Several weeks ago, I wrote about a “Novena for the Conversion of Pope Francis” in a post titled, To pray the impossible prayer.
Without even glancing beyond the first sentence, most if not all readers of this space understood that the “impossible” part of that effort concerned the preposterous idea that a man who stands in need of conversion to the Catholic faith is presently the pope.
It’s not immediately clear how many people actually prayed that novena, which was set to begin on December 8, 2024, and conclude on Bergoglio’s 88th birthday, December 17, 2024. What we do know with absolute certainty is that it didn’t work.
But what exactly does that mean?
Well, I suppose it could mean that Almighty God responded, “No, sorry, folks. I will not fulfill your request ‘to grant Pope Francis the grace that he may be converted.’”
It seems far more likely to me, however, that Our Lord has been providing Francis with the grace of conversion for many years, even before he took up residence in Rome nearly a dozen years ago, and it is Bergoglio who has been responding, Non serviam!
As I write, Francis is in the hospital being treated for pneumonia. This has given renewed vigor to the “pray for the pope” effort, both as it concerns his physical, and his spiritual, health.
While the Vatican doesn’t exactly have a stellar track record of transparency in this area (or any other for that matter), the latest official updates (as of this moment) seem to indicate that the anti-papal patient is in relatively stable condition. Given that he’s an eighty-eight-year-old man with longstanding lung issues, it doesn’t take an advanced degree in pulmonology to recognize that the end is at least relatively near. Just how near is the only question.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t wish to discourage anyone from praying for an improvement in Francis’ medical condition, if for no other reason than to give him even more time to accept the grace of conversion. That said, I think most people have realistic expectations regarding his physical health.
Concerning his spiritual health, however? Well, that’s another story.
Again, let me be clear. I do not wish to discourage anyone from praying for Bergoglio’s conversion. We should continue offering prayers of this nature until such time as he passes into eternity. That said…
Some sincere Catholics (including certain priests and bishops), even well before this latest hospital admission, have suggested that our prayers for Bergoglio should be offered in hope for a miracle, like the conversion of St. Paul.
Now, I’m not suggesting that this absolutely cannot happen. God is certainly capable of striking Bergoglio blind if He so chooses. Even so, let’s be realistic: There is a stark difference between Saul prior to his conversion and the person of Jorge Bergoglio.
Even from his youth, Saul was fervently dedicated to what he believed to be the one true religion revealed by God. As a Christian, addressing a crowd of angry Jews that sought to kill him, he spoke about his past:
I am a Jew, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the truth of the law of the fathers, zealous for the law. (Acts 22:3)
Prior to his conversion, Saul was motivated by his convictions to do all that he could to prevent his fellow Jews from being deceived by what he considered to be a false Messianic movement, thereby breaking their covenant relationship with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
As we all know, Our Lord intervened, His very presence knocking Saul to the ground. (Acts 9)
Even so, the Risen Christ did not seek to extinguish Saul’s zeal, rather, He redirected it, enlightening him as to the Truth (“I am Jesus whom thou persecute”), at which point the Pharisee immediately sought to carry out God’s will, saying, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” (ibid.)
A brief look at Bergoglio’s biography reveals something altogether different.
It is abundantly clear that Francis has no zeal for any religion, much less does he have zeal for the Holy Catholic faith. On the contrary, he has disdain for it. It seems entirely evident that he does not even believe that there is any such a thing as “the one true religion,” save perhaps for humanism.
A survey of his public commentary shows a propensity for speaking not of the true religion, but rather of “true religion” in a generic, earthbound, humanistic sense, most often equating it with such things as economic and ecological justice, service to the poor and the downtrodden, etc.
Unlike Saul, who was deeply dedicated to learning and living the revealed faith – “the truth of the law of the fathers” (Acts 22:3) as best he understood it – Bergoglio has made a habit of denigrating the divinely revealed faith, often harshly criticizing those who embrace it, insulting us as self-absorbed Promethean Neo-Pelagians, rosary counters, and triumphalists.
He has never given even the slightest indication that he has a hunger for the faith of the fathers of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
In short, the disposition of Saul of Tarsus, as compared to that of Jorge of Buenos Aires, could not be more different. The former, even when he was in error, had an abiding hunger for God’s truth. The latter, by contrast, has made such a habit of opposing God’s truth while standing firm in his errors that one wonders if he has perhaps rendered his heart all but impenetrable.
As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches:
Since it is in the power of free will to impede, or not to impede, the reception of grace, not wrongly is it charged as a fault against him who sets up an impediment to the reception of grace. For God, so far as is in Him, is ready to give grace to all…but they alone are deprived of grace who set up an impediment to grace in themselves. (cf Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, Chapter 159)
This implies that one who habitually and persistently impedes God’s grace, rejecting call after call to embrace the true faith, similar to the man who heaps sin upon sin, fortifies within an impediment that stands between himself and the grace of conversion.
Even so, as Fr. William Most explains:
God, by transcendence, can prevent resistance from developing, or cut through it if it has already arisen, without altogether taking away free will. But this is extraordinary. Because it is a reduction, though not a cancellation, of His commitment to give free will.
So, by all means go ahead, keep begging God to assist Bergoglio in undergoing a conversion to the one true faith, but recognize the extraordinary nature of what you are asking.
At this, let’s dream a little…
Imagine that Bergoglio actually does convert to the Catholic faith, publicly renouncing his various errors and heresies, pledging fidelity to all that the Church taught leading up to the conciliar revolution.
What would this mean moving forward?
Aside from the reaction of the whacko progressive sect, it seems to me that, for the rest of us, all doubt would thus be removed. At that point, it will be known by all concerned that Bergoglio, by own admission, wasn’t a member of the Catholic Church at all, much less was he the Holy Roman Pontiff, right up to the very moment of his conversion.
In other words – from conservatives, to tradservatives, to sedevacantists, and everyone in between – all persons of good will would have no choice but to acknowledge that the Chair of Peter is well and truly empty. Unity at last!
Ah, but not so fast…
It ends up there are persons of good will, present day sedevacantists even, who would insist that the Chair of Peter is not empty at all, rather, it is occupied by His Holiness Pope Francis I gloriously reigning.
I am referring to those who subscribe to the so-called Cassiciacum thesis.
Let me repeat: These are persons of good will who are doing their level best to make sense of the unprecedented ecclesial crisis through which we are presently living.
That said, I think they are wrong.
So, what is the Cassiciacum thesis?
For the sake of brevity, I will paraphrase a partial explanation given by Bishop Donald Sanborn, who holds the thesis to be true, as expressed in an interview with Kevin Davis on the Catholic Family Podcast in 2022 (HERE). As explained by His Excellency:
Since March 13, 2013, Francis has been like a U.S. Presidential candidate immediately after being declared the winner. As President-Elect, he is in “possession of the election, but he has absolutely no power,” at least until such time as his inauguration, “where he swears that he will uphold the Constitution.” Apart from this, “he would not be president.”
Bishop Sanborn continues:
The same thing is true of Francis. He has been “legally elected to become the pope,” and can actually become the pope, but only “if he were to take on the intention of promoting the Catholic faith.”
Bishop Sanborn further clarified that if Bergoglio were to adopt the right intention, while also renouncing his errors and those of Vatican II more broadly, he would become pope “by that fact.” In other words, he would immediately go from being in possession of the papal election alone, to being in full possession of the papacy and all of its powers.
At least as far as I understand it, there are several difficulties with this idea. Chief among them and most obvious is that it contains an impossibility similar to the one found in the novena for the conversion of “Pope Francis.” Specifically, it requires one to believe that the non-Catholic Bergoglio was “legally elected pope” back in 2013.
Taking the presidential election analogy a bit further, this would be similar to Justin Trudeau being legally elected President of the United States. Regardless of how many votes he might receive, this simply is not possible.
Even so, let us ask: Has any trustworthy pre-conciliar theologian anywhere, at any time, ever suggested that a non-Catholic – even one who is validly ordained a priest and consecrated a bishop (e.g., the clerics of Orthodoxy) – could be legally elected pope without first renouncing his errors and converting to the Holy Catholic faith?
Unless I’ve missed it, I don’t think so.
Strike one.
Beyond that, one notes that the 1917 Code of Canon Law very clearly states:
The Roman Pontiff, legitimately elected, immediately upon accepting the election, obtains by divine law the full power of supreme jurisdiction. (CIC 219)
NB: By divine law!
This was written at a time when newly elected popes took the papal oath (i.e., they made a public declaration of intent) during the coronation rite. And yet, according to CIC 219, there was no period of time between accepting the election and receiving the full power of office.
Assuming that Bergoglio really was legally elected, it is evident that he accepted the election prior to being presented to the world as “Pope Francis.” If CIC 219 is to be trusted, then we must conclude that he immediately obtained, by divine law, the fullness of supreme jurisdiction.
The problem as I see it is simply this: If the thesis is to be embraced as true, then one must not only to imagine that a non-Catholic can be legally elected pope, but also that CIC 219 of the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law just plain got it wrong.
By my count, that’s strike two, which brings us to the matter of intention.
Has any trustworthy pre-conciliar theologian anywhere, at any time, ever suggested that the validity of a given papacy hinges on the matter of intention?
Again, unless I’ve missed it, I don’t think so.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that intention (more properly, the analogy of sacramental intent) really is the key to fully understanding the present situation.
It seems to me that if we are going to apply the analogy of sacramental intent to papal elections, then consistency demands that we do so not just with regard to the recipient (in this case, Bergoglio), but also as it concerns the ministers (the cardinal electors). Bear in mind that even in cases where the person receiving a sacrament has the right intention and disposition, intention on the minister’s part to do what the Church does is necessary for sacramental validity.
Is there any reason to believe that the cardinal electors at Conclave 2013 had the intention of doing what the Church does when they elected Bergoglio?
It seems to me that, beyond any reasonable doubt, the cardinals who elected Bergoglio did so with the intention of elevating him to the papacy so that he could carry on the work of promoting and implementing a false religion (namely, the conciliar religion). This is something that the Church does not do and can never do.
Continuing with the sacramental theme, we might also conclude by way of analogy that the non-Catholic Bergoglio could not have been legally elected pope by virtue of defective matter.
These things being so, the sacramental analogy actually suggests that Bergoglio was not, in fact, legally elected due to multiple defects.
For me, all of this adds up to strike three.
Again, those who hold the thesis are not the enemy. They are simply sincere Catholics attempting to make sense of the present madness. Bishop Sanborn, in the video linked above, made a point that I greatly appreciate: He stressed that he does not insist that Catholics agree with the thesis. He merely presents it as the most plausible explanation.
My hope is that Bishop Sanborn will one day honor me with an appearance on the akaCatholic Podcast to discuss the thesis (and other important topics) further. I have submitted a request via Most Holy Trinity Seminary to that end and will keep you posted.
In conclusion, we should be so fortunate as to witness the conversion of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to the Catholic faith, at which point, one presumes, we will obtain answers to questions about which, at present, we can only speculate.
