On Hildebrand: Nicholas II, Paul IV, and a Legally Legitimate Question
In last week’s Thursday piece, we explored the “Three Distortions” surrounding the Hildebrand question: the conflation of Hildebrand with the proposed imperfect council being proposed by at least one sedevacantist group, the shell game that was played—with intent or not—with Nicholas II’s In Nomine Domini, and the modern instinct to not even be aware of juridical legitimacy when it comes to the papacy, instead instinctively following what the world tells us is true.
All of those distortions ultimately lead back to the same deeper issue—whether Catholics still believe that the Church’s own laws—created by the same line of St Peter that often contradicts modern teaching—actually govern in times when governance is specifically needed; or, whether the stuff of law applies only to moments when the political Left goes off the rails, when considering such a notion that popes can quite easily be elected illegally is simply too uncomfortable to read about, much less investigate for ourselves.
Today we arrive at the more personal and difficult layer of the discussion itself: the possibility of a legally elected pope in Hildebrand, the reaction or even war against him, and the Catholic’s spiritual disposition that will be necessary in navigating such a question without ignorance, dismissiveness, mockery, or pride.
As we finish this three-part series, I want to first say that I have yet to declare my allegiance to Hildebrand. There is a great deal I could say contextually about that (which are more unpacked in previous articles) and about my investigation into what appears to be an illegal election of Prevost, but I will leave the point simple. No assumptions should be made beyond it, particularly if this is the reader’s first time to my work in general or my work on the popes more specifically.
LAST WEEK
Hildebrand and the Doctrinal Warfare Trap
Three ‘Distortions’ of Doctrinal Warfare — And the Hildebrand Question
A Most Legitimate Question
To state the cliche “bottom line” of the contents of last week’s work, the visible, modern Catholic approach does not seem to answer the question of legality, nor does it even present the teachings of Popes Nicholas II and Paul IV, not to mention the seemingly indestructible case for Hildebrand. It avoids it altogether, keeping every Catholic in the dark of ignorance for much longer than the present moment, thus serving up the opinion of the crowd as the only viable solution.
The opinion of the crowd is what chose Barabbas and crucified Christ, remember.
At this point (after having read all three articles, which paints a more robust picture) the instinct might be to resolve the matter of Hildebrand one way or another—to either accept him as the answer to the crisis or dismiss him as another fringe development in an already crowded field of competing Catholic claims. But that instinct, particularly the latter, while understandable, risks missing the more important function he serves in this story—because whatever Hildebrand is or is not, this April report has forced a question into the open that hardly any Catholic—even Traditional—even knows exists.
That question is not whether he is persuasive or charismatic—or even universally accepted as the pope as the electronic screens tell us the current Leo is. It doesn’t even matter if the letters and agenda he has issued run circles around Leo, Francis, and others. What matters is simple: whether the lawful standards by which such a claim to the papacy is bound to be judged are being applied at all—and at one of those lightning rod moments in Catholic history when they especially must be applied.
If the Church’s legal principles mean anything, and obviously they should even to any Catholic who is simply and admirably fighting the fight against Protestants by using the idea of “Scripture and Tradition,” then law established before us must be operative precisely when they are most inconvenient—when they threaten to unsettle what has been widely accepted and long assumed. That is the whole point of sharpening any set of rules anyway. That was the point of the Nicholas II bull.
Understandably, this is where the cognitive dissonance can be too much. But that’s why some of us are perhaps being asked to help navigate the rough waters while we reluctantly navigate them ourselves.
For once the question is framed juridically and not on assumption or democracy, the conversation can no longer remain within the familiar boundaries of Catholic discourse, particularly ones that “approved” media keeps us locked in. It is no longer sufficient to align with a camp our favorite podcaster aligns with, to identify with a position because it checks the most boxes, or to critique the crisis without seeking the authoritative solution to it. This April report perhaps can be viewed through the lens of Romans 8:28 in that it will, God willing, shift the unveiling to the truth beneath it all.
The reaction surrounding Hildebrand matters as much as the claim itself. That is why I write on him, even though I have not pledged my allegiance to him yet. I am a penitent and am working out my salvation with fear and trembling. It will take a lot for me to be sure, but what I can offer people like me is a way to think through something without the security of that assurance. Call it “stream of dissonance” writing.
As we have seen in last week’s work, Hildebrand was not introduced into the conversation and then evaluated with respect. He was mentioned, redirected, and framed almost immediately within categories that made serious consideration difficult—because the entire idea of him being the pope was mocked. Seemingly, the effect was to ensure that anyone attempting to examine the question would immediately feel as though he were stepping into something unserious and “absurd.” That kind of preemptive framing is never neutral. It conditions perception before a mature conversation can even occur—and it is being shaped by a “side,” most Catholics would argue, is just as crazy and conspiratorial as any other.
In other words, if you know your stance is on the fringe and will be considered ridiculous as well, why would you think you have the high ground to mock any other fringe stance, especially when the stance’s claim in some important ways aligns with yours?
Did Sanborn do all of this consciously and with wicked motive? I really don’t know. But that’s not the point. Whether Hildebrand ultimately proves to be legitimate or not, that behavior and that pattern put forth by the media demands our attention—if for nothing else but to call into question this particular sedevacantist sect.
ON HILDEBRAND AND THE LEGALITY OF LEO
Two Leos, Agenda 2030, and the St Michael Warning Catholics Never Knew
Final Words
We conclude with something the modern Catholic often forgets or never learned.
Discernment is not primarily an intellectual exercise.
It is a habit of the soul, and it will be only through this habit that true Church unity, a true Catholic pope, and the salvation of souls will be attained.
The tools of prayer the Church provides will give us the answer. They discipline the imagination and steady the mind, placing it within a rhythm that resists the constant pull of reaction. The Rosary is a most magnificent start. Consecration to Our Lady’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart situates the soul within a posture of fidelity that does not depend on external clarity. The Divine Office then anchors the day in the prayer of the Church herself, a continuity that exists independently of any particular crisis or claim—and the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary can be a segway into that.
These are not retreats from the problem.
They are the conditions under which the problem can be seen rightly, and yes, even legally.
For without that interior stability, the mind will move from theory to theory, from feeling to feeling, never quite certain whether it is discovering truth or simply following the next permitted path. With it, something quieter and more durable begins to take shape—a capacity to remain steady long enough to let the question unfold without forcing it into a premature conclusion.
Order thus reigns by the discipline and repetition of the prayers. And order is the very foundation and reason behind the law.
The goal, then, is not to arrive quickly. Not necessarily. God may very well be permitting this prolonged confusion precisely because souls require time to navigate such treacherous cognitive dissonance without despair, pride, or rashness.
That is why I write in “stream of dissonance.” Hopefully, that way, we arrive together.
The goal, though, is to arrive rightly.
The goal is eternal salvation.
And that requires a willingness to sit with questions that initially feel impossible. It requires that priests and bishops really look into this without dismissing it prematurely. It requires enough courage to stop repeating that “only God can save us now” and to consider the possibility—however uncomfortable—that God may already have provided His answer.
Pope St Gregory VII, named Hildebrand at birth, pray for us.
