REFUTED:
A LITTLE CATECHISM ON SEDEVACANTISM
What is sedevacantism?
Sedevacantism is the theory of those who think that the most recent popes, the popes of the Second Vatican Council, have not really been popes. Consequently, the See of Peter is not occupied. This is expressed in Latin by the formula "sede vacante."
TRUE ENOUGH.
Where does this theory come from?
This theory has been conceived in reaction to the very grave crisis which the Church has been undergoing since the Council, a crisis that Archbishop Lefebvre justly called "the third world war." The main cause of the crisis has been the dereliction of the Roman Pontiffs, who teach or allow to be propagated serious errors on the subjects of ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality, etc.
This is a phenomenal understatement. These are not simply serious errors, but positive heresy. Heresy is the denial, or obstinate doubt of some article of the Catholic Faith. Now, the Popes have taught in their encyclicals, which is part of the ordinary magisterium of the church, the OPPOSITE of what is taught by the modernists in Rome and the Second Vatican Council. Therefore, the so-called Popes who convened, approved, ratified and confirmed the said errors have both communicated in heresy, publicly defected from the faith, and thus have tacitly resigned their office. Their repentance, if EVER given is not enough to reinstate their office, because public defection of faith is equal to resignation of office, and all the rights that go with it.
The sedevacantists think that real popes could not be responsible for such a crisis, and consequently they consider them not to be "real" popes.
Exactly.
Do the sedevacantists agree amongst themselves?
No, far from it. There are many different positions. Some think that, since the Chair of Peter is vacant, someone should occupy it, and so they have elected a "pope." Such is the case of the sect of Palmar in Spain, for example.
The Palmarian Catholic Church is a Schismatic Movement, and heretical. These people are Conclavists, NOT sedevacantists. They are in Schism from the Catholic faith, since they have taken it upon themselves to establish a movement that is based upon a DIFFERENT apostolic mission than that of the Catholic Church: Namely, to promote the PALMARIAN faith, NOT the Catholic faith. They are Not true sedevacantists.
Among those who do not go so far, there are different schools. Some think that the current pope is an anti-pope, others that he is only partly pope, a pope "materialiter" but not "formaliter."
True, but such people are not sedevacantists, but sedeprivationists. Different concepts and presuppositions at work.
Some sedevacantists consider their position as a "likely opinion," and consent to receive the sacraments from non-sedevacantist priests, while others, called "ultra" by the Fr. Coache,1 make it a matter of faith, and refuse to assist at Masses where the priest prays for the pope. But what is common to all the sedevacantists is that they think that the pope should not be prayed for in public.
This is true, and is one of the principle differences between the various groups like CMRI and SSPV and SGG.
What is meant by being pope "materialiter"?
The main difficulty of sedevacantism is to explain how the Church can continue to exist in a visible manner (for she has received from the Lord the promise that she will endure until the end of the world) while being deprived of her head. The partisans of the so-called "Cassiciacuм Thesis" 2 have come up with a very subtle solution: the current pope was validly designated as pope, but he did not receive the papal authority because there was an interior obstacle (heresy). So, according to the theory, he is able to act in some ways for the good of the Church, such as, for instance, appointing cardinals (who are cardinals "materialiter"), but he is not really pope.
Yes, it is an erroneous view.
What do you think of this solution?
For one thing, this solution is not based on Tradition. Theologians (Cajetan, St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, etc.) who have examined the possibility of a heretical pope, but no one prior to the Council every devised such a theory. Also, it does not resolve the main difficulty of sedevacantism, namely, how the Church can continue to be visible, for, if the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, etc., are deprived of their "form," then no visible Church hierarchy is left. Moreover, this theory has some serious philosophical defects because it supposes that a head can be head "materialiter," that is, without authority.
This is not difficult at all. The Church does not belong to the Pope, but to Christ, who alone builds the church UPON Peter and the Bishops in union with him. Now, if a Pope were to die, does the church disappear? No, she is considered "widowed" but not dead. As long as you have a valid Catholic Bishop who adheres to the orthodox faith, offering the sacraments, you have the Catholic Church, as St. Cyprian of Carthage maintained:
"Peter answered Him, 'Lord, to whom will we go?'... Peter, on whom the Church was to be built...taught and showed in the name of the Church that a rebellious and arrogant multitude may depart from the Church. I speak of those who will not hear and obey. However, the Church does not depart from Christ. And the Church consists of those who are a people united to the priest. It is the flock that adhere to its pastor. Therefore, you should know that the bishop is in the Church and the Church is in the bishop. If anyone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church.... The Church is Catholic and is one. It is not cut or divided. Rather it is connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another." St. Cyprian of Carthage, "The Unity of the Catholic Church," c. 250 A.D.
This is not denigrate from the essential role of the Pope within the Church: But the Church's EXISTENCE in this world does not depend on him alone; any bishop who is validly consecrated, and capable of ordaining priests, who professes the orthodox Catholic faith, and seeks to be in submission to the Church's authentic magisterium, is the Catholic Church. For he INTENDS to be united to his Pope, even when one is absent. Examples of this abound. For example, during a three year interregnum, between the election of popes, several bishops died. new ones had to be appointed, and were consecrated. When the new Pope came into office, he ratified these episcopal consecrations and regularized them. The Church is not paralyzed or destroyed just because she is missing a pope.
What arguments do the sedevacantists adduce to prove their theories?
They use a theological argument and a canonical one. The theological argument consists of positing that a heretic cannot be head of the Church, but John Paul II is a heretic, therefore....
Yep. Exactly. Objections?
The legal argument consists of pointing out that the laws of the Church invalidate the election of a heretic; but Cardinal Wojtyla was a heretic at the time of his election, therefore...
Yep, Exactly. A little more complex than THAT, but exactly.
But isn’t it true that a pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate?
St. Robert Bellarmine says that a pope who would formally and manifestly become a heretic would lose the pontificate. For that to apply to John Paul II, he would have to be a formal heretic, deliberately refusing the Church’s magisterium; and this formal heresy would have to be open and manifest. But if John Paul II often enough makes heretical affirmations or statements that lead to heresy, it cannot easily be shown that he is aware of rejecting any dogma of the Church. And as long as there is no sure proof, then it is more prudent to refrain from judging. This was Archbishop Lefebvre’s line of conduct.
And THIS is the point of departure for many of his priests. THere were certain Principles that it appears the Archbishop overlooked. For example, the 1917 code of Canon law EXPLICITLY teaches that Malice is PRESUMED when a person teaches heresy in the external forum:
Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “Positing an external violation of the law, malice (dolus) is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”
Therefore, until doubt can be dispelled, or the contrary proven, the authors of heretical works are to be considered heretics.
See Pope Pius VI bull Auctorem Fiedei. It condemns those who use heretical language, and yet attempt to couch it in "orthodox sounding" contexts. This is something the last five so-called popes have ALL been guilty of.
If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?
No, he should not, for according to the "common" opinion (Suarez), or even the "more common" opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even an heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.
That is simply not true. The Theologians of the church teach that if a person were to believe, even by rumor, that a Popes election were invalid, he could shun him without incurring schism:
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)
Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)
De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)
According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.
FALSE. THe 1917 Code of Canon Law, Par. 188, Section 4 states, under the different ways by which a cleric tacitly resigns his office: "
1917 Code of Canon Law (C. 188. 4.): "There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are: ... (4) if he has publicly defected (fallen away) from the Catholic faith."
Obviously, loss of office carries with it loss of jurisdiction. This is also taught by Pope Paul IV, in his Bull cuм Ex:
"Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]: that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these...shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering)."
SO, how could Pope Paul IV, in a papal Bull, which is part of the ordinary magisterium of the church, teach as a theological principle, that the faithful can WITHDRAW their obedience to a heretical "pope"" if that Heretical "pope" still has jurisdiction??????????
If he has Jurisdiction, then he can bind people under the law. BUT WE ARE NOT BOUND BY A HERETIC. This is the teaching of the Church: THe Faithful are not bound to follow or acknowledge the Jurisdiction of Heretical Leaders! Even the Supreme Pontiff! That is part of the ordinary Magisterium. It cannot contradict itself, therefore, those who hold the opposite are in error.
Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.
Obviously not, but what is that?
But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?
The Dominican Father Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that an heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.
This contradicts the teaching of the Church's magisterium, as outlined by Pope Paul IV. How can we withdraw from a heretical Pope with IMPUNITY, if he still have legitimate jurisdiction? FALSE.
The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.
But the issue is not simply one of merely being OUTSIDE the Church, it is also an issue of TACITLY RESIGNING ONES OFFICE by that very FACT, without ANY need for declaration, as canon law EXPLICITLY teaches.
In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co-exist with his own heresy.
FALSE. Canon law demonstrates that loss of faith is equivalent to tacit resignation of office, and all jurisdiction associated with it. Because of this, repentance is not sufficient to take it up again, but re-election.
How does their canonical argument fare?
The sedevacantists base their position on the apostolic constitution cuм ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV (1555-1559). But some good studies have shown that this constitution lost its legal force when the 1917 Code of Canon Law was promulgated. See, for example, the article of Fr. Albert, O.P., in Sel de la terre, Summer 2000, pp.67-78. What remains in effect from this constitution is its dogmatic teaching. And, consequently, it cannot be made to say more than the theological argument already examined.
HALF TRUTHS! Yes, when the 1917 code of canon law was promulgated, it was promulgates under the understanding that ALL former legal decrees were annulled, and that the legal decrees in force would be those in the code. But to say cuм EX lost its legal force is a mistake. FOr in the very above mentioned canon, Canon 188, under section 4 is REFERENCED cuм Ex as the source for the canons origin! Also, cuм EX did NOT ONLY make legal declarations, but also taught spiritual principles: and one of these principles was that the faithful can withdraw allegiance from a heretic "pope" with impunity!
The Pope CAN annul law, but he CANNOT annul the doctrinal teaching of the bull, as it is part of the ordinary magisterium of the church. Thus, those who dismiss it lightly, do so at their own PERIL; lest they be found dismissing the teaching of the church.
Don’t the sedevacantists claim to find a confirmation of their theory in the errors of Vatican Council II and the harmful liturgical and canonical laws of the Conciliar Church?
Indeed, the sedevacantists think, in general, that the teaching of the Council should have been covered by the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium, and consequently should not contain any errors. But, since there are errors, for example, on religious liberty, they conclude that Paul VI had ceased to be pope at that moment.
Yes, and no. Paul VI can also be shown to have held heretical views before his election, and AFTER, quite apart from the council. Although one reason why we would say he lost his office is BECAUSE he attempted to confirm the heresies taught by Vatican II. Heresies like the Civil Right to Religious Liberty, The teaching that revelation was completed at the CRUCIFIXION, that the Catholic church is composed of the particular churches, of which the Orthodox form a part, by virtue of their meriting the title "Particular churches," the Jєωs should not be presented as rejected by God, even though the council of Florence teaches that all who reject Christ are rejected by the Church, etc.
Really, if one accepted this argument, then it would be necessary to say that the whole Catholic Church disappeared then, too, and that "the gates of hell had prevailed" against her. For the teaching of the ordinary, universal magisterium is that of the bishops, of the whole Church teaching.
NOT ALL the Bishops Subscribed. And Some Subscribed CONDITIONALLY, as Did Cardinal Siri. Moreover, the Bishops did not pass out of existence by this act: They continued to teach and offer the sacraments: the Church was still alive, the day after the close of the council, that is not the issue. What HAPPENED was a mass APOSTASY from the Faith as a RESULT of the Subscription by the MAJORITY of the Bishops in the years following.
Christ never promised the Church would not be struck and battered to the point she appeared dead: He promised the gates of Hell would not PREVAIL!!! He didn't promise Satan wouldn't get in a good sucker punch. He just promised that the Church would never defect nor pass away:
That has NOTHING SOEVER to do with size.
It is simpler to think that the teaching of the Council and of the Conciliar Church is not covered by the infallibility of the ordinary, universal magisterium for the reasons explained in the article of Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., on the authority of the Council that appeared in Sel de la terre, "L’autorité du Concile," pp.32-63.
One of the arguments set forth there consists in showing that the Council does not present its teaching as "necessary for salvation" (which is logical, since those who profess this believe that it is possible to be saved without the Catholic Faith). Since this teaching is not authoritatively imposed, it is not covered by the guarantee of infallibility. The same thing can be said about the liturgical laws (the New Mass) and the canonical laws (the 1983 Code of Canon Law) promulgated by the most recent popes: they are not covered by infallibility, although normally they would be.
But the result is the same: The COUNCIL ITSELF is directly responsible for the apostasy that followed in the church. For it was left to BISHOPS to implement these measures and explain them: and they failed. The effect is the same though: Even if the council was not INTENDED to be infallible, that just lends MORE credibility to the fact that it COULD and DID promote, teach, and PROMULGATE HERESY.
Aren’t the sedevacantists right, though, in refusing to name the pope at Mass in order to show that they are not in communion with ("una cuм") a heretic (at least materially) and his heresies?
The expression "una cuм" in the Canon of the Mass does not mean that one affirms that he is "in communion" with the erroneous ideas of the pope, but rather that one wants to pray for the Church "and for" the pope, her visible head.
This is still a tacit recognition of a heretic as head, which as established above, cannot be. For how can the faithful withdraw from a heretical "pope" with impunity if he is indeed still their legal head?
In order to be sure of this interpretation, in addition to reading the erudite studies that have been made on this point, it is enough to read the rubric of the missal for the occasion of a bishop celebrating Mass. In this case, the bishop must pray for the Church "una cuм...me indigno famulo tuo," which does not mean that he prays "in communion with...myself, your unworthy servant" (which does not make sense!), but that he prays "and for...myself, your unworthy servant."
No objection.
But doesn’t St. Thomas Aquinas say that in the Canon one should not pray for heretics?
St. Thomas Aquinas does not say that one should not pray for heretics (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 79, A. 7, ad 2), but merely observes that, in the prayers of the Canon of the Mass, one prays for those whose faith and devotion are known to the Lord (quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio). For, he says, so that this sacrifice obtain its effect (effectum habet) those for whom one prays must be "united to the passion of Christ by faith and charity." He does not say that praying for heretics is forbidden. He only means that this prayer will not have the same efficacy as one for a Catholic, and is not provided for in the Canon.
All that can be concluded from this affirmation of St. Thomas is that, if the pope is a heretic (which remains to be proven), then the prayer for him will not have the foreseen effect, "non habet effectum."
In conclusion, what should we think of sedevacantism?
Sedevacantism is a theory that has not been proven speculatively, and that it is imprudent to hold practically (an imprudence that can have very serious consequences). That is why Archbishop Lefebvre never adopted this position, and even forbade the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to profess it. We should have confidence in his prudence and theological sense.
WRONG, it has been proven speculatively, but the Society has refused to acknowledge the canons and theologians that treat loss of membership as equivalent to loss of office, which equals loss of jurisdiction.
And so WHAT if it has very serious consequences? We can't run from an inconvenient truth just because it is inconvenient!
FALSE. Here is ABP. Lefebvre:
“I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that you cannot say that the pope is not the pope”
-Archbi Lefebvre, to his American priests, 1979
Fr. Muñoz4 points out that no saint in the Church’s history was ever a sedevacantist, while several openly and forcefully resisted a pope’s errors. Let us do likewise. (Translated from Sel de la terre, Spring 2001.)
St. Hippolytus obviously believed the holy see was vacant, on account of his being elected to it.
But that is not the point: The point is we have NEVER yet lived in a time where popes have manifestly TAUGHT under the auspices of the magisterium, BLATANT and manifest heresy, have given signs of conformity with heresy, and by their actions have formally apostatized from the Catholic faith.
REFUTED.
Topic: A LITTLE CATECHISM ON SEDEVACANTISM (Read 6293 times)