1. The Church is indefectible.
2. Seeming members of the Church have taught error and heresy.
3. Therefore, they are not really members of the Church.

Needs to be rewritten:

1. The Church cannot defect.
2. Rome has defected.
3. Rome is not in the Church.

1. A particular pope claimant is a manifest heretic.
2. Heretics are non-members.
3. Therefore, this particular pope claimant is not a member (and not being a member, he cannot be the head, which is a member of the Church)

1. A heretic is not in the Church.
2. This man (pope, cardinal, bishop) is a heretic.
3. This man is not in the Church.

Most sedevacantists recognize that non-members can be saved, so why couldn't a non-member govern the Church?

I personally don't see how non-members can be saved. Even those that talk of invincible ignorance and baptism of desire imply that those saved in this way are members of the Church in question mystical way. To answer your question though, I'm quite sure that it's been defined that a non-member cannot possibly govern the Church.

Another strong anti-sedevacantists argument I've heard relies on the case of St. Peter, who infallibly defined that Gentiles need not refrain from unclean food, be circuмcised first, etc. Yet, by his actions he seemingly went contrary to this. Does that make him at least suspect of heresy, a material heretic, or even a non-member?

When did St. Peter infallibility define this?


This matter doesn't seem like something that could be defined infallibly. If seems like a matter of discipline rather than faith or morals. St. Peter's immediate submission to St. Paul showed that he was not pernicious anyhow.

I'm quite sure that it's been defined that a non-member cannot possibly govern the Church.

I'd be interested in seeing a quote from Denzinger saying that, if it exists.

I just wanted to say thanks to Geremia for posting a link to that book the Science of Logic. I started reading it and it is very good so far, seems accessible for a layman like me.

Thanks again and God bless you!

mcfiggly and geremia - these two denzinger numbers are relevant when judging the "heretic is a non member, and a non member cannot be the head" line.  They are not decisive, but they are worth considering.  They are both from the errors of john hus.

dz # 646  - "If the pope is wicked and especially if he is foreknown, then as judas, the apostle, he is of the devil, a thief, and a son of perdition, and he is not the head of the holy militant church, since he is not a member of it."

But, what exactly is the error?  Is it the wicked pope is a thief part? Or, is it the son of perdition part? Or, is it the wicked pope is not the head of the church part?  Or, is it the wicked pope is not a member of the church part?  One error is enough to condemn a whole sentence.

dz # 648 - "The pope or prelate, wicked and foreknown, is equivocally pastor and truly a thief and robber.  

The problem that I see with this one is that there is a difference between a pope and a prelate.  So, it is not of real use in my opinion.  But, it is a fun read.

And, what does wicked and foreknown mean?  Are these good translations(these are taken from the "rahner" 1957 defararri 13th edition?  It is perhaps worth cross checking with the latin.  Because, they sure are juicy.

Lastly, read all of the john hus errors.  There are 30 in total, and it is a worthwhile read.

This should settle the Sedevacantist question fairly well:

“The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of, her liberty, acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself.” (Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year , Vol XII, pg. 188)

And Cardinal Billot (the great Jesuit theologian of the first half of this century) states:

“Finally, what one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy.” And this is based on the Church’s attribute of Indefectibility as defined by “the promise of the infallible Providence of Christ [that] ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ and ‘Behold, I am with you all days even unto the end of the world.’ For the adherence of the Church to a false pontiff would be the same thing as its adherence to a false rule of Faith, since the pope is the living rule of the Faith that the Church has to follow, and that in fact, She always follows.”

He continues:

“God some times can allow that the vacancy of the Apostolic See be for a certain time. He can allow also that a doubt may come concerning the legitimacy of such-and-such an election, but He cannot allow that the whole Church accept as a pontiff one who is not really legitimate. Therefore, from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body, we can no longer raise the doubt on the possible bias of election or the possible lack of the necessary conditions for legitimacy. Because this adherence of the Church heals in its root all faults committed at the moment of election, and proves infallibly the existence of all the conditions required.”

This should settle the Sedevacantist question fairly well:

“The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of, her liberty, acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself.” (Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year , Vol XII, pg. 188)

And Cardinal Billot (the great Jesuit theologian of the first half of this century) states:

“Finally, what one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy.” And this is based on the Church’s attribute of Indefectibility as defined by “the promise of the infallible Providence of Christ [that] ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ and ‘Behold, I am with you all days even unto the end of the world.’ For the adherence of the Church to a false pontiff would be the same thing as its adherence to a false rule of Faith, since the pope is the living rule of the Faith that the Church has to follow, and that in fact, She always follows.”

He continues:

“God some times can allow that the vacancy of the Apostolic See be for a certain time. He can allow also that a doubt may come concerning the legitimacy of such-and-such an election, but He cannot allow that the whole Church accept as a pontiff one who is not really legitimate. Therefore, from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body, we can no longer raise the doubt on the possible bias of election or the possible lack of the necessary conditions for legitimacy. Because this adherence of the Church heals in its root all faults committed at the moment of election, and proves infallibly the existence of all the conditions required.”

What about Antipope Anacletus II, whom the Church recognized (incorrectly) as the true pope for eight years—not the true pope-in-hiding, Innocent II?

Quote from: Gregory I

This should settle the Sedevacantist question fairly well:

“The inevitable play of human passions, interfering in the election of the Vicar of Christ, may perchance for a while render uncertain the transmission of spiritual power. But when it is proved that the Church, still holding, or once more put in possession of, her liberty, acknowledges in the person of a certain Pope, until then doubtful, the true Sovereign Pontiff, this her very recognition is a proof that, from that moment at least, the occupant of the Apostolic See is as such invested by God himself.” (Abbot Guéranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year , Vol XII, pg. 188)

And Cardinal Billot (the great Jesuit theologian of the first half of this century) states:

“Finally, what one may think of the possibility or the impossibility of an heretical pope, there is at least one point absolutely clear which no one can put in doubt, and it is that the acceptance, the adherence, of the Universal Church to a pope will always be, by itself, the infallible sign of the legitimacy of such-and-such a pontiff; and consequently of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy.” And this is based on the Church’s attribute of Indefectibility as defined by “the promise of the infallible Providence of Christ [that] ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ and ‘Behold, I am with you all days even unto the end of the world.’ For the adherence of the Church to a false pontiff would be the same thing as its adherence to a false rule of Faith, since the pope is the living rule of the Faith that the Church has to follow, and that in fact, She always follows.”

He continues:

“God some times can allow that the vacancy of the Apostolic See be for a certain time. He can allow also that a doubt may come concerning the legitimacy of such-and-such an election, but He cannot allow that the whole Church accept as a pontiff one who is not really legitimate. Therefore, from the moment that the pope is accepted by the Church and is united to Her as the head to the body, we can no longer raise the doubt on the possible bias of election or the possible lack of the necessary conditions for legitimacy. Because this adherence of the Church heals in its root all faults committed at the moment of election, and proves infallibly the existence of all the conditions required.”

What about Antipope Anacletus II, whom the Church recognized (incorrectly) as the true pope for eight years—not the true pope-in-hiding, Innocent II?

The answer is in the article:

1. It was apparent there was an antipope with two consecrations happening the same day. So there is no question about anything initially occurring in secret.

2. Because there were two claimants from the beginning, there could never be absolute certainty regarding either on the basis of simple local accolade. Parties wavered and loyalties faltered in the beginning, but , as St. Bernard Says, outside of Rome, he was welcomed as Pope by practically the Entire Roman Catholic World. Clearly his acceptance in terms of worldwide favor was on a much greater scale than Anacletus' mere local acceptance.

3. The reasons for accepting one over the other are clearly given in the article. To say nothing of the Fact that Pope Innocent II was clearly elected FIRST, and Anacletus after. That alone is a huge point, given that schism is always reactionary to a perceived fault.

lol. I think it is best settled and determined the way it WAS settled and determined. :)