Post by Pacelli on Jun 11, 2016 14:27:24 GMT -5
Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, 1909 translated by John S. Daly
"The legitimate election of a pontiff today depends de facto on pontifical law alone, as is easily demonstrated by the obvious argument that the law regulating the election was promulgated by the supreme pontiffs. Therefore, until such time as it is abrogated by the pontiff himself, it remains in force and there is no power in the Church, even when the See is vacant, by which it can be changed. 'For the pope ordains those things which relate to the election and changes and restricts the manner of the election in such a way that any other manner would be invalid. In the Church, however, or in a council, this power does not reside in the absence of a pope, whence it arises that even the entire Church cannot authoritatively change a law made by the pope so that, for instance, true and indubitable cardinals would not be necessary for the election or so that one who had been elected by fewer than two thirds of the cardinals might be pope. But, on the other hand, the pope is perfectly capable of ordaining this..., since it belongs to the same person to abolish who can authoritatively impose in all matters of positive law'. (Cajetan, Tract.1 de auctoritate Papae et Concilii, c.13.) And therefore, if, for example, the See had chanced to fall vacant during the Vatican Council, a legitimate election could not have been conducted by the Fathers of the Council, but only by the usual electors, as was even expressly laid down in a special bull by Pius IX.
"There can, therefore, be only a hypothetical question, namely whether any authority besides the pontifical authority might in any circumstances be able to assign the conditions of an election. In this matter, indeed, no doubt is raised concerning the authority of an oecumenical council which cannot be distinguished from pontifical power, since it is of the nature of oecumenical decrees that they are confirmed by the pontiff. Hence there is matter for doubt only in the case of some lower authority. But in all such cases the conclusion must be negative, since the primacy, for himself and his successors, was granted to Peter alone, and to him alone, therefore, i.e. to the supreme pontiff alone, does it belong to determine the mode of transmission of the power which is to be passed on and, consequently, the mode of the election by which this transmission takes place.
"Any law, moreover, related to the order of the universal Church, exceeds by its very nature the scope of any power less than the supreme power. But the election of the supreme bishop pertains without doubt to the order of the universal Church. It is, therefore, reserved, by its very nature to the determination of him to whom the care of the entire community was committed by Christ. And indeed it is incontrovertible that these conclusions are valid in normal circumstances. Let us now investigate, nevertheless, how the law would apply if perchance an extraordinary situation were to arise in which it was necessary to proceed to the election of a pontiff while it was no longer possible to comply with the conditions determined by previous pontifical law; as some think was the case at the time of the Great Schism in the election of Martin V.
"Well, once we grant the occurrence of such circumstances, it is to be admitted without difficulty that the power of election would devolve upon a general council. For the natural law itself prescribes that in such cases the attribute of a superior power descends, by way of devolution, to the power immediately below insofar as it is indispensably necessary for the survival of the society and for the avoidance of the tribulations of extreme lack. 'In case of doubt, however (e.g. when it is unknown if someone be a true cardinal or when the pope is dead or uncertain, as seems to have happened at the time of the Great Schism which began under Urban VI), it is to be affirmed that the power to apply the papacy to a person (the due requirements having been complied with) resides in the Church of God. And then by way of devolution it is seen that this power descends to the universal Church, since the electors determined by the pope do not exist' (Cajetan, ibidem). This, I say, is understood without difficulty if the occurrence of the case be admitted. But whether, in fact the case has ever occurred is a completely different question. For indeed it is now held as more or less certain among learned men that the election of Martin V was not done on the private authority of the Council of Constance, but by faculties expressly granted by the legitimate Pontiff Gregory XII before he had renounced the papacy, so that Cardinal Franzelin correctly and appropriately says: that there is 'reason for us with humble praise to wonder at the providence of Christ the King, the spouse and head of the Church, by which He calmed those huge crowds of men driven and sustained by covetousness and ignorance, with all laws being observed to the letter; most clearly demonstrating that the indefectibility of the rock upon which He built His Church, so that the gates of Hell would not prevail against Her, is supported not by human effort, but by the divine fidelity in promises and omnipotence in government' (Franzelin loc. cit.)."
(Emphasis added)
Quote taken from: Bellarmine Forums, Papal Elections in Extraordinaru Circumstances, 20 May 2006. www.strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13
Latin text of Billot found here: archive.org/details/tractatusdeeccle01bill