St. Vincent Ferrer, O.P., sedevacantist

[Geremia]

Often we hear about St. Vincent et al. supporting one pope (Clement VII, Avignon pope) and St. Catherine of Siena et al. supporting another (Urban VI, Roman pope), both elected in 1378 (cf. this table). But St. Vincent's sedevacantist period began in 1416, when he disavowed himself of his friend Cdl. Pedro de Luna, elected Benedict XIII in 1394, of whom the saint was his confessor. St. Vincent died in 1419.

Some references:

St. Vincent wrote his Tractatus de moderno ecclesie scismate in 1380. The most recent biography of the saint, Daileader's Saint Vincent Ferrer, His World and Life: Religion and Society in Late Medieval Europe (2016), describes the Tractatus on p. 22:

Vincent asked first whether, in a time of schism, it was necessary to accept a single true pope or whether one could accept both or neither. Having established in his response to the first question that one must accept either Urban or Clement as pope, Vincent then posed the second question, namely, which of the two men elected by the College of Cardinals was the true pope. Having established that Clement's election alone was valid, Vincent then asked whether this truth had to be preached and revealed to the Christian people. To each of these three major questions, the friar assigned five additional questions. Vincent answered all 15 questions within a scholastic framework: he posed his answer; cited his rational arguments (rationes) and his authorities (chiefly Aquinas, named on several occasions, and the Bible, with some references to Augustine and Aristotle); raised objections to his own arguments; and then rebutted the objections.

Ch. 9 ¶¶21-23 of Andrew Pradel, O.P.'s 1863 St. Vincent Ferrer: Angel of the Judgment explains why St. Vincent can be considered a sedevacantist:

...the King of Aragon detached himself from his obedience to Benedict XIII, and from that moment the cause of the union was accomplished.

The King's edict was published on the 6th of January, 1416.

Our Saint spent the beginning of the year in traveling through many provinces of Aragon to withdraw the people from obedience to Benedict XIII, and to attach them to that of the Council of Constance, an undertaking by no means easy considering the long period in which those countries had lived under the spiritual dominion of Peter de Luna. But to all their prejudices the Saint opposed solid reasons, which carried conviction to every mind. In a short time, Spain, as well as Italy and the rest of Christendom, awaited with submission the choice of the Council of Constance, ready to acknowledge the elect of the Council as the veritable Vicar of Jesus Christ.

But St. Vincent refused to attend the Council of Constance and disagreed with its outcome, the election of Martin V! St. Vincent never publicly recognized Martin V or the Council of Constance (Daileader pp. 168-76). Thus, the great saintly logician just kept preaching repentance. This is certainly a great lesson for us today.

Happy octave day of St. Vincent's feast!

[St.Justin]

So were the Popes elected in Avignon the Bishop of Rome? How can that be?

[Geremia]

How is it that I had gathered that St. Vincent Ferrer accepted the Council of Constance? Why would he also preach against Pedro de Luna for the Council if he was against it?

Perhaps because St. Vincent held that the Council of Constance's deposition of Benedict XIII was valid, but the Council's election of Martin V invalid. On Spain's and St. Vincent's subtraction from Benedict XIII, cf. Daileader p. 165-6.

Daileader p. 172:

Then there are Vincent's sermons, which similarly indicate that Vincent never accepted the Council of Constance's legitimacy or authority. Extant sermons datable to the years 1415–1419 are fewer than sermons datable to the years 1411–1414. Nonetheless, they do exist. One searches them and Vincent's undated sermons in vain for passages in which he advised his listeners to follow his example and submit themselves to the authority of the Council of Constance, as Gerson would have it, or urged his listeners to pray for Pope Martin V, the one and only true pope, as the canonization witness Bourdiec would have it. Instead, after January 6, 1416, Vincent said little about the schism, and what little he said indicates his continued rejection of the Council of Constance. On June 4, 1417—a date known through his reference to the age of Antichrist—and now in France, Vincent told his listeners that the schism had lasted nearly 40 years (ja ha prop de .XL. anys que dura lo cisma) and that presently there were three [anti]popes in the world: John, Gregory, and Benedict.^{42 [Sermons 1:208 (June 4, 1417).]} For Vincent to assert on June 4, 1417, that there were three [anti]popes in the world was both stupefying and revealing. The Council of Constance had deposed John XXIII and Gregory XII fully two years earlier; Vincent had read aloud the Spanish subtraction 18 months earlier; the Council of Constance was still in session. Vincent mentioned none of these facts. The only concession that the friar made to changed circumstances was this: unlike earlier in Spain, he did not follow up his observation that there were three [anti]popes in the world with the even more provocative proclamation that, of the three, Benedict was the legitimate one. But there were still three [anti]popes. For Vincent, preaching in France in June 1417, the Council of Constance had done nothing to change the status of these three. The deposing of even Benedict's rivals was illegitimate.

Just as significantly, Vincent passed over obvious opportunities to proclaim his acceptance of the Council of Constance or Martin V. ...

[Bonaventure]

Yes, that is the case. He rejected de Luna, but never accepted Martin V.

[Nazianzen]

Vincent actually held that Peter de Luna was the true pope and that he lost his office by tacit resignation by disappearing into schism. His theology was that of Bellarmine and "all the ancient fathers."

http://strobertbellarmine.net/viewtopic.php?p=5514#p5514

[Geremia]

Vincent actually held that Peter de Luna was the true pope and that he lost his office by tacit resignation by disappearing into schism.

So, St. Vincent did not consider the Council of Constance's deposition of Benedict XIII valid, although both St. Vincent and that Council considered him a non-pope?

[CMTV]

To be fair, it was extraordinarily difficult, almost impossible, back then to know who with absolute certainty, who the real Pope was. For they all professed the Catholic faith.

Today, it is the very opposite.

[Nazianzen]

How is it that I had gathered that St. Vincent Ferrer accepted the Council of Constance? Why would he also preach against Pedro de Luna for the Council if he was against it?

Perhaps because St. Vincent held that the Council of Constance's deposition of Benedict XIII was valid, but the Council's election of Martin V invalid. On Spain's and St. Vincent's subtraction from Benedict XIII, cf. Daileader p. 165-6.

Daileader p. 172:

Then there are Vincent's sermons, which similarly indicate that Vincent never accepted the Council of Constance's legitimacy or authority. Extant sermons datable to the years 1415–1419 are fewer than sermons datable to the years 1411–1414. Nonetheless, they do exist. One searches them and Vincent's undated sermons in vain for passages in which he advised his listeners to follow his example and submit themselves to the authority of the Council of Constance, as Gerson would have it, or urged his listeners to pray for Pope Martin V, the one and only true pope, as the canonization witness Bourdiec would have it. Instead, after January 6, 1416, Vincent said little about the schism, and what little he said indicates his continued rejection of the Council of Constance. On June 4, 1417—a date known through his reference to the age of Antichrist—and now in France, Vincent told his listeners that the schism had lasted nearly 40 years (ja ha prop de .XL. anys que dura lo cisma) and that presently there were three [anti]popes in the world: John, Gregory, and Benedict.^{42 [Sermons 1:208 (June 4, 1417).]} For Vincent to assert on June 4, 1417, that there were three [anti]popes in the world was both stupefying and revealing. The Council of Constance had deposed John XXIII and Gregory XII fully two years earlier; Vincent had read aloud the Spanish subtraction 18 months earlier; the Council of Constance was still in session. Vincent mentioned none of these facts. The only concession that the friar made to changed circumstances was this: unlike earlier in Spain, he did not follow up his observation that there were three [anti]popes in the world with the even more provocative proclamation that, of the three, Benedict was the legitimate one. But there were still three [anti]popes. For Vincent, preaching in France in June 1417, the Council of Constance had done nothing to change the status of these three. The deposing of even Benedict's rivals was illegitimate.

Just as significantly, Vincent passed over obvious opportunities to proclaim his acceptance of the Council of Constance or Martin V. ...

Daileader is obviously not versed in Sacred Doctrine, and is just another secular scholar bringing naturalistic principles to a problem requiring spiritual and dogmatic ones.

For example, he does not seem to be aware of the distinction - absolutely fundamental and decisive - between a council in its celebration, and a council in its promulgation or confirmation by the Roman Pontiff.  A council may be physically ecumenical in celebration, yet dogmatically null in its actual status in theology.  The decisive matter is the pope's confirmation of its decrees.  Constance was a disputed council for years, indeed, even the import of Martin V's confirmation of its decrees was disputed, and perhaps still is.  He confirmed it in a qualified and ambiguous manner, and later popes made more explicit the qualification, and that qualification was intended to demolish the conciliarist doctrine so popular at the council.  This conciliarist doctrine was anathema to all sound theologians (as few as then existed) and is now heretical.  It is this which Vincent perceived as evil, and which he therefore rejected, and which (perhaps among other things) he referred to as the work of the devil at Constance.  The devil was certainly active at Constance, on any sound theological reading of that gathering. 

Daileader does not present the doctrine of Vincent regarding his withdrawal of obedience to Benedict (Peter de Luna) in any clear or accurate manner.  Vincent held two things - one, Benedict was the lawfully elected pope, and two (from January 1416) that Benedict had tacitly resigned the papacy by disappearing into schism (because he refused to resign for the good of the Church).  Daileder gives Benedict's own version of Vincent's position, and then shows that Benedict's version is unreliable (which obviously it was!), and does the same with John Gerson's testimony (equally validly ruling it out).  But he nowhere gives what is the obvious and straightforward explanation, based upon better witnesses, that Gheon provides (see the link above to a lengthy excerpt from Gheon).  Daileder is lost in a sea of distinctions that he does not understand and cannot even perceive clearly.

The reluctance to accept Martin V's election is neither surprising nor scandalous.  Vincent was applying the perfectly sound principle that he would prudently wait and see.  Recognising him immediately would be precipitous, as the outcome of Pisa had shown.  Vincent died in April 1419, only 17 months after the election of Martin V (November 1417).  Not much can be taken from his silence about Martin V.

The theological background to Vincent's approach to the problem that Martin V presented (was he or was he not truly pope?) is again something that Daileader does not understand.  The question, commonly addressed in theological treatises, is how a new pope goes from provisional acceptance to universal peaceful adherence, at which point his claim is not only secure, but infallibly so - his papacy becomes a dogmatic fact.  So there is a two-stage process for any pope, who goes from newly elected (perhaps entirely and clearly validly) to universally peacefully accepted, after which his status as pope is infallibly secure, and unable to be questioned without heresy.  Vincent lived only during the period in which Martin V's claim could be regarded as not yet completely clear, certain, and secure.  Any prudential concerns would only have been intensified by the popularity of the conciliarist heresy among those who elected him.  Vincent, Master of Sacred Doctrine, moral giant, living saint, public miracle-worker, was rightly concerned by the irregularity of Constance, and yet equally prudently, not prepared to denounce Martin V.  He was waiting and watching.  He was a saint.

Vincent Ferrer rejected the opposed and mutually destructive errors of conciliarism (hence his rejection of the "depositions" of popes by a council) and "once a validly elected pope, immediately the pope as a dogmatic fact."  He also evidently held that a truly elected pope (but perhaps not one whose claim had achieved the status of a dogmatic fact) could lose the papacy by schism (or, a fortiori, heresy).  So, his solution was "sedevacantist" not conciliarist.

[Rocket Scientist]

To be fair, it was extraordinarily difficult, almost impossible, back then to know who with absolute certainty, who the real Pope was. For they all professed the Catholic faith.

Today, it is the very opposite.

Correct.  Then we were dealing with two or three claimants.  Now were and have been since v2 dealing heretics and apostates.  Then we were dealing with people that didn't bind doubtful and invalid sacraments on the Church, today were are.  The differences between the two circumstances could be multiplied. 

But it does show that during confusing times the good willed can be mistaken on such an important issue.

[Bonaventure]

Alan, how would you respond to this?

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/st-vincent-ferrer-sedevacantist.html

[Geremia]

how would you respond to this?
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/st-vincent-ferrer-sedevacantist.html

It concludes that St. Vincent didn't submit "to the judgment of both the spiritual and temporal authorities", yet St. Vincent disagreed with the Council of Constance: he rejected its election of Martin V (but accepted its deposition of Benedict XIII, urging Fernando/Spain to withdraw its obedience from Benedict XIII, whom St. Vincent thought should've abdicated on his own accord) —despite preaching in Aragon that the council must be accepted!
He may not have explicitly said "the See is vacant", but practically it was.
See this.

[Bonaventure]

Thanks, I agree.

I wonder why Salza went so anti-trad.

Maybe the Menzingen/Krah checks started bouncing.

[Geremia]

Menzingen/Krah checks started bouncing

That's probably the best explanation for why Menzingen shut down Fr. Alphonsus's trad Redemptorist foundation.

[Maximilian]

Wow, lots of fascinating information here and at the links provided. I'm not sure that anyone (such as Robert Siscoe) should think that this information about St. Vincent Ferrer ought to be used to support their polemical position. To me, it looks like the historical facts blow every theory out of the water.

1. St. Vincent supported Benedict XIII for 36 years, including 22 years after he was elected pope. He never abandoned the position that Benedict was the true pope. This is very different from the simplified story I had heard previously that "St. Vincent supported an anti-pope for a while, but then later he changed his mind."

2. St. Vincent believed that Benedict was the rightfully elected pope, and yet he decided that Benedict was required to abdicate his position in order to resolve the schism.

3. St. Vincent continued to recognize the validity of Benedict's claim on the papacy, and yet he said that the kingdoms who followed him were allowed to withdraw their obedience. To me, this looks like one of the strongest arguments I have seen for the "recognize and resist" position.

4. St. Vincent believed that Benedict could be deposed for the crime of refusing to abdicate when requested by the Council. So this supports the idea that a valid pope can lose his office, even for some cause less than heresy.

5. St. Vincent recognized the supremacy of the Council of Constance, convoked by the Holy Roman Emperor. Perhaps the cause of our current crisis is a seat which is vacant, which should be occupied not by a pope, but by an emperor. This is just like the Council of Sutri 400 years prior when there were 3 elected popes, and in a similar manner the Holy Roman Emperor convened a Council, deposed all 3 men, and the Council elected a new 4th man as pope.

[Geremia]

St. Vincent recognized the supremacy of the Council of Constance

But didn't (consistently) agree with its acts...