CONCLAVE ’25: Raising the Alarm: Schism by Dubias Means?

Not a spelling mistake, a pun. I do those. Search up "dubia letter" if you're scrathing your head over the title.

LINKS
Catholic Herald coverage of Cardinal Müller’s church split comments:

https://thecatholicherald.com/cardinal-muller-warns-church-risks-split-if-orthodox-pope-not-chosen/ 

Apostolic Constitution Romano Pontifici Eligendo (1975):

https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19751001_romano-pontifici-eligendo.html 

CNN coverage of Cardinal Becciu situation:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/23/europe/cardinal-becciu-conclave-controversy-intl/index.html 

Cruxnow coverage of Sister Brambilla situation:

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2025/04/francis-legacy-lives-as-top-vatican-woman-gets-accidental-invite-to-conclave 

Pontifacts + Popeular History Livestream of Pope Francis’ funeral (join Adopt-A-Cardinal in the comments!):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Cl8ISMTqMA 

Novena to Mary, Undoer of Knots:

https://www.theholyrosary.org/maryundoerknots/ 

TRANSCRIPT

Welcome to Popeular History. My name is Gregg and this is another Conclave special: “Raising the Alarm: Schism by Dubias Means?”

Last Thursday, The Catholic Herald ran an article titled “Cardinal Müller warns Church risks split if ‘orthodox’ pope not chosen.”

Specifically, the Catholic Herald quotes the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as saying “a heretic pope who changes every day depending on what the mass media is saying would be catastrophic.” Which, I hope he’s answering a question like “would a heretic pope who changes every day depending on what the mass media is saying be catastrophic”? Because unless that idea is being planted in his mind by the interviewer, it would seem that such a dire scenario is something Cardinal Müller is actively worried about. And if it’s something he’s actively worried about, well that’s got its own gravity.

Bottom line, the article raises the potential specter of a schism, a split, in the Church, presumably some sort of major antipope situation where some of the Cardinals decide to reject the conclusion and go off and set up a rival Pope. We’ve seen antipopes before many times in Church history, though it’s been a while since there’s been a major one, recognized by a significant number of Catholics, say 5 percent. Or heck, even 1 percent. Longtime Pontifacts listeners will recall Bry and Fry actually interviewed Pope Michael, a modern antipope, back in 2022 shortly before his death. Oh, and thanks recent livestream viewer "Nogah f" for asking their antipope question with a handy definition of “serious” antipope accompanying, that was useful.

Attentive listeners will probably know that I’m concerned about the possibility of schism myself, and if the Herald headline about Cardinal Müller is correct, I’m not alone. The reality is that even if the headline is wrong, I am comfortable saying it would be naïve to conclude that the possibility of schism isn’t present in the minds of most Cardinals. After all, fundamentally, preventing schism is what the conclave process and ultimately the College of Cardinals is all about. Really, you could take it further: preventing schism is what the Papacy is about, uniting Christians under one clear umbrella. Wait, no, preventing schism is what Christianity is about, uniting humanity in Christ. Wait, no, ending the schism between God and humanity caused by the Fall is what Christ is about. You get the idea: Schism bad.

Given that there seems to be more concern about the possibility of schism than usual, as we ramp up towards the conclave, it’s worth asking what should be done to reduce the possibility and severity of such a break. Obviously it’s pretty presumptuous of me to be talking about this, but I haven’t seen it elsewhere, and it needs to be discussed. There are steps that should be taken publicly before the conclave to resolve ambiguities and close loopholes, and I haven’t seen them taken yet, which has me a bit nervous, but given the nature of the situation, well, it may simply be that fundamental differences will remain. I’ll update the show notes if and when I see updates relating to any of these things, this is obviously pretty cutting edge in terms of events coverage and there’s a lot going on.

Ok, let me lay this out. First, there are a surprising number of issues relating to who is actually a Cardinal-Elector in this conclave: an unusually high number of points of discussion, but not an unprecedented number, to be clear, since you need to work hard to find truly unprecedented things in Church history.

Second, there is a notably strong traditionalist camp who, if I may read between the lines in Müller’s statement, is prepared to reject any Pope they do not consider sufficiently orthodox.

Let’s tackle the first topic first. Probably the single most significant source of uncertainty in this election is the canonical limit of 120 Cardinal Electors, given that this will be the first Conclave to exceed the limit. In fact, there will be more Cardinal-Electors in this conclave than there have ever been, though that may be misleading, after all, how many people tended to take part in the Papal elections of the first millennium where not only the clergy but the people of Rome participated? Rome was smaller then, but it would be difficult to believe it wasn’t a healthy crowd. The word “thousands” comes to mind. And yes, I too wonder how many women were in the crowds on those occasions when Popes were elected by acclamation. But then I think of how if it were up to individual voting in any form, even the most popular elections in the Hellenistic world appeared to be sausage fests. The Greco-Roman milieu gave us the Patriarchy after all, and as they say, the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.

In any event, the 120 cap being broken isn’t too crazy a precedent, as it was only established in 1975 and was ignored at times by two of Pope Francis’ traditionally-minded predecessors, Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.

But it’s also worth noting that Pope Francis ignored the rule so aggressively you might be tempted to think he misunderstood it. Did he think it was a minimum rather than a maximum? By my count, when Francis announced what would turn out to be his final batch of new Cardinals on October 6th of last year, there were already 121 new Cardinals kicking around, and it was only the untimely death of Spanish Cardinal Miguel Ángel Ayuso Guixot that made sure there were fewer than 120 electors when the time came for the official elevation of the new batch. During the waiting period, one of the announced new Cardinals–Bishop Syukur of Bogor, Indonesia–declined the honor, and, as if to underscore how determined he was to have a very full College of Cardinals, Pope Francis elevated the Archbishop of Naples in his place, bringing the total number of Cardinal-Electors to a record high 140, which went mostly down to 135 by the time of Pope Francis’ death last Monday due to Cardinals reaching the age of 80 and automatically losing their elector status. And yes, you heard that right, the Catholic Church of all places is one of the few organizations in the world with a hard cap on the age of electors. Oh, and yes, I did say the number went *mostly* down, more on that later.

In reality, the Pope is an absolute monarch. Sure, the Apostolic Constitution Romano Pontifici Eligendo exists and caps the number of Cardinal-Electors at 120 in Paragraph 33, but it’s not like that was news to Pope Francis when he was blatantly disregarding It throughout his pontificate, and it’s not like absolute monarchs are bound by constitutions–that’s pretty specifically what makes them absolute monarchs. In short, it was a bit of a non-issue for him. And I also think it was an occasion where he decided to make things uncomfortable for the cardinals who he critiqued for being too comfortable early on in his pontificate. He famously told people to make a bit of a mess in the Church, and here he made a bit of a mess with the constitution of the college compared to the, uh, well, the Constitution of the College. I think he wanted the Cardinals to *have to * figure it out,  have to be a little uncomfortable with rigid rules.

Anyways, in the words of an analysis kindly provided by Gabe over at the Papability Index over on X, quote “The 120 rule is a matter of Ecclesiastical Law, not Divine Law, so the Pope can dispense of it as he sees fit. Those ‘extra’ Cardinals have just as many rights as the 120 since the Pope’s powers, privileges, and appointments are unassailable as long as he’s operating within the confines of Divine Law.”  end quote

That makes sense to me, but constitutions are more of an issue for constitutional bodies, which, at the end of the day, is what the College of Cardinals is. I hate to say it, but I am definitely of the opinion that the College needs to address this discrepancy somehow, as this is a loophole that could be used to undermine the legitimacy of the next Pope. Perhaps the safest course would be to ensure the final vote is lopsided enough that a ⅔ majority would be cleared even discounting the “extra” electors, however many there end up being.

Really what I think may happen is that this issue will go unaddressed during the sede vacante but may be used by a dissatisfied faction as an excuse to refuse to recognize the result. If this happens, it will be readily identifiable as an excuse because if the faction were really only interested in the legitimacy of the election, they would be objecting sooner, like right now, before any votes take place. To allow the conclave to proceed without flagging legitimate concerns about its, well, legitimacy, would be startlingly irresponsible for any Cardinal, and to follow that up with only rejecting the result and declaring an antipope only after the fact would expose the cynical motives and manipulative nature of such an act. I genuinely hope that doesn’t happen, but now is not the time for me to sit back and say nothing about the apparent possibility.

There are other smaller-scale eligibility questions with similar solutions and potentially similar outcomes, such as the updated official birthdays of a couple of the African cardinals that have had the result of keeping them eligible. I want to be clear that I, personally, am not questioning their eligibility, nor is this breaking news, this is as publicly available information as the 120 elector limit and everything else I’ve been talking about. But all legitimately concerned about avoiding schism should raise their objections now. Any Cardinals planning to toss the game board only after they lose need to know that their motives are clear and that this is not a game. And yeah, in case you can’t tell, I have a particular concern about this. But it’s a general problem, so there’s no need to put my case into territory where I could be accused of ad hominem accusations by naming names. Let’s just say late challenges here would be doubias at best.

There’s also the case of Cardinal Becciu, who as I understand it, resigned the rights and privileges of the Cardinalate back in 2020 but who now appears to be arguing that participating in a Conclave wasn’t among those rights and privileges that he resigned. I do not expect the other Cardinals to find his arguments convincing.

Finally, we have the case of Sister Simona Bambrilla, a female head of one of the Vatican’s Dicasteries and more importantly *not a Cardinal* who was accidentally invited to participate in the Cardinals-only general congregations that began last week. I don’t expect that to be an actual issue, but I thought it worth mentioning both for a bit of levity and as a reminder of the way women are kept out of places where they really honestly should be if you ask me. Whoops, uh, there went that levity.

Ok, so that’s my TED talk on the surprisingly fuzzy boundaries marking of the participants in the upcoming conclave. Eventually the “Extra Omnes” will be said and the doors will be locked “Con clave”--with a key, and, well, the “speak now or forever hold your peace” window will have passed at that point. Unless there are significant developments before then, I anticipate only Cardinal Becciu will have raised concerns, and then only for his case if my reading is right. Pro tip: I’m giving plenty of qualifiers when talking about Becciu due to what I perceive as a high risk of litigation. Just in case that wasn’t obvious.

Anyways, let’s shift gears to the second of topic of concern I brought up at the start of this: Cardinals prepared to reject any Pope they do not consider sufficiently orthodox. And really, I can broaden that out to any Catholic prepared to reject the Pope, because the underlying scenario is the same, whether you’re a Cardinal or a catechumen. If you reject the Pope, you’re not Catholic. Union with the Pope is what defines Catholicism. I know there are those who disagree, I would hope they are not Cardinals of the Catholic Church. They can go play for Saint Louis if they want to be Cardinals while rejecting the Pope. The idea that a Pope can be deposed for heresy has been brought up and refuted time and again throughout Church history. If I need to work up an episode on that specifically I can, but the reality is putting this together has been a lot of work for one night, following up on the two and a half hours I spent livestreaming Francis’ funeral at 4 am yesterday. Oh, yes, so if you’re looking for yesterday’s episode, by the way, look on the Pontifacts feed youtube and get ready to Adopt-A-Cardinal in the comments of the video!

In any case, getting away from the self-plug and back to as serious as I have ever been and then some, I’ll say this: I will accept whoever the next Pope is as Pope until they die or resign. You’d think Cardinals would be prepared to do this as well, but I’ve developed a degree of doubt.

I want to conclude this episode by encouraging you to join the Vice-Pope and I in a novena to Mary, Undoer of Knots. As you may know, a novena is a sort of nine-day prayer-a-thon for a specific intention: in this case for a successful conclave, defined as one that finds the Cardinals and the whole Church united under the new Pope.  As you may also know, Our Lady, Undoer of Knots was a favorite devotion of the late Pope Francis, himself a noted fan of Our Lady.

Since the novena includes a complete Rosary, and it’s quite late, I’m not going to accompany you through the actual prayers as we go, just encourage you to consider joining Vice-Pope Mrs Popeular History and I on it in the coming days (and yeah, you can start it whenever, it’s not like we have to be on the same timetable or you can’t have a similar intention after the conclave wraps up).

Fair warning, when I asked Mrs. Popeular History if she was up for this she said, and I quote, “sure, But it’s known to end up with things worse before they get better lol”

So on that note, thank you all for listening, God bless you all!