Counter-Reformation Association
NEWS AND VIEWS
   La Guerche, Main Street, Monks Kirby, Near Rugby CV23 OQZ England   
Midsummer AD 1997                                                                      Nativity of St John
Ave, dulcissima Maria, vera spes et vita, dulce refrigerium!
O Maria, flos Virginem, ots pto nobid Jesum.

SEDEVACANTISM  THE BASICS

The status of sedevacantism
Sedevacantism is the position that the See of Peter is currently in theological reality vacant (sede vacante), because John Paul II (like his Conciliar predecessors) is not a valid Pope but rather an antipope. That John Paul II is not a valid Pope, is not a theological hypothesis (probable or otherwise) but rather a dogmatic fact. It is a dogmatic fact because it is entailed by the Catholic doctrine of the indefectibility in the Faith, through the acts of its Pontiffs, of the Holy Roman Church; taken in conjunction with the un-Catholic nature of some of John Paul Ills putatively papal acts.

The doctrinal basis  
 That the Holy Roman Church, through the acts of its Pontiffs, is indefectible in the Faith is a revealed truth, taught as such (at least implicitly) by all, everywhere and at all times, and as such is infallible Catholic doctrine. The indefectibility in the Faith of the Holy Roman Church is taught explicitly (though not defined) by the dogmatic Vatican Council (1870).
"And indeed all the venerable Fathers have embraced, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed their apostolic doctrine, knowing most fully that this See of holy Peter remains ever free from all blemish of error according to the divine promise of Our Lord made to the Prince of the Apostles: 'I have prayed for thee that they faith fail not, and, when thou art converted, do thou confirm thy brethren' (Luke 22:32).
"This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by Heaven upon Peter and his successors in this Chair that they might perform their high office unto the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept by them away from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed the whole Church might be kept one, and resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell." (cf "Pastor Aeternus")
The Anglican counter-doctrine is: "The Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.,, (cf Article 19 of the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion)

The relevant facts
John Paul II has taught heresy urbi et orbi (e.g. in "Redemptor Hominis"), he has legislated contrary to the divine law (e.g. on communicatio in sacris), and has endorsed the New Mass of Paul VI which lacks doctrinal rectitude (because of its departure from the content and significance of the traditional rites - most strikingly by its complete change of meaning of the offertory). Such acts are incompatible with the indefectibility in the Faith of the Holy Roman Church, if John Paul II (with his Conciliar predecessors) is held to be a valid Pope.

The status of habemuspapamism
Habemuspapamism is the position of those who profess to have a valid Pope in the person of John Paul II (Habemus Papam), but who ascribe heresy to his urbi et orbi teachings, incompatibility with the divine law to his legislation, and lack of doctrinal rectitude to the New Mass which he has endorsed. Habemuspapamism is heretical, as incompatible with the revealed doctrine of the indefectibility in the Faith, through the acts of its Pontiffs, of the Holy Roman Church. Such is the "official public position" of the Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X.

Papal teaching on sedevacantism
Sedevacantism is explicitly authorised by Papal teaching. In his Bull "cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio" (15th February, 1559), Pope Paul IV expressly teaches that the election (even unanimous) to the Papacy of a heretic or schismatic is invalid. That the obedience afforded to the electee, even by all, makes no change in his status. That the lapse of time in this situation is irrelevant. Also, crucially, that all Catholics may withdraw their recognition from such a false Pope. (cf paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Bull),
Pope Paul IV's Bull "cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio" was reaffirmed by Pope St Pius V in "Inter Multiplices". Although many of the purely canonical dispositions of the Bull have been derogated by subsequent papal legislation, its doctrinal teaching remains of unparalleled authority. It makes nonsense of the claims of habemuspapamists that it is illegitimate for anyone to arrive at the sede vacante conclusion or to act on it.

"Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur"
Some habemuspapamists invoke the canonical axiom that the First See is judged by none, to declare illegitimate the very judgment, as to fact, which Pope Paul IV teaches is legitimate. In this matter, sedevacantists are acting in conformity with papal teaching and the divine law. By contrast, such habemuspapamists are exercising private judgment to reject the teaching of Pope Paul IV. They are also begging the very question in dispute, namely whether the First See is in theological reality occupied or vacant. And they themselves precisely presume to pass judgment on the First See, which they claim to be occupied, by rejecting some of its teachings, legislation and sacramental rites.

The essential distinction
It is essential to distinguish between a fact and the explanation of that fact. It is a dogmatic fact that the See of Peter has been vacant now for many years because the "Conciliar Pontiffs" have not been valid Popes. However, there are in principle a number of theological explanations of that fact.
For example, it is at least possible (in accordance with the views of Torquemada and all the later medieval theologians and canonists) that Paul VI was originally a valid Pope, but one who became a heretic or schismatic and so forfeited the Papacy. What is certain is that he was not a valid Pope in 1969 when he introduced the New Mass, nor indeed in 1965, if some of the Vatican II docuмents then promulgated are held to contain heretical teaching.
By contrast, Karol Wojtyla, in virtue of his public and pertinacious adherence to the anti-Catholic Conciliar Reform, was (at least) a heresy-favouring schismatic before his putative election, and so never became a valid Pope, in accordance with the teaching of Pope Paul IV and the divine law.
It is the failure to distinguish between the dogmatic fact and its possible theological explanations that has led a number of theologians and canonists to imagine that, by raising difficulties about the possible explanations, they have cast doubt on or even disproved the fact.

sedeprivationism
Some, who recognise that John Paul II (like his Conciliar predecessors) has done things which no valid Pope could do, are bewitched by the idea that he was validly elected, and conclude that he must be materially "Pope" only, even though not actually Pope. By that is meant that he remains the valid electee of the conclave, even though he has not (as yet at least) actually become Pope ("formally Pope"). Accordingly, they hold that the See of Peter is not vacant, so no one else can be elected, but is in a state of "privation".
This sedeprivationist thesis was first elaborated by the late Dominican theologian Guerard des Lauriers. His disciples in Italy, America and elsewhere have generally discarded his term “sedeprivationism" in favour of "the materially-Pope thesis". More importantly, habemuspapamist apologists frequently confuse the issue by referring to sedeprivationism incorrectly and misleadingly as "sedevacantism".
Sedeprivationists have in common with sedevacantists the facts that they do not recognise John Paul II as actually Pope or name him in the Canon of the Mass. However, sedeprivationists allow Karol Wojltyla a legal claim on the Papal office, and - building fallacy on fallacy - see him as in some minimalist sense perpetuating the Catholic hierarchy.
In fact, there is no good reason to grant that Karol Wojtyla ever became materially "Pope". His electors had publicly defected from the Catholic faith, thus tacitly resigning from whatever Catholic offices they may once have held. The conclave had no intention of electing a Catholic Pope to condemn the anti-Catholic Reform, but rather a "Conciliar Pope" to continue it. The Conciliarist schismatic, Karol Wojtyla, was himself by the divine law ineligible for election.
Even abstracting from the fact that there is no good reason to accept that Karol Wojtyla could or did become materially "Pope", sedeprivationism is clearly inconsistent and self-refuting. The sedeprivationists precisely deny that Karol Wojtyla is actually Pope, but claim that he is materially "Pope" only. However, Karol Wojtyla pretends to be Pope and acts as such, so must be accounted an antipope and schismatic!

Continuing the Church
Election of Popes by Cardinals is of ecclesiastical institution. In an emergency situation, it is theologically certain that a General Council could determine the mode of election and appoint the electors (as at the Council of Constance). To do that, however, requires a reasonable number of residential or titular bishops, who would first declare the See of Peter vacant. (Thus far, only one such bishop is known to have made that declaration: the late Archbishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc.)
The pressing need of resisting Catholics is for bishops with hierarchical authority - not simply emergency administrators of the sacraments. In a situation of the automatic cessation of laws reserving the appointment or confirmation of bishops to the Roman Pontiff, it belongs to the local churches (as in Campos) to elect their own bishops who, on being consecrated, and in communion with other resisting Catholics, would ipso facto be the ordinaries of those local churches.
W. J. Morgan  24 VI 97

LORD JESUS CHRIST, GRANT US A TRUE POPE.
OUR LADY OF VICTORIES, PRAY FOR US.