which I then explained about Popes and excommunication, that it is essentially impossible for others to excommunicate a Pontiff. He then says the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would then have a trial against the Pope for being a ‘heretic’…

It seems I have one ignorant friend, yes?
 
TradCatholic22 said:
I ask this because my friend keeps presenting to me a scenario. A scenario in which there are only 3 cardinals- the Dean of the College and two voting cardinals. In the first two rounds, the Conclave could not come to a decision, but in the third round they do. The two voting cardinals voted, one voted for himself and the other for his fellow Cardinal, who in turn is ascended to the Papacy. My friend claims that this would be an illicit Conclave and the cardinal who was elevated in this scenario should be branded an Anti-Pope since it was not 2/3 majority.

I told him since in this scenario, there were only three living Cardinals and no one to elevate a bishop to the cardinalate, that the election would indeed be valid because the Church would be in infinite period of Sede-Vacante if one was not elected and the electors saw the Dean to be a poor choice.
Click to expand...
Even if it was illicit, it would still be valid and the elected would be a true Pope and not an anti-pope. The procedural rules such as number of electors or 2/3 vote are changeable disciplinary rules.
 
aemcpa said:
And how is 2 out of 3 not a 2/3 majority?
Click to expand...
The Dean would have been over 80, or chose not to vote to so he may preside over the Conclave to keep a traditional element despite there being only two eligible voters. The first is more likely in my opinion.

The Dean would not count if he did not vote, yes? :confused:
 
TradCatholic22 said:
The Dean would have been over 80, or chose not to vote to so he may preside over the Conclave to keep a traditional element despite there being only two eligible voters. The first is more likely in my opinion.

The Dean would not count if he did not vote, yes? :confused:
Click to expand...
In your post-apocalyptic hypothetical scenario, one of the three surviving Cardinals happens to be the Dean, but he’s over 80?

A Cardinal under 80 cannot choose not to vote. The Dean still votes when he is eligible to do so, even though he also presides over the conclave.
 
aemcpa said:
In your post-apocalyptic hypothetical scenario, one of the three surviving Cardinals happens to be the Dean, but he’s over 80?

A Cardinal under 80 cannot choose not to vote. The Dean still votes when he is eligible to do so, even though he also presides over the conclave.
Click to expand...
Hence “or”

I actually did not know the Dean still votes. My friend asks, What if the Dean refuses to vote?". I assume it would still be 2/3 and I do not think the Dean can refuse to vote in the first place.
 
TradCatholic22 said:
Hence “or”

I actually did not know the Dean still votes. My friend asks, What if the Dean refuses to vote?". I assume it would still be 2/3 and I do not think the Dean can refuse to vote in the first place.
Click to expand...
In any case, two votes for any given person out of three Cardinals is still 2/3 no matter what math you’re using, so I don’t see the problem.
 
aemcpa said:
In any case, two votes for any given person out of three Cardinals is still 2/3 no matter what math you’re using, so I don’t see the problem.
Click to expand...
I agree that is 2/3 no matter what, it my friend who denies it.
 
aemcpa said:
In your post-apocalyptic hypothetical scenario, one of the three surviving Cardinals happens to be the Dean, but he’s over 80?

A Cardinal under 80 cannot choose not to vote. The Dean still votes when he is eligible to do so, even though he also presides over the conclave.
Click to expand...
Right. Joseph Ratzinger was dean of the conclave where he was elected Pope Benedict XVI.

But (speaking to the OP) if your friend wants to make the dean over 80 for this extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario, I suppose he can. 🤷

Just have him read Universi Dominici Gregis. That spells out all the current rules for a conclave (factoring in Benedict’s recent changes which are linked to at the top of that page). Your friend would have to illustrate his view from that document. We cannot just arbitrarily state that it would result in an anti-pope because it seems wrong to us.

Of course, as this is all just speculation about an unlikely cataclysmic future scenario, I wouldn’t spend a whole lot of time arguing over it. 😛
 
You don’t need a conclave to elect a Pope (licit or otherwise). This is not how it was always done - there have been many methods of Papal election. Some were appointed by emperors (really). Some by popular election (can you imagine?) Some by wealthy (but corrupt) families (the de Medici family, for example). The important thing is that the person is recognized as the Bishop of Rome by the Church. That’s all that matters - how he got there is irrelevant.
 
Texas_Longhorns said:
But it should also be noted (as a refutation against the Sedevacantists) that universal acceptance of a person elected by a conclave, has always been considered an infallible sign that he is indeed the Pope.
Click to expand...
Not infallible. There is nothing infallible about conclaves or elections and there is nothing particularly Holy Spirit-inspired about them either. The cardinals are not supernaturally protected from error when choosing a successor of Peter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top