Resistance Is Futile

 

Every once and awhile, it is good to remember why we hold the sedevacantist position. A friend of mine bought to my attention the following website, with an article entitled Against Sedevacantism, which can be read in full here:

catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html.

It advances eleven (11) reasons why sedevacantism is allegedly wrong and the "recognize and resist"("R&R") position of those like the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is the correct view of what has happened to the Church since Vatican II. In this post, you will not be reading anything new in the clash between the two standpoints; rather the main part of each argument will be reproduced below in red font (the article is so long I needed to condense it to the principle contentions), with my response in black below it.  You will see the more or less same worn out R&R arguments. Let this post serve as a reminder why every True Catholic should be a sedevacantist. 

First Argument: The Catholic Church Will Always Have A Pope

Vatican I infallibly teaches us: If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by Divine Law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy, let him be anathema. Vatican I, Session 4, Ch. 2 (bold emphasis and parenthetical words are in the original, italic emphasis added).

It is theological ignorance to suggest that you need a living pope on the throne of St. Peter as a necessary requirement to have perpetual successors. Protestants would often use an interregnum as "proof" that the papacy wasn't "perpetual" because there was no pope for some time. According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate. These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine).

 Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

The great Doctor of the Church, Saint Francis de Sales, teaches us: St. Peter has had successors, has them in these days, and will have them even to the end of the ages. Catholic Controversy, part 2, art. 6, ch. 9.

Pope Pius XII teaches us: If ever one day . . . material Rome were to crumble, . . . even then the Church would not crumble or crack, Christ’s promise to Peter would always remain true, the Papacy, the one and indestructible Church founded on the Pope alive at the moment, would always endure. January 30, 1949, Address to the Students of Rome, Quoted from The Pope Speaks, Pantheon Books, New York, 1957) ---I was not able to verify this speech, but I will grant that the speech may have taken place.

It has been established at the Vatican Council of 1870 that the papacy must last until the end but not that there must always be a living pontiff on the Throne of St. Peter.  Furthermore, having a long interregnum is not inconsistent with having perpetual successors. There is a possibility of an end of the papal interregnum before the end of the world. According to theologian O'Reilly, one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century, in his 1882 book (written a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, he brings home this important point. On page 287, he writes in reference to the Great Western Schism:

"There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...

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 a 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." (Emphasis mine).

Second Argument: There is no Interregnum But A "Restoration"

Here, the argument is that an interregnum of so long a period of time would constitute a "restoration"--there are no citations to any theological sources for this distinction, because there aren't any. There are several reasons listed as to why this can't be an interregnum (while ignoring the Great Western Schism), all but two of which are already refuted by theologian O'Reilly. The two worthy of mention:

1. In the case of any anti-pope in history, it has never happened that virtually every Catholic throughout the world, has been deceived into believing that an anti-pope was the true pope.

2.  ...the Church’s Unified Government continues operating without interruption. But that is not true under the sedevacantist interregnum theory, which results in a concrete denial of Catholic teaching that Unity of Government is an element of the Church’s Mark of Unity.

As to #1 above: According to theologian Berry, "The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church." (See Berry,  The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise , [1927], pg.119; Emphasis in original). It should also be noted that the Vatican II "popes" are not "antipopes." An antipope is one whom is elected in opposition to a true pope as a rival claimant (See A Concise Catholic Dictionary, [1943], pg. 36). Roncalli to Bergoglio are "false popes."

As to #2 above: Theologian Salaverri already cited above, wrote, "Her [the Church's] monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed." They erroneously think because things are not operating as in normal times, Unity ceases to exist in Church government. 

Third Argument: The Church is, and Always Will Be, Visible

But we know from our catechism that the Catholic Church will always be visible. This is why Pope Pius XI declared that the one true Church of Christ is visible to all. Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928. #10.

There is nothing to prevent the Church from being reduced to a small number (“the Son of Man, when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth,” St. Luke 18:8). Moreover, the very purpose of visibility — the Church as the “column of truth to the nations” — is defeated by the heresies of the post-Vatican II body which the R&R admit. Moreover, The teaching of the theologians clearly shows a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time. Such a vacancy cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the Indefectibility of the Church.  Therefore, all Four Marks, including Apostolicity and everything else the Church requires, continue of necessity, even if we may not know the exact answers in any given situation. The Magisterium would not allow theologians to teach a hypothetical situation as a real possibility, if that would somehow be incompatible with the dogma of Indefectibility and the promises of Christ. 

Fourth Argument: Universal Acceptance Guarantees A Pope

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, explained this truth as follows:

It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud. It is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such an acceptance he would become the True Pontiff.

Theologian Doyle explains: "The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all…." (See The Defense of the Catholic Church, [1927], pg. 124) It is therefore possible that the entire membership of the Church could have accepted one of those men who was not pope, as the Vicar of Christ.

I can hear the objection already: "But a few reactionaries (sedevacantists) can't give rise to a doubt when there is morally unanimous acceptance of Francis as pope." 

Do members of the R&R celebrate Chanukah with Jews? Do they participate in false worship with Protestants and kneel before a so-called "bishop" to receive a "blessing"? Bergoglio did as "cardinal" in Argentina. To do so would be the mortal sin of communicatio in sacris and a denial of the One True Church. Consider also, "As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he authorized the "curas villeros," the priests sent to the peripheries, to give communion to all, although four-fifths of the couples were not even married. And as pope, by telephone or letter he is not afraid of encouraging some of the faithful who have remarried to receive communion without worrying about it, right away, even without those 'penitential paths under the guidance of the diocesan bishop' projected by some at the synod, and without issuing any denials when the news of his actions comes out." 

(See chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350910bdc4.html?eng=y) 

Participating in these ecumenical services with Protestants and Jews is, in the words of Pope Pius XI, "altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion." (See Mortalium Animos para. #2) Yet, somehow if such a "cardinal" is pronounced "pope" without public abjuration of heresy, how does he attain the papacy? Does the "universal acceptance" somehow "undo" his heresy? Or does it mean his actions, contrary to all Church teaching pre-Vatican II, were not heretical? No attempt at an explanation of this is made.

Another big problem for them: Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. This is the decree of Pope Paul IV of 1559. The pontiff decreed that if ever it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand "deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy," his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be "null, legally invalid and void."

Fifth Argument: Rash Judgment: Concluding the Pope is a Formal Heretic

We could conclude Pope Francis was a formal heretic if he told us that he did not believe what the Church (God) teaches, that a Catholic must believe now. We would not be judging him rashly because we would merely believe what he tells us about himself. However, it is rash to judge the interior culpability of Pope Francis (or anyone else) and conclude he is a formal heretic simply because he is a material heretic, i.e., has heretical opinions and refuses to be corrected by traditional Catholics.

So the pope can be "corrected" by the R&R? What about his protection from teaching error guaranteed by the Holy Ghost?  

The import of Begoglio actively participating in false worship as "cardinal" cannot be understated. Participating in false religious worship, according to the approved canonists and theologians, is a manifestation of heresy and/or apostasy. According to theologian Merkelbach, external heresy consists not only in what someone says, but also dictis vel factis, that is "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds." (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746; Emphasis mine). 

According to theologian MacKenzie, “If the delinquent making this claim [i.e., he didn't know something was contrary to Catholic dogma---Introibo] be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him.” Additionally, does any Catholic with even the knowledge of the basics of the faith need any more study/training to know, "There is no Catholic God" is heretical? The argument that "bad philosophy in the seminary" excuses Bergoglio is ridiculous for this very reason.  

Schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.39, a.1, respondeo. That is what sedevacantists do, viz., they refuse to submit to the current pope, asserting that he has no authority over them because he is not “really” the pope.

 If one has a reasonable suspicion regarding the election of a pope, he may be considered as a doubtful pope, and therefore no pope in the practical order. 

According to theologian Szal, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses 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." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine).  We have many good reasons to outright deny, not just suspect, the validity of Bergoglio's election. 

Sixth Argument: Sedevacantism is Revolutionary

Unlike the Cristeros, sedevacantists are revolutionaries. Sedevacantists correctly recognize that the pope has committed many wrongs. Instead of resisting only the wrongs committed by the pope, they follow the pattern of other revolutionaries by using these wrongs as a basis for rejecting the pope’s authority as such. Like other revolutionaries, they blame the pope for their own revolt, saying that his words and actions have caused him to lose his authority over them. 

Rejection of a Command or Decision of a Pope Can Happen In One of Three Ways:

• Rejection of the thing commanded. This occurs when one disobeys something ( e.g., a fast or restitution enjoined by the Pontiff) because he considers it too difficult. This results in sin, but not separation through schism because he rejects a commandment of the Church, not the Head of the Church.

• Rejection of the command when you regard the pope in his capacity as an individual. As the pope is not above human weakness, he might make a command moved by hatred, envy, or some other sinful motive involving an individual decision (not one affecting the whole Church). The pope might also command something sinful (e.g., kill someone he dislikes). In such a case neither sin nor schism is committed by this refusal to obey. 

• The rejection is based on his official capacity as pope. The person is guilty of schism and is no longer a member of the Church because he does not wish to submit to the authority of the pope who gave the command. (See theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology [1930], 1: 542-543)

According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine). Hence, the SSPX, Salza, and the rest of the R&R crowd have no basis for rejecting the Novus Bogus "mass" (among many other things; I choose to  focus on the Mass as but one example). If Roncalli to Bergoglio are recognized by them as "popes," their ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship must be regarded as pure and holy. They have no basis to reject the Novus Bogus without being guilty of schism--the very charge the level at sedevacantists.

The Novus Bogus "mass" is evil because it is sacrilegious and/or invalid, so it could not possibly have come to us from the Church, precisely because it is a dogma that the Church cannot defect. The man who promulgated it must have previously taught heresy as a private theologian and lost his office as pope, or was never validly elected pope from the beginning, as the Church's theologians have always taught could happen. (Sedevacantism) Therefore, what purports to be the Roman Catholic Church is a man-made sect, an evil institution which must be rejected. This is not "revolutionary," it is remaining Catholic.

Seventh Argument: Our Catholic Duty: Resist the Harm Done by a Bad Pope But (Of Course) Recognize His Authority

Pope Leo XIII faithfully echoed the Apostles in teaching this truth:

[W]here a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God. Libertas Praestantissimum

Thus, a pope might command us to believe his errors on matters of Faith. The pope can make such errors whenever he is not speaking ex cathedra.

The citation here is discussing the laws of men, not the Church because universal laws of the Church, emanating from the pope, cannot be "contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God." Nor can the pope teach errors to the universal Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."

(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, 1:258) 

Here's what  Pope Leo had to say about the papacy:

"Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own." (See Satis Cognitum, para. # 9; Emphasis mine). 

"For He who is the Spirit of Truth, inasmuch as He proceedeth both from the Father, who is the eternally True, and from the Son, who is the substantial Truth, receiveth from each both His essence and the fullness of all truth. This truth He communicates to His Church, guarding her by His all powerful help from ever falling into error, and aiding her to foster daily more and more the germs of divine doctrine and to make them fruitful for the welfare of the peoples. And since the welfare of the peoples, for which the Church was established, absolutely requires that this office should be continued for all time, the Holy Ghost perpetually supplies life and strength to preserve and increase the Church. “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of Truth” (John xiv., 16, 17)." (See Divinum Illud, para. # 5; Emphasis mine).

Eighth Argument: Judging the Pope’s Words and Deeds According to Catholic Tradition

Popes can err in any other teachings, unless those teachings are themselves a faithful repetition of truth contained in infallible Catholic Tradition. No pope (or anyone else) can err when faithfully repeating the teachings of Catholic Tradition.

This is Feeneyite error of "you only need to obey infallible teachings." The Church has condemned this very idea. 

• Condemned proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors, addressed to the whole Church teaches, "22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith."

• Pope Pius XII condemns the idea popes need not be given assent in their teachings that are not ex cathedra: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their Magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary Magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine." (See Humani Generis [1950]).

Ninth Argument: The Pope John Canard

It is a dogma of the Catholic Faith that the saints see the Beatific Vision immediately after they die (and after they have been purged in Purgatory, if necessary). Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV, Bull Laetentur coeli, 1439; Pope Benedict XII Benedictus Deus, 1336, Denz. #530-531.

Pope John XXII lived before this dogma was defined by the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium. He publicly denied that the saints immediately see the Beatific Vision after they die, i.e., before the General Judgment. Catholic Encyclopedia, entry: “Pope John XXII”.

Before Pope John XXII became pope, he wrote a book publicly denying this doctrine of the Catholic Faith (viz., that the saints see the Beatific Vision immediately after they die and after they have been purged in Purgatory, if necessary). Id. Instead, he taught the opposite heresy. Id. Yet both before and after this doctrine was defined, the Church has always recognized the validity of Pope John XXII’s election as pope. Id.; see also, the Annuario Pontificio editions 1939, 1942 & 1959. In other words, his public teaching of this heresy did not prevent his election as pope.

Fr. Cekada (RIP) trashed this fairy tale:

The accusation of heresy arose from a series of sermons John XXII preached in Avignon, France in which he maintained that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgement. Sounds promising as an anti-sede argument at first, since John XXII was always recognized as a true pope. However:

(a) The doctrine on the Beatific Vision had not yet been defined — John XXII’s successor, Benedict XII would do that.

(b) Then there is the mode that John XXII, who had been a theologian before his election, employed to present his arguments and conclusions.

Here, the theologian Le Bachlet says that John XXII proposed his teaching only as a “private doctor who expressed an opinion, hanc opinionem, and who, while seeking to prove it, recognized that it was open to debate.“ (“Benoit XII,” in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 2:662.)

Ergo, since seeing the Beatific Vison by the saved upon death was not yet a dogma but up for theological discussion, and Pope John XXII, as a theologian, taught it as an opinion subject to correction by the Church, he never taught or proposed heresy. 

Tenth Argument:A Man Need not be Consecrated a Bishop or Ordained a Priest to be a Valid Pope 

 These sedevacantists then declare that, because conciliar ordinations and consecrations are definitely invalid (so they assert), the more recent conciliar popes cannot be real popes because they are not valid bishops.

I'm unaware of any sedevacantists of repute who make this claim. It is correct that a man need not be a priest or bishop to be validly elected pope, but I don't even need to go any further, since Bergoglio fails to achieve the papacy based on heresy.

Eleventh Argument: The Revelations to Sister Lucy of Fatima Show That the Catholic Church has a Pope

This dogma [of allegedly needing a living pope, "perpetual successors" at all times]  fits perfectly with the revelations given to Sister Lucy (one of the Fatima seers) in connection with Our Lady of Fatima’s request for the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart.

Private revelations, even those approved by the Church, need not be believed at all. No theologian--- no one even versed in basic Catholic theology--- would ever make an argument based on what an apparition allegedly said. 

Conclusion

Consider this post a "refresher course" on why the R&R position makes no sense and contradicts Church teaching on the papacy. Resistance is futile. Join the Vatican II sect and follow Bergoglio as a Catholic should, if you recognize his "papacy." Otherwise, embrace sedevacantism--true Catholicism--to have the hope of saving your soul.