The Presence of Peter, an Absolute Right of
the Church
Doctrinal Argument
6/16
back to contents
<< Prev.
Next >>
When the Apostolic See is vacant, the election of a Supreme Pontiff is not merely an option for the Church. It is its primary obligation. It is therefore the right of Catholics. This election is usually carried out by the Cardinals. However, if there is serious doubt as to the legitimacy and Catholicity of those who have been appointed Cardinals, this duty falls to the universal Church. [1] The Church, being a perfect society, must necessarily possess all the means within herself to obtain an undisputed pope. This is what Pope Leo XIII teaches in his encyclical Immortale Dei: “[The Church] is a society perfect in its kind and by right, since, by the will and beneficence of its Founder, it possesses within itself, and of itself, all the resources necessary for its preservation and for its activity.”
Now, what is more necessary for the existence and action of the Church than the indisputable presence of Peter? Are we not reminded daily of this crying need by the terrible crisis the Church is going through, with many contesting the authority of the one who presents himself as the Successor of Peter, while others simply ignore the direction he wants to give to the Church? Has the Supreme Pontiff become little more than a ceremonial figurehead? Shouldn’t the Church, rather, live in perfect harmony with Peter?
As theologian Sylvester Berry explains, the Universal Church will always have the right to elect the successor of Saint Peter:
“Christ ordained that St. Peter should have successors in his primacy of jurisdiction over the Church, but He did not designate the person of the successor. It is left to the Church to elect, or otherwise designate, the person who then obtains the power of universal jurisdiction by virtue of divine institution, i.e., immediately from Christ, not from those who have elected him. When the Apostolic See is vacant, there is no supreme authority in the Church; the bishops retain power to rule their respective dioceses, but no laws can be made for the universal Church, no dogmas of faith can be defined, no legitimate council convened. [2] In place of this supreme authority, the Church has the right and the duty of selecting someone upon whom Christ will again bestow it. It is evident, then, that the Apostolic succession cannot fail in the Apostolic See so long as the Church herself continues to exist, for although the see be vacant for many years, the Church always retains the right to elect a legitimate successor, who then obtains supreme authority according to the institution of Christ.” [3]
[1] Cf. Cajetan, Thomas de Vio, Apologia de comparatione auctoritatis papæ et concilii, cap. XIII., nos. 744-745, in Tractatus de comparatione auctoritatis papæ et concilii cum apologia ejusdem; Cardinal Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, 1909, Tomus Prior, Quaestio XIV, De Romano Pontifice, Th. XXIX, § 1, p. 610-611.
[2] We shall see later that there is an exception for the extraordinary case of the Imperfect General Council, whose purpose is precisely to remedy the absence of the visible head of the Church.
[3] Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, (St. Louis, MO & London, WC: B. Herder Book Co., 1927), p. 2, cap. 12, art. 1, § 1, pp. 397-398.