16.  Fr. Boulet too is concerned with ecclesiology, but his seems to tell him that sedevacantism is impossible.

4.1.  Dealing with the qualities of the Church: Visibility and Indefectibility of the Church: The main difficulty of Sedevacantism is to explain how the Church can continue to exist in a visible manner, while being deprived from her head.  St. Robert Bellarmine exposes the universal and constant belief in the visibility of the Church.  He says that it is proven by the necessity to obey the visible head of the Church, under pain of eternal damnation.  The Visibility of the Church is directly linked to the Roman Pontiff.  The Council Vatican I taught that the permanence and the source of unity of the Church and its visible foundation depend on the perpetual existence of the Roman Pontiff:  "In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, He set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation...  And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary, with the approbation of the Sacred Council, and for the protection, defense and growth of the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine concerning the 1. Institution, 2. Permanence and 3. Nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, upon which the strength and coherence of the whole Church depends.  This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole Church.  Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock.   Father Grea is using some very strong terms to explain the perpetuity of the See of Peter:  "Such is the institution of St. Peter that through him, and him alone, Jesus-Christ, chief of the Church, is made visible.  Thus, it is manifest that such institution has to remain as long as the Church; for the Church cannot be deprived even for one instant of the communication of life flowing forth from her chief.  If so, the Church cannot be deprived even for a day of the presence of the exterior and visible government of her divine spouse, it had been necessary to provide for the succession of St. Peter."   This quote from Fr. Grea has to be understood properly.  Between the death of a Pope and the election of the next one, there is a time of interregnum where the day to day exterior and visible government of the Church is kept by the offices of the Holy See.  This is how the permanence of the institution of St. Peter is kept from one to the next successor.  Popes St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI and John-Paul II set up precise rules for the time of vacancy of the Apostolic See, between the death of a Pope and the election of his successor.  Such rules precise the powers of the Cardinals and of the Roman Curia during the interregnum.  The longest interregnum that happens in the history of the Church was of 3 years.  Now, for those who follow the Sedevacantist theory, the Church would be without a Pope for 40 years or more.  The Sedevacantists claim that they do not reject the papacy, the primacy and the indefectibility of the Church, but it is a matter of fact that they cannot come up with an objective way to tell us when and by whom the next Pope will be elected.  This is the main problem with their thesis.

Answering these points:

a)  The Church is visible even during an interregnum.  Therefore the absence of a Pope at any given time, even for an extended period, cannot essentially conflict with her visibility.  Nor is she deprived of her Head during such a vacancy - her Head is Jesus Christ.  She is merely deprived of a visible head on earth, Christ's Vicar.  

But in any case, what is visible must be Catholic, or it is of no value whatsoever.  The Greek schismatic Church is visible.  It has a visible head, a body of bishops and lesser clergy, a set of doctrines to which all of its members subscribe, chapels, churches, even monasteries.  If anybody seeks it he will find it readily.  Any man in the street in any town in Greece can point it out to him with ease.  But it is not Catholic, because it lacks the true Faith and it lacks the true unity of government and worship which the Catholic Church always possesses and must always possess, because it refuses subjection to the Roman Pontiff and it refuses communion with Catholics.

Likewise, it is of no value to say that those who admit Benedict's claim have a visible Church and those who deny him have an invisible Church.  We readily grant that Benedict is more visible, than, for example, a traditional Catholic priest or even a traditional Catholic bishop.  We also readily grant that he constitutes a kind of figure-head for nearly all who call themselves "Catholic" (but obviously not sedevacantists).

But having granted all that may be granted, with all possible generosity, what have you?  In truth Benedict is nothing more than a cardboard cut-out, for display purposes only (as Fr. Cekeda has aptly and wittily commented).  And this is true for both Conciliar "Catholics" and for traditional Catholics.  As one sedeplenist traditional priest once said to me, "None of us really thinks he is really Pope."  Which is true.  And within the Conciliar milieu, there is no thought of treating Benedict really as though he had personal and direct jurisdiction over every Catholic.  The collegiality-devoted bishops treat him as merely a figurehead as much as the contraception-addicted laymen do.

When one loves the Pope one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit of this obligation.  When one loves the Pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public docuмents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext - easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey - that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will; one does not oppose to the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the Pope.  Besides, however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, for there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the Pope.  [St. Pius X, to the priests of the Apostolic Union, 18th November 1912, AAS 1912, p. 695.  Translated by John S. Daly.]

b) There can be no value in opposing to these considerations the truth expressed in Pastor Aeternas as follows,

"In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, He set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation..." [Pope Leo XIII, Pastor Aeternas.]

I say, no value, because this argument cuts the other way, if properly formulated.  The primacy exists to be the foundation of the two bonds of unity of the Church - Faith and Charity (which latter is often expressed as unity of government or communion).  Benedict and his Conciliar predecessors have manifestly undermined both bonds of unity with all of their will.  If Popes exist to preserve and strengthen the unity of the Church, then the actions of the Conciliar Popes in denying the essential unity of the Church in both Faith and Charity, and doing all in their power to destroy both of these bonds of unity, are only further proofs that they have not been true Vicars of Christ.  

c) Further, it is plain fact that any "body" which consists of the Conciliar hierarchy and laity, as well as the traditional Catholic clergy and laity, has no unity whatsoever, in Faith or Charity.  We do not share the official beliefs of the Conciliar Church or the actual beliefs of most of the members of the Conciliar Church and we do not share in the same sacraments and we are not subject to the same pastors.  Their laymen will no more assist at our traditional Masses than we will assist at their Modernist ones.

There can be no value, I say, in asserting that Benedict is the principle and foundation of the unity of the Church in Faith and Charity whilst also asserting that the "body" of which he is visible head consists of men who possess no unity either of Faith or of Charity.  Nor is any such unity demanded by "rome."

Which is merely another way of saying that by acknowledging Benedict as Pope you may keep your visibility, but you immediately lose your unity.  Which hardly appears to be a worthwhile achievement.  It seems to me that the sedeplenist theory is for this reason bankrupt.  

d) Is it true that the Church is invisible if she does not have a Pope at present?  Obviously I do not think that she is invisible or I would change my theory, for it is agreed by all that she must necessarily always posses her visible unity - the fundamental and visible unity of Faith and of Charity.  Once again, as with all such matters, the common sense of the Faithful provides a strong guide to the true solution.  Let us consider it.

The Faithful perceive that there are two religions, propagated, preserved, and presided over by two quite distinct groups of men.  On the one hand are the Modernist clergy and the New Religion; on the other hand the traditional Catholic religion and the traditional clergy.  Amongst those who have the virtue of Faith still alive in their souls there is a deep and abiding distrust of the Modernists.  This is true even within the Conciliar church, insofar as genuinely religious people who remain entrapped there place no trust in their pastors.  Amongst those who have seen their way clear of the Novus Ordo, there is a fear, not even explicitly rational in many cases, of compromises like the Indult, which present the Mass without the Faith - or at least, without the kind of energetic defence of the Faith which reassures the simple and strengthens the forthright.  

Converts find their way, sometimes by stages, but often directly to, the traditional chapels in which the true Faith is preached and the true sacraments administered.  The Novus Ordo has no intrinsic attraction, and what converts it garners it deceives by extrinsic means, for example by posing as the true home of St. Thomas Aquinas and the rest of the saints.  

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the Catholic Church consists of the traditional Catholics, as well as those of the faithful still mired in the Novus Ordo who continue to profess the true Faith.  

On this theory we may assert with confidence that the Church is visible.

[T]he visibility of the Church consists in the fact that she possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognised and discerned... [Wernz-Vidal, Commentary on the Code of Canon Law.  454 Scholion.  Translated by John S. Daly.]

Thus we are assured that the visibility of the Church is an objective thing, but this does not mean that it is so clear that no effort is required to see it.

In the beautiful metaphorical language of the Fathers, the moon is a symbol of the Church as the sun is a type of Christ.  Like the moon, she receives her light from the Sun of Justice Who rose in the East, and like the moon, she may be hidden to a greater or lesser extent, by the world interposing.  But she is always visible, as she is always one.  We may say that the Church at present is visible even though obscured, like the moon partially eclipsed by the shadow of the earth.  

The Church, considered as the body of traditional Catholics, is one in the profession of the same faith by all of her members; she is one in the sacrificial and sacramental worship her members offer and assist in offering; she is one in her laws which they seek to obey.  Each of these factors suffers, as part of the eclipse, some degree of diminution compared with the state of the Church in her most glorious moments, and yet each exception only serves to prove the rule.  For the Holy Ghost is her soul, and He acts in His suave and hidden manner in countless Christian personalities, moulding them to Christ, leading them to safety, sifting them from the world and the snares of the Devil - especially from the snares of the New Church - and uniting them through the preaching of their pastors and the charity imbibed from the sacraments - especially the Blessed Sacrament - and the sweet yoke of the sacred canons.

This is really the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre, who expressed from the beginning his recognition of two churches - the ancient and true Catholic Church, and the new Conciliar sect.  This is the doctrine proclaimed with such clarity and solidity by the 2006 General Chapter of the Fraternity, quoting the great Archbishop.  "We adhere with all our heart and all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary for the maintaining of that Faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and of truth.  On the contrary, we refuse, and we have always refused, to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-protestant tendencies, which showed itself clearly in the Second Vatican Council and in the reforms that issued from it."

e) What about these "precise rules for the time of vacancy of the Apostolic See, between the death of a Pope and the election of his successor"?  Fr. Boulet asserts that "Between the death of a Pope and the election of the next one, there is a time of interregnum where the day to day exterior and visible government of the Church is kept by the offices of the Holy See.  This is how the permanence of the institution of St. Peter is kept from one to the next successor."  Surely we are entitled to point out that if these rules constitute the "permanence of the institution of St. Peter," then what happened during the Great Western Schism, when two and then three "Curias" operated in three cities must have been some kind of true fracturing of the See of Peter.  Which, of course, is impossible.  

It seems to me that all of these rules and the like are merely accidental in relation to the unity of the Church.  They are effects of it, and means for preserving it.  But they are not that unity per se.  The essential unity of the Church is given in the theology manuals.  As was expressed by the Vatican Council, there are two external bonds of unity - Faith and Charity.  These consist in the profession of the same Faith by all of the members of the Church, and by their mutual communion with each other, especially in their common public worship.  This unity is continually protected, fostered, and even as it were generated by the Roman Pontiff, who preaches the true Faith authoritatively, condemns error, promulgates good laws for the whole Church, corrects abuses, settles disputes, and generally ensures the existence and continuation of that faithfulness, peace and unity which is a note of the Church.

It is the teaching of Holy Writ that when the shepherd is struck the sheep will scatter; but even if it weren't so revealed, it follows logically from the truth that the Roman Pontiff is "the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation," and of course we know this same truth as a fact of history.  When the Church has suffered a lengthy vacancy of the Holy See, or confusion over the identity of the Roman Pontiff, or difficulty communicating with the Holy See, then the bonds of unity have been weakened.

But of course the sheep cannot, by the very nature of the sheepfold (i.e. the Church) scatter beyond certain limits.  If any individual does scatter too far, he is lost to the Church and ceases to be a part and member of her, and thus her unity is unaffected by his defection.  But within those limits the members of the Church may and do suffer a scattering and a disunity which is distressing to a very great degree.  We are witnesses to the greatest extreme of this accidental disunity that the Church has ever suffered, and the scandal of it is very great.

f)  Fr. Boulet informs us, presumably to suggest that a forty-year long interregnum is impossible, that the "longest interregnum that happens in the history of the Church was of 3 years.  Now, for those who follow the Sedevacantist theory, the Church would be without a Pope for 40 years or more."

Here is an old theologian addressing this question.

The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here.  If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical.  They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation.  Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant.  But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be.  Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise.  What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit.  We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one's service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning.  We may also trust He will do great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises.  We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past.  But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment.  I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever.  All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.  [Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly S.J., The Relations of the Church to Society - Theological Essays, 1882.]

g) Fr. Boulet is convinced that if we adopt the sedevacantist position, the future of the papacy is impossible.  How would we ever be sure we had another true Pope?  What means could suffice to establish certitude about a particular future claim, once we admit the principle that such claimants as the Conciliar Popes are not valid?  He says that sedevacantists "cannot come up with an objective way to tell us when and by whom the next Pope will be elected.  And he even asserts, "[t]his is the main problem with their thesis."

But we inquire, how will Fr. Boulet know when there is a "good" Pope in the Vatican?  What "objective" rule will he apply to measure whether he is faced with yet another Modernist with whom the Fraternity cannot "do a deal," or a sincere Catholic who must be submitted to because he really does have immediate jurisdiction over the entire Church?  Whatever means Fr. Boulet intends to employ, I am confident they will suffice for us too.

Actually, the theologians have considered various hypothetical cases and their teachings sufficiently clarify the situation.  

Consider firstly the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine.

If there were no Papal constitution on the election of the Supreme Pontiff; or if by some chance all the electors designated by law, that is, all the Cardinals, perished simultaneously, the right of election would pertain to the neighbouring bishops and the Roman clergy, but with some dependence on a general council of bishops.

In this proposition, there does not appear to be universal agreement.  Some think that, exclusive of positive law, the right of election would devolve on a Council of Bishops, as Cajetan, tract. De Potestate Papae & Concilii, cap. 13 & 21 & Francis Victoria, relect. 2. quest. 2.  De potestate Ecclesiae.  Others, as Sylvester relates s.v. Excommunicatio, 9. sec. 3, teach that in that case the right of election pertains to the Roman clergy.  But these two opinions can be reconciled.  Without a doubt, the primary authority of election in that case pertains to a Council of Bishops; since, when the Pontiff dies, there is no higher authority in the Church than that of a general Council: and if the Pontiff were not the Bishop of Rome, or any other particular place, but only the general Pastor of the whole Church, it would pertain to the Bishops either to elect his successor, or to designate the electors: nevertheless, after the Pontificate of the world was joined to the bishopric of the City [posteaquam unitus est Pontificatus orbis Episcopatui Urbis], the immediate authority of electing in that case would have to be permitted by the bishops of the whole world to the neighbouring bishops, and to the clerics of the Roman Church, which is proved in two ways.

First, because the right of election was transferred from all the neighbouring bishops and the Roman clergy to the Cardinals, who are a certain part of the bishops and clergy of the Roman Church; therefore, when the Cardinals are lacking, the right of election ought to return to all the bishops and clergy of the Roman Church.  

Second, because this is a most ancient custom (as we showed above from Cyprian), that the neighbouring bishops, in the presence of the clergy, should elect both the Bishop of Rome and others also.  And it is unheard of that the Bishops or Archbishops of the whole world should meet for the election of the Supreme Pontiff, except in a case where it is doubtful who should be the legitimate electors.  For this doubt ought to be resolved by a general Council, as was done in the Council of Constance.  [St. Robert Bellarmine, Controversies, De clericis, bk. 1, ch. 10.  Translated by James Larrabee.]

In other words, if there are no cardinals, the lesser Roman clergy can elect, or an imperfect general council (i.e. a general council without Pope) could do so.

The great Cardinal Louis Billot S.J., teaches the same doctrine concerning a general council in more detail.

The legitimate election of a pontiff today depends de facto on pontifical law alone, as is easily demonstrated by the obvious argument that the law regulating the election was promulgated by the supreme pontiffs.  Therefore, until such time as it is abrogated by the pontiff himself, it remains in force and there is no power in the Church, even when the See is vacant, by which it can be changed.  "For the Pope ordains those things which relate to the election and changes and restricts the manner of the election in such a way that any other manner would be invalid.  In the Church, however, or in a council, this power does not reside in the absence of a Pope, whence it arises that even the entire Church cannot authoritatively change a law made by the Pope so that, for instance, true and indubitable cardinals would not be necessary for the election or so that one who had been elected by fewer than two thirds of the cardinals might be Pope.  But, on the other hand, the Pope is perfectly capable of ordaining this..., since it belongs to the same person to abolish who can authoritatively impose in all matters of positive law".  (Cajetan, Tract.1 de auctoritate Papae et Concilii, c.13.)  And therefore, if, for example, the See had chanced to fall vacant during the Vatican Council, a legitimate election could not have been conducted by the Fathers of the Council, but only by the usual electors, as was even expressly laid down in a special bull by Pius IX.

There can, therefore, be only a hypothetical question, namely whether any authority besides the pontifical authority might in any circuмstances be able to assign the conditions of an election.  In this matter, indeed, no doubt is raised concerning the authority of oecuмenical council which cannot be distinguished from pontifical power, since it is of the nature of oecuмenical decrees that they are confirmed by the pontiff.  Hence there is matter for doubt only in the case of some lower authority.  But in all such cases the conclusion must be negative, since the primacy, for himself and his successors, was granted to Peter alone, and to him alone, therefore, i.e. to the supreme pontiff alone, does it belong to determine the mode of transmission of the power which is to be passed on and, consequently, the mode of the election by which this transmission takes place.

Any law, moreover, related to the order of the universal Church, exceeds by its very nature the scope of any power less than the supreme power.  But the election of the supreme bishop pertains without doubt to the order of the universal Church.  It is, therefore, reserved, by its very nature to the determination of him to whom the care of the entire community was committed by Christ.  And indeed it is incontrovertible that these conclusions are valid in normal circuмstances.  Let us now investigate, nevertheless, how the law would apply if perchance an extraordinary situation were to arise in which it was necessary to proceed to the election of a pontiff while it was no longer possible to comply with the conditions determined by previous pontifical law; as some think was the case at the time of the Great Schism in the election of Martin V.

Well, once we grant the occurrence of such circuмstances, it is to be admitted without difficulty that the power of election wold devolve upon a general council.  For the natural law itself prescribes that in such cases the attribute of a superior power descends, by way of devolution, to the power immediately below insofar as it is indispensably necessary for the survival of the society and for the avoidance of the tribulations of extreme lack.  In case of doubt, however (e.g. when it is unknown if someone be a true cardinal or when the Pope is dead or uncertain, as seems to have happened at the time of the Great Schism which began under Urban VI), it is to be affirmed that the power to apply the papacy to a person (the due requirements having been complied with) resides in the Church of God.  And then by way of devolution it is seen that this power descends to the universal Church, since the electors determined by the Pope do not exist" (Cajetan, ibidem).  This, I say, is understood without difficulty if the occurrence of the case be admitted.  But whether, in fact the case has ever occurred is a completely different question.  For indeed it is now held as more or less certain among learned men that the election of Martin V was not done on the private authority of the Council of Constance, but by faculties expressly granted by the legitimate Pontiff Gregory XII before he had renounced the papacy, so that Cardinal Franzelin correctly and appropriately says:  that there is "reason for us with humble praise to wonder at the providence of Christ the King, the spouse and head of the Church, by which He calmed those huge crowds of men driven and sustained by covetousness and ignorance, with all laws being observed to the letter; most clearly demonstrating that the indefectibility of the rock upon which He built His Church, so that the gates of Hell wold not prevail against Her, is supported not by human effort, but by the divine fidelity in promises and omnipotence in government" (Franzelin loc. cit.).  [Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, translated by John S. Daly.]

St. Alphonsus Liguori, another Doctor of the Universal Church, states the same thing simply and directly.  "A Council can elect the Pope in case of a doubtful Pope."  [Quoted in The Theological Defense of Papal Power By St. Alphonsus de Liguori, by David John Sharrock, C.SS.R, S.T.L., Studies in Sacred Theology, no. 119, Catholic University of America Press, Washington, 1961.]

From these texts we may conclude with certitude that in the hypothesis that there are no valid cardinals remaining, the Church retains radically the right and power to provide herself with a new visible head, either by election by the Roman clergy or by an imperfect general council.