A little catechism on sedevacantism: For non-sedes

[Gottmitunsalex]

What is sedevacantism?
Sedevacantism is the theory of those who think that the most recent popes, the popes of the Second Vatican Council, have not really been popes. Consequently, the See of Peter is not occupied. This is expressed in Latin by the formula sede vacante.

Where does this theory come from?

This theory has been conceived in reaction to the very grave crisis which the Church has been undergoing since the Council, a crisis that Archbishop Lefebvre justly called "the third world war." The main cause of the crisis has been the dereliction of the Roman Pontiffs, who teach or allow to be propagated serious errors on the subjects of ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, etc.

The sedevacantists think that real popes could not be responsible for such a crisis, and consequently they consider them not to be "real" popes.

Do the sedevacantists agree amongst themselves?

No, far from it. There are many different positions. Some think that, since the Chair of Peter is vacant, someone should occupy it, and so they have elected a "pope." Such is the case of the sect of Palmar in Spain, for example. Among those who do not go so far, there are different schools. Some think that the current pope is an anti-pope, others that he is only partly pope, a pope materialiter but not formaliter.

Some sedevacantists consider their position as a "likely opinion," and consent to receive the sacraments from non-sedevacantist priests, while others, called "ultra" by the Fr. Coache,[1] make it a matter of faith, and refuse to assist at Masses where the priest prays for the pope. But what is common to all the sedevacantists is that they think that the pope should not be prayed for in public.

What is meant by being pope materialiter?

The main difficulty of sedevacantism is to explain how the Church can continue to exist in a visible manner (for she has received from the Lord the promise that she will endure until the end of the world) while being deprived of her head. The partisans of the so-called "Cassiciacum Thesis"[2] have come up with a very subtle solution: the current pope was validly designated as pope, but he did not receive the papal authority because there was an interior obstacle (heresy). So, according to the theory, he is able to act in some ways for the good of the Church, such as, for instance, appointing cardinals (who are cardinals materialiter), but he is not really pope.

What do you think of this solution?

For one thing, this solution is not based on Tradition. Theologians (Cajetan, St. Robert Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, etc.) who have examined the possibility of a heretical pope, but no one prior to the Council every devised such a theory. Also, it does not resolve the main difficulty of sedevacantism, namely, how the Church can continue to be visible, for, if the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, etc., are deprived of their "form," then no visible Church hierarchy is left. Moreover, this theory has some serious philosophical defects because it supposes that a head can be head materialiter, that is, without authority.

What arguments do the sedevacantists adduce to prove their theories?

They use a theological argument and a canonical one. The theological argument consists of positing that a heretic cannot be head of the Church, but John Paul II is a heretic, therefore...

The legal argument consists of pointing out that the laws of the Church invalidate the election of a heretic; but Cardinal Wojtyla was a heretic at the time of his election, therefore...

But isn't it true that a pope who becomes a heretic loses the pontificate?

St. Robert Bellarmine says that a pope who would formally and manifestly become a heretic would lose the pontificate. For that to apply to John Paul II, he would have to be a formal heretic, deliberately refusing the Church's magisterium; and this formal heresy would have to be open and manifest. But if John Paul II often enough makes heretical affirmations or statements that lead to heresy, it cannot easily be shown that he is aware of rejecting any dogma of the Church. And as long as there is no sure proof, then it is more prudent to refrain from judging. This was Archbishop Lefebvre's line of conduct.

If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?

No, he should not, for according to the "common" opinion (Suarez), or even the "more common" opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even an heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope's heresy.

According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.[3]

Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.

But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?

The Dominican Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that an heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.

The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co-exist with his own heresy.

How does their canonical argument fare?

The sedevacantists base their position on the apostolic constitution Cum ex Apostolatus of Pope Paul IV (1555-1559). But some good studies have shown that this constitution lost its legal force when the 1917 Code of Canon Law was promulgated. See, for example, the article of Fr. Albert, O.P., in Sel de la terre, Summer 2000, pp.67-78. What remains in effect from this constitution is its dogmatic teaching. And, consequently, it cannot be made to say more than the theological argument already examined.

Don't the sedevacantists claim to find a confirmation of their theory in the errors of Vatican Council II and the harmful liturgical and canonical laws of the Conciliar Church?

Indeed, the sedevacantists think, in general, that the teaching of the Council should have been covered by the infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium, and consequently should not contain any errors. But, since there are errors, for example, on religious liberty, they conclude that Paul VI had ceased to be pope at that moment.

Really, if one accepted this argument, then it would be necessary to say that the whole Catholic Church disappeared then, too, and that "the gates of hell had prevailed" against her. For the teaching of the ordinary, universal magisterium is that of the bishops, of the whole Church teaching.

It is simpler to think that the teaching of the Council and of the Conciliar Church is not covered by the infallibility of the ordinary, universal magisterium for the reasons explained in the article of Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P., on the authority of the Council that appeared in Sel de la terre, "L'autorite du Concile," pp.32-63.

One of the arguments set forth there consists in showing that the Council does not present its teaching as "necessary for salvation" (which is logical, since those who profess this believe that it is possible to be saved without the Catholic Faith). Since this teaching is not authoritatively imposed, it is not covered by the guarantee of infallibility. The same thing can be said about the liturgical laws (the New Mass) and the canonical laws (the 1983 Code of Canon Law) promulgated by the most recent popes: they are not covered by infallibility, although normally they would be.

Aren't the sedevacantists right, though, in refusing to name the pope at Mass in order to show that they are not in communion with ("una cum") a heretic (at least materially) and his heresies?

The expression "una cum" in the Canon of the Mass does not mean that one affirms that he is "in communion" with the erroneous ideas of the pope, but rather that one wants to pray for the Church "and for" the pope, her visible head.

In order to be sure of this interpretation, in addition to reading the erudite studies that have been made on this point, it is enough to read the rubric of the missal for the occasion of a bishop celebrating Mass. In this case, the bishop must pray for the Church "una cum ...me indigno famulo tuo," which does not mean that he prays "in communion with...myself, your unworthy servant" (which does not make sense!), but that he prays "and for ...myself, your unworthy servant."

But doesn't St. Thomas Aquinas say that in the Canon one should not pray for heretics?

St. Thomas Aquinas does not say that one should not pray for heretics (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 79, A. 7, ad 2), but merely observes that, in the prayers of the Canon of the Mass, one prays for those whose faith and devotion are known to the Lord (quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio). For, he says, so that this sacrifice obtain its effect (effectum habet) those for whom one prays must be "united to the passion of Christ by faith and charity." He does not say that praying for heretics is forbidden. He only means that this prayer will not have the same efficacy as one for a Catholic, and is not provided for in the Canon.

All that can be concluded from this affirmation of St. Thomas is that, if the pope is a heretic (which remains to be proven), then the prayer for him will not have the foreseen effect, "non habet effectum."

In conclusion, what should we think of sedevacantism?

Sedevacantism is a theory that has not been proven speculatively, and that it is imprudent to hold practically (an imprudence that can have very serious consequences). That is why Archbishop Lefebvre never adopted this position, and even forbade the priests of the Society of St. Pius X to profess it. We should have confidence in his prudence and theological sense.


Footnotes
1 Fr. Coache (1920-1994), Doctor of Canon Law, was the pastor of the parish of Montjavoult until 1973. He was one of the pioneers of the Catholic resistance against the Conciliar revolution. His parish bulletin evolved into The Combat for the Faith, which was widely distributed, and which he edited until his death. He organized with Msgr. Ducaud-Bourget the epic taking of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet in Paris, France, in February 1977.
2 "Cassiciacum" is the name of the place to which St. Augustine withdrew with some friends after his baptism, and where he studied and deepened his faith. In the late 1970's, Fr. Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., together with a group of like-minded priests, founded a review called Les Cahiers de Cassiciacum to defend the sedevacantist position. The "Cassiciacum Thesis" is the name given to the theory that the pope is pope materialiter but not formaliter.
3 Billuart, De Fide, Diss. V, A. III, No. 3, obj. 2.

[Bonaventure]

Sigh. Another article that's been thoroughly refuted.

[Teilo and a Half]

The Dominican Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that an heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.

The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co-exist with his own heresy.

I'm not a sedevacantist, but I am compelled to point out the following.

I believe the above-quoted interpretation of Rev. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange's teaching in De Christo Salvatore, Commentarius in IIIam partem Summae Theologicae Sancti Thomae (Q. VIII. De gratia Christi, ut est caput Ecclesiae, art. iii. Utrum sit caput omnium hominum, dubium I: An sit actu caput haereticorum baptizatorum et occultorum) is erroneously applied. The tome in question is a commentary upon the third portion of the Angelic Doctor's Summa, so reading the commentary without the text whereupon it comments will inevitably lead to misapplications.

In the question De gratia Christi, ut est caput Ecclesiae, whereupon Rev. Fr. Reginald was commenting, Saint Thomas was dicussing the gratia capitis of Our Lord, whereby He has been constituted as Head of all the faithful. Rev. Fr. Reginald's commentary was meant to prove and clarify that Saint Thomas was correct. As a possible problematic objection, he discusses the subject of a "heretical pope," and concludes that such a Pope could retain his jurisdiction by way of a very extraordinary anomaly in the present economy whereby Holy Church has been ordered and established by Our Lord. However, the Dominican theologian was speaking of the case wherein the Roman Pontiff privately adheres to heresy formally so-called, a fact that would be incognoscible to anyone else in the external forum and they would therefore not be a datum known whereby one may discern whether there is a Papa deponendus in the picture.

However, this is immaterial to the sedevacantists' arguments, as the case of an occult heretic is not pertinent to their theories.

Moreover, Rev. Fr. Reginald speaks of the wicked in the same chapter, but he does not mean heretics, but Catholics who have not cut themselves off from the Mystical Body of Christ by schism, apostasy or formal heresy. This is important to note because it shows that he was merely endeavoring to elucidate upon the teaching of Saint Thomas regarding Christ's gratia capitis, which is what led Rev. Fr. Reginald to that curious tangent regarding a Pope who may have privately lapsed into heresy.

[tmw89]

Sigh. Another article that's been thoroughly refuted.

I know, right?  Copypasta from the Bellarmine Forum, http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1194 :

Some obections refuted.

The Dominicans of Avrille assert the following:

But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?

The Dominican Father Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that an heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.

The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co-exist with his own heresy.

This answer is difficult to follow.

Garrigou-Lagrange, in the place cited, speaks only of a secret heretic. His purpose in this place is to defend St. Thomas's teaching on membership in the Mystical Body, the Church, against what he perceives to be the error of St. Robert Bellarmine on the question, specifically in relation to membership by occult heretics. Bellarmine teaches that for membership only the external profession of the faith is required, not interior faith; St. Thomas, using the term "membership" in a more abstract way, says that all of those who lack faith, including therefore occult heretics, are not members actually, but only potentially (i.e. they can become, and ought to become, and are called to become, members, but they are not so in actuality at present, and may never be). G-L's purpose is clear from the conclusion he reaches, viz. "that occult heretics are only apparent members of the Church, which they externally and visibly profess to be the true Church."

G-L also quotes with approval Billuart's opinion that the occult heretic pope's "jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy."

Therefore it is difficult to agree with the application of this doctrine of Garrigou-Lagrange to the thesis that a manifest heretic immediately and without any declaration loses his office as visible head of the Church.

The Dominicans appear to be arguing, albeit implicitly, that if an occult heretic (whom they say is not a member of the Church), can retain jurisdiction, then so can all other non-members, such as manifest heretics. But this is not what G-L teaches, and in any case it is contrary to the common opinion of the doctors.

Now it will be worth considering the previous point made by the Dominicans.

If a Catholic were convinced that John Paul II is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?

No, he should not, for according to the "common" opinion (Suarez), or even the "more common" opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even an heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope's heresy.

According to the more common opinion, the Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church.3

Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.

Here we seem to observe the unfortunate effect of inter-order rivalry on theological effort. These Dominicans rely on doctors from the 18th and 16th centuries, Billuart, O.P., and Suarez, S.J., for their ecclesiology and for their assessment of what the "common opinion" on the relevant question is. It is an interesting fact that not only is Bellarmine the Doctor of Ecclesiology, and most especially of the papacy, but that the Jesuits have dominated this field of theology for four centuries. So many of the great volumes de ecclesia have been by Jesuits, culminating in our own era with the works of Palmieri, Zapelena, Franzelin, and Billot. Of the Dominicans who have contributed to this field, no great names stand out, no famous volumes appear.

And it is precisely because of this paucity, not of Thomistic doctrine, for Bellarmine and his followers are all Thomists, but of Dominican effort in this area, that must explain the otherwise very strange decision of the Avrille Dominicans to ignore all modern manuals and of course the father of the field Bellarmine himself, in favour of Billuart and Suarez.

The same syndrome can be seen in Garrigou-Lagrange himself, who shows a preference for Cajetan over Bellarmine which the Church has certainly not encouraged. Another theologian who ignores Bellarmine and the whole Jesuit tradition of ecclesiology, is Charles Journet - the man whose intervention in favour of Dignitatis Humanae at Vatican II was considered so decisive that Paul VI raised him to the cardinalate in gratitude.

What is the common opinion on membership of the Church and the possession of jurisdiction in our era? Consider what Joseph Fenton says:

Sylvius defends his thesis with arguments from the nature of the Church, from Scripture, and from the writings of the Fathers. Actually the reasoning of this great theologian seems valid only as a demonstration of the necessity of the baptismal character for membership in the Church. He was quite correct in insisting that the mere profession of faith, apart from the baptismal character, could never suffice to make a man truly a member of the Church militant. He was quite incorrect, however, in insisting that internal faith was requisite for this purpose.

In defence of his own position, Sylvius had to teach that a man could be the head of the Church without being a member or a part of it.14 Thereby he contradicted the common teaching that no man can have authority within the Church without being a part of this society.

14 Cf. Sylvius, op. cit., q. 1, a. 7, p. 243.
15 Cf. ibid., 4. 2, a. 1, p. 254.
16 Cf. ibid., q. 2, a. 2, p.

Fenton, The Parish Census-List and Membership in the True Church, AER, April, 1950. Emphasis added.

Now this is not the same question as that proposed and answered by the Avrille Dominicans, for theirs is an even more extreme position, viz., that even a notorious heretic, recognised as such by the whole Church, would still remain pope until a declaration of his heresy was made by "the bishops" (i.e. one presumes, an imperfect general council). Since no proof is provided for this assertion, and since even if it were true it would prove nothing more than what the common opinion was in the frst half of the eighteenth century, and since it contradicts the best authorities (Bellarmine, Wernz-Vidal, for example), it is difficult to assign any real value to it. Yet the Dominicans tell us it would be "imprudent" to depart from it.

It is sufficiently clear that the Dominicans of Avrille have produced a shabby piece of work, badly sourced, reliant on only two doctors, and those not the most weighty in the field, and in which the course of the argument is not even explicit but must be guessed by the reader.

Against Garrigou-Lagrange on membership in the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine says the following:

Against this: in the first place, if the heretic remained, "in actu" [actually], united to the Church in virtue of the character, he would never be able to be cut or separated from her "in actu", for the character is indelible. But there is no one who denies that some people may be separated "in actu" from the Church. Therefore, the character does not make the heretic be "in actu" in the Church, but is only a sign that he was in the Church and that he must return to her. Analogously, when a sheep wanders lost in the mountains, the mark impressed on it does not make it be in the fold, but indicates from which fold it had fled and to which fold it ought to be brought back. This truth has a confirmation in St. Thomas who says (Summ. Theol. III, q. 8, a. 3) that those who do not have the faith are not united "in actu" to Christ, but only potentially - and St. Thomas here refers to the internal union, and not to the external which is produced by the confession of faith and visible signs. Therefore, as the character is something internal, and not external, according to St. Thomas the character alone does not unite a man, "in actu," to Christ. (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30.)

Here St. Robert asserts very directly that in III, Q.8, Art. 3, the same place cited by G-L, St. Thomas is not speaking of the visible unity of the Church, but of the internal union of grace by which men are united to Christ.

This, indeed, is apparent from the text by dozens of indications. Everything referred to is an internal and supernatural factor - grace, the theological virtues, etc.

And, of course, Bellarmine refutes Cajetan in this text also, a fact appreciated by virtually all theologians, but not some Dominicans.

Further, St. Thomas is completely clear that those who are not members cannot possess habitual jurisdiction.

Cyprian says in a letter (Ep. lii, quoted vii, qu. 1, can. Novatianus): "He who observes neither unity of spirit nor the concord of peace, and severs himself from the bonds of the Church, and from the fellowship of her priests, cannot have episcopal power or honor."

I answer that, Spiritual power is twofold, the one sacramental, the other a power of jurisdiction. The sacramental power is one that is conferred by some kind of consecration. Now all the consecrations of the Church are immovable so long as the consecrated thing remains: as appears even in inanimate things, since an altar, once consecrated, is not consecrated again unless it has been broken up. Consequently such a power as this remains, as to its essence, in the man who has received it by consecration, as long as he lives, even if he fall into schism or heresy: and this is proved from the fact that if he come back to the Church, he is not consecrated anew. Since, however, the lower power ought not to exercise its act, except in so far as it is moved by the higher power, as may be seen also in the physical order, it follows that such persons lose the use of their power, so that it is not lawful for them to use it. Yet if they use it, this power has its effect in sacramental acts, because therein man acts only as God's instrument, so that sacramental effects are not precluded on account of any fault whatever in the person who confers the sacrament.

On the other hand, the power of jurisdiction is that which is conferred by a mere human appointment. Such a power as this does not adhere to the recipient immovably: so that it does not remain in heretics and schismatics; and consequently they neither absolve nor excommunicate, nor grant indulgence, nor do anything of the kind, and if they do, it is invalid. (II-II Q. 39, Art. 3)

Now either St. Thomas didn't appreciate the implications of his own doctrine in III, Q.8, Art. 3, as G-L really implies, albeit unwittingly, or St. Robert understands him correctly, and in that place the Angelic Doctor refers only to the internal bonds of unity.