"Victor III & The Thesis: Dead on Arrival?

 “Victor III and The Thesis”: Dead on Arrival?! 

By. Rev. Fr. Thomas Ojeka

• Preamble: 

A few days ago, on the 6th of December, I got a notification of a tweet by Fr. Valerii. In the said tweet, he attached a link to an article titled “Victor III and the Thesis. A Tale by Fr. Desposito” carefully written by him in which he was commenting on a YouTube lecture by Fr. Nicholas Desposito titled “Victor III and the Thesis”  

In this lecture Fr. Deposito, comparing the story of the election of Vicor III and Vatican II Popes, argued that: 

"This historical case shows that it is possible for the Church to elect someone and that at the same time the natural effect of election be impeded. In the case of Victor it was his refusal to accept the election.

With the Thesis we say that in the case of the "Vatican II popes" there is intention to impose heresy upon the Church that prevents them from properly accepting the election and thus receiving the papacy.

In both cases we have an election not properly accepted.

If Victor III was able to become the Pope one year after his election without a need of a new election, we affirm that it is also possible for the Vatican II pope to become the pope formally in the moment he truthfully repudiates Vatican II. Only then he would have properly accepted his election."

On the other hand, Fr. Valerii, in his " “Victor III and the Thesis. A Tale by Fr. Desposito”; endeavored to show that the election of Pope Victor III has nothing to do with the "Material Pope Thesis". Among other points, he noted that:

"The process of the election was not completed until Desiderius accepted the election with the name Victor, and that is why no new election was needed…

Desiderius became the Pope a year after he was elected, but during that year he still remained the Abbot of Monte Cassino and the Papal Vicar for certain territories, without having any supplying jurisdiction or power". 

In his conclusion, Fr. Valerii says:

"The election of Pope Victor III cannot be used to support the "Material Pope Thesis", because it was not a similar case at all. On the contrary, the case of Pope Victor III refutes the "Material Pope Thesis" as a new, non-Catholic, false idea". 

• My interest in the debate:

Fr. Valerii's tweet caught my attention since, in a ‘fraternal exchange on the Thesis’ sometime in early months of 2021 with a seminarian who was a die hard thesis enthusiast, [then I was still a student of Most Holy Trinity Seminary, then in Brooksville, Florida] I addressed the question of "Victor III and the Thesis". And, in the fraternal exchange, I reached the same conclusion as Fr. Valerii in his article: that “the election of Pope Victor III cannot be used to support the "Material Pope Thesis". One only needs to carefully read, and perhaps re-read, the story of Blessed Victor III to disprove or confirm such a conclusion. 

For the records, the said ‘fraternal exchange’ was occasioned by my eagerly sharing Fr. Valerii’s Comments on the Material Pope Thesis. First Part with this fellow seminarian, among others. Now, during a lecture in Church history on a particular day we came to the story of Bl. Pope Victor III who remained a pope-elect for almost a year. The Lecturer, Fr. Luke Petrizzi, did not categorically affirm how his story supported the ‘Thesis’ but ostensibly tended towards such affirmation. My partner in the ‘thesis exchange’ surely saw the greenlight, and wrote to me with an air of triumph.  

One may read Fr. Valerii’s “Victor III and the Thesis. A Tale by Fr. Desposito” here.

My analysis of Victor III story vs the Thesis back in February, 2021.

• The background:

Now, after the lecture in Church history noted above, my partner in the 'thesis exchange' wrote:

"During history class Father mention an early pope who remained pope-elect for almost a year… He was in posession of a valid election. Because the cardinals didn't take that from him, he remained pope-elect" 

To buttress his point, he attached the link to the story of Bl. Victor III from the Catholic encyclopedia. He was trying to argue against Fr. Valerii's comment that 

"A president-elect is prevented from exercising the power during three months after election, because a previous President is still formally the President during that time.

When a pope-elect accepts the election and reveals his Papal name, he immediately receives the whole plentitude of the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff. This process is completed during the conclave, not three months or twenty years afterwards". 

• My analysis:

Though I had followed the story closely during the lecture, I had to go to the link he sent me and read, and re-read it again to get the facts straight in my low-slow mind. 

Writing to him, I noted that He was right in this: Abbot Desiderius was in possession of a valid election; because the cardinals did not take that from him, he remained pope-elect.

    The simple reason, as the story shows, I noted, is that the conclave was not concluded because of tumult and unrest, and they forced the papal regalia on him without HIS CONSENT. Thus he was indeed a Pope-elect but he had not accepted the election, and the cardinals did not move on to elect a new candidate but kept pressing him to accept... because they thought him [most] papabile... And that, during that period he DID NOT posit any POPE-LIKE ACTS; he simply continued his duty as "Papal vicar" which he had prior to the vacancy... but when he "finally yielded" and "by the assumption of the cross and purple confirmed the past election" he was shortly "consecrated and enthroned"... i.e. every other ceremony followed its course, to manifest a concluded conclave.

    I then underlined that thus far he simply stated the obvious.

    Forging ahead, I called his attention to the fact that by  saying nothing further, he seemed to have given me the liberty to draw conclusions, and that I would like to use the presumed liberty. 

I pointed out that the reply insinuated at least two things, as I saw it, and I apologized if it turned out that I was I  rash in my presumption:

• [A] The first thing it insinuated is that " it cannot be claimed that 'this     process (of papal election) is completed during the conclave, not three months or twenty     years afterwards'.
     

• [B] The second thing insinuated is that "The case of Bl. Pope Victor III proves the M/F Thesis.
  
  

    I unsympathetically underlined that neither of these holds true, and I tried to show how.

    ON THE FIRST INSINUATION [A]:

    I noted that: the present provision for papal conclave is that "The election of the Supreme Pontiff must be done in a Conclave, and one that has been closed..." [Pope Pius XII's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 8 december 1945, n.58]

    The procedure of the conclave requires that they remain thus enclosed [locked both from outside and within (Pius XII, VAS nn. 55, 56) until a candidate has obtained the required two-thirds votes of the Cardinals present plus one added over and above in a scrutiny or ballot; or by way of delegation by all the Cardinals similarly present in the Conclave, with nobody dissenting, and such that no one chooses himself in that respect, or in way other than by acclamation ...[Pius XII, VAS, n. 91]

And, what follows go thus according to Pope PIus XII's Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis,:

101. After the election has been canonically carried out and after the Secretary of the Sacred College, the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonies, and two Masters of Ceremonies have been summoned into the hall of the Conclave by the least senior Cardinal Deacon, let the consent of the man elected be asked by the Cardinal Dean in the name of the entire Sacred College with these words: Do you accept the canonically carried-out election of yourself as Supreme Pontiff?

102. After this agreement has been furnished within a time limit to be determined by the prudent judgment of the Cardinals by a majority of votes (to the extent it is necessary), the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world.

104. Then, after having done the things that by custom have to be done according to the Caeremoniale Romanum [i.e., The Roman Ceremonial, a liturgical book with instructions for papal ceremonies], the Cardinals furnish the first “adoration” [i.e., homage] to the Supreme Pontiff Elect; after that has been completed and the hymn Te Deum [“We praise Thee, O God”] has been sung, the new Roman Pontiff is made known to the awaiting people by the Senior Cardinal Deacon, and, a little while after, the Pontiff himself bestows the Apostolic Blessing Urbi et Orbi [i.e., “to the City and to the World”]. Then follows the second “adoration,” which the Cardinals, dressed in purple cappas, carry out.

105. If the Elect is living outside the Conclave, the norms that are contained in the Roman Ceremonial, book I, title 1, Concerning the Conclave and the Election of the Pope §37, must be observed.

106. Finally after all these things have been duly fulfilled, at the command of the new Pontiff the Conclave is opened, both from within and without; the customary certificate of this opening is completed as sanctioned in number 56 above. Moreover, after the Conclave has been opened, the people are admitted who by custom are usually introduced to the elected Pontiff for the “adoration.”...

I pointed out that all of the above goes to show, as Fr. Valerii affirmed, that:

A president-elect is prevented from exercising the power during three months after election, because a previous President is still formally the President during that time. When a pope-elect accepts the election and reveals his Papal name, he immediately receives the whole plentitude of the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff. This process is completed during the conclave, not three months or twenty years afterwards.

Noting, however, that the order in which Fr. Valerii makes a sandwich of these elements: acceptance, revealing of name, and reception of plenitude of supreme power, is negligible.

    I underlined that if my judgment of the insinuation was rash and wrong, he may simply disregard my analysis based on the same, and consider it retracted.

ON THE SECOND INSINUATION [B]

I began by stating that "The case of Bl. Pope Victor III DOES NOT prove the M/F Thesis". 

I explained that the term "pope-elect" as it applied to him does not have the same significance within the system of the M/F Thesis. Those who the Thesis regard as 'pope-elect' and merely 'popes materialiter':

•     consented     to their putative elections.

•     chose     a name for themselves.

•     were     ceremoniously vested in papal regalia.

•     received     the adorations of the cardinals.

•     were     announced as the new pope(s).

•     bestowed     their otherwise 'Apostolic     Blessing Urbi et Orbi'.
     

•     posited     (and the present one continues to posit) other Pope-like functions.
  
  

    I noted that NON OF THESE OBTAINED WHEN ABBOT/Card. DESIDERIUS WAS POPE-ELECT. I told him that he only needed to refer to paragraphs 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 of Pope Pius XII's VAS cited above to cross check the list and see how they apply... However, to aid in the exercise, I opted to give the hint that: if Roncalli and his successors till Bergoglio were PAPABILE, and, LEGITIMATELY I.E CANONICALLY ELECTED just like Abbot Desiderius was papabile and canonically elected; and if they accepted their purported elections, just like Abbot Desiderius eventually accepted; then, according to the provisions by Church law concerning the candidacy and election to the papacy they indeed, by the fact of acceptance, immediately received the whole plentitude of the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff.

    More so, I noted that: in his preliminary comments in the 3rd paragraph of Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope St. Pius X said thus:

3. Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can justly be surprised that We number such men among the enemies of the Church, if, leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge, he is acquainted with their tenets, their manner of speech, their conduct. Nor indeed will he err in accounting them the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church...

    Now, I told him, from what I know of the classical sedevacantist argument, it is by our acquaintance with the tenets, manner of speech and conducts of the papal claimants since the death of Pope Pius XII; leaving aside the disposition of their minds, which only God can judge, that we know them to be impostors, for, through those filters we recognise them as continuing in the tradition of those described as "the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church", i.e. Modernists; and we know that those who had publicly adhered to Modernism had been struck with the dreaded sword of excommunication;     Such as these could not possibly have been 'papabile'.

    I noted that on the assumption that they indeed were 'papabile' and 'canonically elected', there is only one option then: by our acquaintance with the tenets, manner of speech and conducts, we know them to be manifest heretics, and could neither be members nor heads of the Church. 

I called his attention to the fact that one of the objections against sedevacantism, which Fr. Cekada has already addressed; is that: "whatever you may think about the post-Conciliar popes, they are not really “manifest,” “public,” or “notorious” heretics, as canon law understands those terms. I told him it seems to me that the M/F Thesis holders posit the same objection, and that leaves me dumbfounded as to why they should identify as 'sedevacantists'. I pointed out that I had heard the term "sedeprivationism" in the past in reference to the 'Thesis', that then I was beginning to see how it fits the M/F Thesis. I quickly noted that maybe by the time I complete my project of understanding the Thesis, I would be disabused of my present delusion... 

For the time being, I told him if he had not seen this article from Fr. Cekada before, he would do well to take a look, as it may offer an immense help, as always! see here:

: Quidlibet : › A Pope as a “Manifest” or “Public” Heretic (fathercekada.com) 

    In summary I said that "one thing is obvious: to claim the story of Bl. Pope Victor VIII for the cause of the M/F Thesis is nothing short of being a case of "apples and oranges"; their utter incongruity cannot be reconciled however one would wish to try. Put in another way, no analogy whatsoever exists between the case of Bl. Pope Victor III and the Vatican II papal impostors"

Thus far my comments back in 2021, having no ‘voice’ to speak out publicly yet! 

• Independent readings, the same concussion:

The reader should recall that, analyzing Fr. Desposito's YouTube Lecture on Bl. Victor III and the Material/Formal Thesis, or Material Pope Thesis,  Fr. Valerii arrived at the conclusion that ""The election of Pope Victor III cannot be used to support the "Material Pope Thesis", because it was not a similar case at all".

This is coming more than a year (in fact almost two years) after I had, in a private exchange, reached the same conclusion that  "The case of Bl. Pope Victor III DOES NOT prove the M/F Thesis" and that "one thing is obvious: to claim the story of Bl. Pope Victor VIII for the cause of the M/F Thesis is nothing short of being a case of "apples and oranges"; their utter incongruity cannot be reconciled however one would wish to try"

Now, taking pains to look up the story of Bl. Victor III, an impartial reader having no vested interest, would easily see the firm foundation for these independent, but similar conclusions.

• Final comments: 

One would think that the story of Bl. Victor III is fairly simple and straightforward that it could not admit of being twisted for whatever vested interest.  Now however, if such a twist were to have been perpetrated by some ‘untrained, un-Tridentine’ and ‘cucarachas’ in town, it would have been quite understandable. But, the fact that it comes from the ranks of  the famed ‘best’ and ‘most theologically stable group’ in town gives much concern for worry and anxiety: how are the valiant fallen in battle, and the weapons of war perished?! 

We see the following replies from some twitter users:

Yes. That tale indeed did not fly high, as the saying goes. Well, we can be sure that the cold weather of the present location of the seminary, Pennsylvania, has nothing to do with this ‘Tale by Fr. Desposito’: even in warm/hot Florida the seed of such a tale was already being sown, as manifest in the content of my ‘fraternal exchange on the thesis’. Of course it could be granted that the seed was implicitly sown in warm/hot Florida, but needed cold Pennsylvania to put out shoots and to flower and bear fruits… 

Be that as it may, we must look for the cause of such tale somewhere, and from an intrinsic, not external principle: the desperation to “save the cherished baby” -the Material/Formal Thesis, from being styled ‘a theological error’; ‘a novelty’; ‘a tentacle of the Novus ordo’, etc. 

Now, this is the same desperation which makes the Ratzingerian 'sheeples' clamor for a ‘hermeneutics of continuity’ so contrary to fact; and makes the Recognize and Resisters [R&R] to go in search of, and retrieve whatever Gallican source possible to drive in their cherished point of a ‘heretical Pope’ [surely a misnomer] being merely a bad dad! This desperation is at best scandalous; and gives a bad name to scholasticism and literary research.

And, surely, no argument could be put forward against the note by Fr. Valerii that “Desiderius became a Pope a year after he was elected, but during that year he still remained the Abbot of Monte Cassino and Papal Vicar for certain territories, without having any supplying jurisdiction or power”, that belongs solely to the Pope as Pope. It would seem that only with a high degree of sophistry could one attempt to contend such observation: certainly that would be nothing but an insidious sophism. 

We do not shy to affirm that to propose convincingly that the story of Bl. Pope Victor III demonstrates the truth of the Material Pope Thesis would be to be caught up in a rather deceptive dream… it is to live, and sadly so, in an alternate reality other than the real world having the historical fact demonstrating the very opposite of such a proposition.

    Now, though I was totally unaware of the ‘Thesis’ when, convinced of Sedevacantism as simply Sedevacantism, as the only logical response to the Vatican II apostasy, I took my flight from the Novus Ordo impostor church back in 2017, the more I was spurred on to look it up as a student of Most Holy Trinity seminary, the more I wondered why the Thesis defenders should identify as 'sedevacantists'. Then came a day when  a certain staunch defender of the same thesis [from the Italian wing of the Thesis clan] was quoted to have pompously quipped “thank God I am not a sedevacantist”! That indeed was not funny: how come that some adherents of the Thesis would gladly identify as sedevacantists, and some vigorously detest the sedevacantist tag…?! 

     Noteworthy is that, Fr. Vili Lehthoranta noted how those who hold the Theological Sedevacantism, derogatively styled “Totalists”, “do not see the supporters of the Thesis as real and true Sedevacantists'' in his  Totalism vs. The Cassiciacum Thesis (fatherlehtoranta.com).  And, most recently, a fine defense of the ‘Theological Sedevacantism’ was published by Fr. John Okerulu.   

More so, Fr. Valerii’s tweet got further replies as follows:

 

Now, the Youtube lecture that occasioned Fr. Valerii’s commentary was posted about a month ago, having [according to the last time I checked] 985 views, with 78 ‘likes’. What great good would have come from the true, and not a distorted; application of Bl. Victor III’s story to the present state of the Holy See having such a number of views! And, how sad and disappointing  that 78 viewers should be so misled as to hit ‘like’ manifesting their agreeing with the content of the lecture hook, line and sinker!  Deep sad sighs… 

Meanwhile, given that Fr. Desposito’s “Victor III and the Thesis” lecture was just published a month ago, while I had, in a private exchange established how that story could not be hijacked to patronize the ‘Thesis’, I am persuaded that it would not be altogether out of place to tag it “dead on arrival”, borrowing Fr. Cekada’s summary description of John Salza and Robert Siscoe’s “True or False Pope”.

In the face of such a sorry sight as this, an informed  Catholic Common Sense cannot but lament: 

How are the valiant fallen in battle

And the weapons of war perished?!

How, pray, tell,

Even those who claim the title “the best”, prey, of such spell! 

Stuck in the rut of a slippery analogy

Spiteful of voices reiterating simple Catholic pedagogy

Entranced by comic sympathetic club-eulogy!

Would to God, it be ours to be welcomed to a news of retraction!

What the truly ‘best’, says history, boldly made; winning admiration

 Attesting, from the Original  wound of ignorance, even the best has no exemption. 

While waiting, we wait 

Pacing calmly but surely the gait 

We cannot but toot the plait: 

How are the valiant fallen in battle

And the weapons of war perished?!

How, pray, tell,

Even those who claim the title “the best”, prey, of such spell!

Oh, tell it not in Geth, publish it not in the streets of Ascalon: 

Lest they rejoice in triumph who regard the anti-Modernist Catholic cause a delusion!