http://sedevacantist.com/beginnings.html

The Beginnings of Sedevacantism?

In answer to Fr. Maessen's article, "Sedevacantism" - published in Catholic under the banner headline, "Finishing with Sedevacantism."

This docuмent is intended to provide counter-arguments and criticisms of Fr. Maessen's article in as concise a way possible. The paragraphs are numbered so that they may be answered easily and clearly, should Fr. Maessen or another SSPX writer seek to do so. Not all of Fr. Maessen's arguments are repeated in this text, but every one of them has been responded to. Readers are encouraged to review Fr. Maessen's article in toto. It is certainly the best, most scholarly, and most gentlemanly, attempt that I have seen to answer the case against John Paul II.

My assessment is that Fr. Maessen has, unlike most believers in John Paul II's claim, read some theologians who deal with the pope-heretic question, and he suspects that all of these theologians would have judged John Paul II a non-pope. Hence his relative kindness to sedevacantists. And at the end of his article Fr. Maessen suggests "a deeper investigation and discussion of this problem." It is refreshing to see a non-sedevacantist refer frankly to the "problem" which John Paul II's claim to the papacy presents. In between, however, he does his best to show why the matter remains doubtful, and why this makes the SSPX position the most Catholic and reasonable one. His efforts, I think, are in vain.

    Fr. Maessen provides a good summary of the nature of the argument, based on Bellarmine, against John Paul II. Heretics are not Catholics, and only Catholics can become or remain popes.

    Fr. Maessen proceeds to mention the Donatist controversy, in which the "simple" answer was in fact wrong, and the truth was, he asserts, found to be relatively complex. But this analogy is merely begging the question. Some things are relatively simple. The question is whether the heretic-pope question is truly one of them. (Incidentally, the Catholic Church's teaching on sacramental validity is relatively simple. The Donatists attempted to complicate it by introducing an additional requisite for validity - viz., that the minister be in the state of grace.)

    Fr. Maessen then invokes the authority of Archbishop Lefebvre against sedevacantism, by citing his emphasis on prudence and against "over-simplification." As far as I am aware, Archbishop Lefebvre never expressed any principles relating to the sede vacante thesis. He spoke about the danger of "over-simplification." We agree with him. Over-simplification is to be avoided. When the Archbishop did address the matter directly, he seemed always to grant the theological probability of the sedevacantist case, and no clearly anti-sedevacantist statement of his seems to exist. The strongest words he issued on it would have to be that sedevacantism "leads into schism." Which it has, in some cases (that is, some very few sedevacantists have become schismatics, it appears). But it is even more true to say that adherence to John Paul II "leads to heresy," as the Archbishop would have granted most readily. The truth is that if the Archbishop had railed against sedevacantism, or denied its theological probability, we would have seen his words to that effect quoted by the likes of Michael Davies long before now. The anti-sedevacantist attitude of various (not all) priests and associates of the SSPX has its own origins, not to be sought for in the Archbishop's words or actions.

    Fr. Maessen needs to give his sources for the claim that the doctrine, "Papa haereticus, Papa nullus," is the less common opinion, especially when he contrasts it with what he calls the "more common opinion which is in turn based on the teaching that 'the First See is judged by no one', not even by a council or a college of cardinals." Da Silveira, the TFP theologian who wrote under the guidance of Bishop de Castro Mayer, researched this question more thoroughly than anybody else in modern times, and his finding is that of 136 "ancient and modern" theologians whose opinions he could verify, only one held that an heretical pope would remain pope and could not be deposed or declared deposed. Here is how Cardinal Billot, regarded widely as the greatest theologian of the past 100 years, summarises the matter: "once this is supposed (that a pope had turned heretic), all concede that bond of communion and subjection (in relation to the pope) would be dissolved, with foundation in the divine dispositions which order expressly that heretics be avoided: Tit. III, 10; Jo. 10, etc." (Tract. de Eccl. Christi, tom. I, p. 615). Cardinal Mazella teaches the same thing, asserting that no author (of those who admit the possibility of a pope-heretic) denies or puts in doubt that he would be removed ipso facto or at least must be deposed. (cf. Mazella, De Relig. et Eccl., p. 817). So that it appears that Fr. Maessen is mistaken about the theological status of this question.

    Another fact not well known, is that of the authors who hold that a heretic-pope is automatically deposed, or can be and must be deposed, by far the majority and the most weighty hold to Bellarmine's doctrine of automatic deposition. In fact, the only authors we can place with certainty in the category of holding that a heretic-pope is not ipso facto deposed, but must be deposed, are Cajetan, whom Bellarmine has already demolished on the point, Suarez, John of St. Thomas, who shares Cajetan's opinion, and Journet, who adopts John of St. Thomas's opinion wholesale, without specifying why. So that is a total of four theologians against an overwhelming majority who include Innocent III, Paul IV, Bellarmine, and St. Alphonsus. And the Decretals, along with cuм ex Apostolatus. Two Doctors and two popes, and the law of the Church. The Bellarmine thesis is not just outstandingly the common opinion, but is theologically certain, and once the matter is examined properly, taking into account the definitions of the Vatican Council regarding the primacy of the pope (the detail of which was a matter of some obscurity for many theologians prior to the Vatican Council in 1870), it can be seen that only Bellarmine's solution may be maintained. The solution of Cajetan, essentially shared by Suarez, John of St. Thomas, and Journet, wrecks that primacy by placing the "Church" over the pope.

    The truth is that Bellarmine has stated perfectly clearly that "This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction…" In other words, we have not just a common opinion here, but unanimity of the Fathers. And this doctrine is based on the instruction of St. Paul, in Titus c. 3, to avoid heretics. The Profession of Faith of The Vatican Council includes the following: "Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy Mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

    Contrasting an "opinion" with "the certainty of the Magisterium" seems to betray confusion over the nature of the arguments presented against John Paul II. These arguments are based on the constant tradition of Holy Church, which teaches and legislates that heretics cannot validly possess ecclesiastical offices. This doctrine, a divine law, is theologically certain, as should be evident from the preceding paragraph.

    It is conceded that the onus is on the "sedevacantists" to prove that John Paul II is not pope. What is not conceded is that the reason for this is the application of the principle that "possession is nine-tenths of the law." The relevant principle, in the matter of the papacy, is that a doubtful pope is no pope. For in the matter of subjection to the Roman Pontiff, necessary for all for eternal salvation, only certainty will do. This is the teaching of all the authorities, so that if Fr. Maessen has an author who, instead of this procedure, applies the principle of possession then we would like to see it. I would say that the onus is on us to show, at least, that John Paul II's claim is positively doubtful (and always has been). Once that is established, no good Catholic may submit to him. The principle, plainly taught by all moralists and canonists, is that a doubtful obligation cannot bind. And this principle is analogous to that which applies to sacraments - in doubt, they must be avoided - for in this case we are not faced with any minor obligation; no, in this case our very salvation is at stake.

    The Apostolic Constitution cuм ex Apostolatus directly contradicts Fr. Maessen in the point that we must acknowledge a heretic-pope as pope until and unless he is judged to have been a fraud by a subsequent (true) pope.

    He writes, "When in doubt, we have tradition!" If there is a real doubt about John Paul II's claim, then we have no pope. Alternatively, if by this statement Fr. Maessen refers to uncertainty about the principles involved, then he is perfectly correct. But Fr. Maessen appears not to be aware of the tradition of the Church on this matter. It has been the constant endeavour of various sedevacantist writers to bring this tradition to the notice of our opponents, and it has been the constant policy of our opponents to ensure that no such discussion of the relevant theology, law, and authorities, ever gets into the public forum. Nor will they generally agree to discuss these things in private. The production and publication of this hopeful article may just be the sign that this policy is being relaxed.

    Fr. Maessen seeks to escape the necessity of deciding whether or not John Paul II is pope by appealing to the principle that even rightful authority can be resisted when sin is commanded. He states, "In order to remain faithful to the Church it is enough that we do not follow bad pastors inasmuch as they depart from Tradition." But this is to gloss over the most serious theological difficulties entailed by applying this principle to what has happened at Vatican II and since. These difficulties are that this position undermines any reasonable understanding of the nature and role of the ecclesia docens. Because it requires either that all Catholics know their faith like theologians, or that Catholics submit to the pseudo-magisterium of the SSPX or some other non-authoritative group. Both conclusions are absurd and contrary to tradition. Also, the position of Fr. Maessen is impossible to reconcile with the doctrine of the visible unity, in both faith and charity, of Holy Church. If these difficulties are not faced, then yes, the solution of "ignoring the pope" appears a good one. But even the Catholic sense of the simplest Catholic rebels against this "solution."

    Etsi non dubitemus does not assert that General Councils can teach heresy, nor does it teach that (true) popes can. The extracts quoted only restate the truth that it belongs to popes to determine the meaning of disputed matters, even if these should arise from the decrees of a General Council, not to private individuals who would twist those decrees to their own ends. Fr. Maessen draws a very different conclusion, however. He states, "It makes no difference to us, then, whether a Pope who would favour heresy or be himself heretical would consequently fall from office: any pastor who is clearly in error cannot be followed insofar as he has separated himself from Tradition." How this follows from the quoted portions of Etsi non dubitemus is not apparent. Most of the theologians who have considered the possibility of a pope-heretic thought it made a very great difference indeed, and in fact drew the conclusion already described. Those few who differed with the ipso facto deposition thesis, took the view that such a heretic must be deposed as a matter of great urgency. Not a single authority can be found for the proposition that whether or not a heretic-pope remained truly pope makes no difference to us. The very idea is unheard of.

    Against Fr. Maessen's assertion that "it makes no difference" whether a heretic has authority or not, the constant tradition of Holy Church is that this question is paramount. Firstly there is the divine injunction to avoid heretics; secondly there are the inherent difficulties involved in Fr. Maessen's theory of resistance, already mentioned. In addition to those problems, there is the very nature and purpose of the papacy. The papacy exists, in the first place, to preserve and foster the divinely established unity of the Church in charity and in the profession of the same faith by all of her members. St. Peter was asked for a profession of faith by Our Lord immediately prior to being promised the primacy. The Vatican Council taught: "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 [of Faith and Communion, or charity] and their visible foundation." How can any man say that "it makes no difference" whether a heretic has authority or not? The very reason, as the Vatican Council has taught, that the episcopate must be united is so that the faithful might be united in faith and charity. Sedevacantists argue, in accordance with this truth, that the papacy is absolutely critical to the preservation of the faith, and to the preservation of communion between the members of the Church. This is why God gave Holy Church a visible head on earth. A "pope" who, instead of fostering and defending this unity, devastates it by word and act, is not only supremely dangerous, but is in fact impossible, for one who would do such things cannot be the true pope. This is why every theologian who has dealt with this problem agrees that a heretic "pope" would be utterly intolerable. None of them (unless we include the canonist, Bouix, whose actual position was that divine providence would never permit what we see today), taught the SSPX position of ignoring and/or defending such an heretical "pope." If Fr. Maessen, or any other writer, can discover a theologian who teaches that a heretic who claimed the papacy ought to be tolerated, instead of rejected as a fraud or deposed as soon as possible, then please let us see what he has to say.

    Fr. Maessen argues thus: Holy Church is visible. Her laws "aim at protecting the faithful from doubt." Therefore it has been wisely legislated that all ecclesiastical impediments, which might otherwise affect the status of the cardinals, are lifted automatically when they enter a conclave. But this is beside the point. It is conceded that "ecclesiastical impediments" cannot bar a cardinal from participating validly in a conclave, nor from being elected pope. What is asserted, and can be proved with relative ease, is that a non-Catholic cannot be pope. And the lifting of an excommunication or any other censure cannot make a public heretic into a Catholic. It matters not whether the case be that a given claimant was once a Catholic, or even that he was pope at some prior point; what matters is that a public heretic is not a Catholic, and therefore cannot validly possess ordinary jurisdiction. Ecclesiastical penalties are irrelevant. Bellarmine teaches this most clearly. And neither is this argument in any way contrary to the necessary visibility of Holy Church, for only public heresy excludes a man from the valid possession of an ecclesiastical office, so that it is entirely false to suggest that the cause of the non-papacy of the heretic is somehow hidden from the Church. And in JP2's case his heresy is utterly notorious, not merely public or external.

    Furthermore, we must ask in what does the visibility of Holy Church consist? And of course, it consists in the very fact that her members and the bonds which make them one are visible, the very bonds of unity referred to by the Vatican Council - Faith and Charity. Holy Church is a visible unity of the faithful - that is, of those who profess outwardly the true faith. And who also submit to one authority and share in the same sacraments. These things are visible, and in them the visibility of Holy Church actually consists. If, as Fr. Maessen evidently believes, John Paul II is a member of the true Church, a veritable constituent part of the Mystical Body, then in what does her visible unity consist? It certainly cannot be asserted that he professes the true faith, nor can it be said that all of those who claim to accept him as pope profess the true faith. It cannot even be claimed that they profess the same faith. No, anything goes in the Conciliar sect. Anything at all. Except orthodoxy.

    Fr. Maessen then proceeds to compare the respective weights of an individual's opinion and the teaching of the magisterium. He does this in answer to those who have declared that if anybody fails to see that JP2 is not pope, then they are not Catholics. But this unjustified elevation of an opinion, no matter how true and utterly certain it may be, into a shibboleth for membership in Holy Church, is not even the common procedure of sedevacantists. It is the procedure of a few, generally a particularly noisy few, but a few nonetheless. By far the majority, and those the most credible and reasonable, of the sedevacantist clergy and laity, do not do what Fr. Maessen complains of. And those who do are roundly criticised by the majority, including the present writer. In fact the priests of the three largest English-speaking groups, the Society of St. Pius V, the CMRI, and the associates of Bishop Dolan, do not even preach the fact of the vacancy of the Holy See on any sort of regular basis to their respective congregations. In other words, they do not require that a man be a sedevacantist in order to be eligible for the sacraments. This argument of Fr. Maessen's is a straw man.

    Fr. Maessen closes off with the most hopeful words this writer has ever seen from the pen of an anti-sedevacantist. For he quotes Pope Leo XIII to the effect that disputed matters should be discussed peaceably by Catholics, until and unless some universal decree should settle the matter. Amen! we cry. A dispassionate examination of the way that this matter has been dealt with by writers on both sides of the controversy would show that the sedevacantists have maintained peace to at least the same degree as our opponents. And it is an undeniable fact that it has been the sedevacantists who have as a rule concentrated on theology and fact, and avoided judging the motives of their opponents, while it has been our doleful experience to be accused of bad faith, pride, lack of charity, and worst of all, the inconceivably foul crime of schism itself, by those who would not answer our arguments. The incomparably fatuous (and I say it in all charity but with an eye on the common good) Michael Davies, is a chief offender.

    The words of Leo XIII are employed by Fr. Maessen as a basis for a call for "a deeper investigation and discussion of this problem" for the good of souls. Amen! we cry again. Sedevacantists have been calling for precisely that for almost thirty years, and among the first of such calls was that of Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira, whose work on this question was guided and encouraged by Archbishop Lefebvre's theological advisor and collaborator, Bishop de Castro Mayer.

    Contrary to common opinion, Archbishop Lefebvre's attitude to sedevacantism was not hostility. His position was merely that he did not see that it was certain that Paul VI or John Paul II were non-popes. On 9 June 1973, the Archbishop wrote to one of the benefactors of his seminary, a member of the CRC League (of the Abbé de Nantes). The Abbé was in the process of preparing his famous "Book of Accusations" against Paul VI, which the Abbé soon afterwards attempted to lodge in Rome as a legal brief accusing Paul VI of heresy. Alluding to this docuмent, and the proposed actions of the Abbé, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote to his benefactor: "Your generosity towards the seminary touches me deeply and your encouragement is very precious to me. When all is said and done, your conformity to the thinking of the Abbé de Nantes is certainly correct, and whatever comes of this process in Rome, one result is certain: the problem will have been made public.

    "One day it will have to be resolved. For we cannot indefinitely place our trust in him who has the greatest responsibility for the destruction of the Church and of Christian civilisation. The denial of the whole Tradition of the Church stems in fact from a senseless pride. That is why, whatever the cost, we must continue to build on Tradition in every domain. We cannot be wrong about this.

    "There will not be any excommunication [of the Abbé de Nantes], have no fear. And anyway, it would have no value. It needs a serious offence to justify it. Where does the offence lie? In speaking the truth." (Emphasis added).

    The fact is that the theology involved in the heretic-pope question is all one way: Theologians either maintain that a heretic pope is ipso facto deposed (the vast majority hold this), or they hold that he can be, and more importantly, must be deposed (four authors hold this view). Therefore, the inescapable truth is that even if one chooses to hold the discredited minority opinion, one must work towards deposing JP2. There is no third way.



John Lane
St. Raymond of Pennafort, 2001