Sedevacantists – Catholics who deny that we have a pope
Vatican 1 Dogma: If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of
Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual
successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff
is not the successor of the blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be
anathema. This study proves how untrue this dogma and invalid this anathema or
excommunication is.
Sedevacantism is the view held by several Catholic traditionalist sects that the
popes after Pope Pius XII, the Vatican II popes, that is John XXIII, Paul VI,
John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are anti-popes and not real
successors of Peter. The main proof of this is that they were heretics and for
the first time we seem to have popes altering Catholic dogma and so they were
not popes for popes are infallible. The idea that they are heretics because the
pope isn’t infallible hasn’t occurred to them. Most sedevacantists say that
there has been no pope only impostors since 1958 when Pius XII died.
They argue as well that since these men were heretics before their accession to
the papacy that they are not real popes so the popes after Pius XII were
impostors because they were heretics making them non-Catholics before they were
elected and non-Catholics cannot become pope. This is a most unchristian view
for they should take it for granted that the popes may have confessed their
heresies and sins before election. The Church has always taught that ex-heretics
can become good popes and has theologians who argue that heretics like Pope
Vigilius and Pope Honorius who were heretics after their election were still
valid popes.
They quote the Papal Bull of Pope Paul IV Cum ex apostolatus officio which says:
if anyone was a heretic before the Papal election, he could not be a valid pope,
even if he is elected unanimously by the Cardinals. Canon 188.4 of the Roman
Catholic 1917 Code of Canon Law lays it down that if a cleric (pope, bishop,
priest, deacon etc.) becomes a heretic, he loses his office without any
declaration by operation of law. That is he is automatically fired and he fires
himself and doesn’t need to be actually thrown out by the Church. St. Robert
Bellarmine, St. Antonius, St. Francis deSales, St. Alphonsus Liguori, and many
other theologians all teach that a heretic cannot be a pope: “If however, God
were to permit a pope to become a notoriously and contumacious heretic he would
by such fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.” -- St.
Alphonsus Liguori, Church Doctor: Verita bella Fede. Pt. iii, Ch.viii, 9-10.
But the 1917 Canon Law is now obsolete and many theologians believe a heretic
can become a valid pope.
We know that it can’t be proved that the popes the Sedevacantists say were
heretics before election didn’t repent or knew they were heretics which absolves
them of any condemnation under Pope Paul IV’s law. What if Paul IV was a heretic
for saying that the pope unanimously elected by the cardinals would be a false
pope? Paul IV was probably speaking hypothetically for he held that the gates of
hell could never prevail over the Church. He was not saying then that a heretic
might masquerade as pope which would be the gates prevailing but what would be
the case IF it happened.
Some sedevacantists claim that the papal elections after Pius XII who died in
1958 were rigged. Others claim that the cardinals were heretics and could not
cast a valid vote to make a pope.
Others claim that God rejected the Vatican for its heresy so once the true pope
died the Church lost the power to make a new pope.
Others claim that the papacy was taken over by an impostor changed by plastic
surgery to look like the real pope during the reign of Paul VI who was kept
prisoner in the Vatican which led to the loss of authority in the Church to
create a new pope when he died for this offence brings excommunication with it.
Others, even devoted Catholics, think that since John Paul II or one of the
others was a heretic he lost the power to be a real pope.
Reasons for Hope (page 153) attacks the view that a pope who is a heretic ceases
to be a member of the Church and pope on the grounds that a pope cannot become a
heretic. The curious suggestion that a pope cannot fall into heresy because the
Church would have to formally condemn him making him condemn himself is offered
as proof! The mind boggles at this. The pope has no authority to teach what he
likes. All agree with that so if he does advocate false teaching the Church can
formally condemn him. His doctrine has to fit what the Church always taught
before when what was taught comes from scripture or divinely inspired tradition.
Heresy is notoriously difficult to avoid especially with such a complicated
faith as Catholicism. Even a wrong interpretation by the pope of a Bible text
counts as heresy.
So the pope can be excommunicated by the Church and deposed if he becomes a
heretic and spouts heresy all the time for he deposes himself anyway when he
becomes one for he is not a Catholic anymore. Perhaps the pope who falls into
such brazen heresy ceases to be a pope and that is what we mean by saying a pope
cannot become a heretic. The pope will be condemning himself in a fashion if he
becomes a such heretic for his job is to look after the faith and he is not
doing it but accepting false beliefs.
However, the Church seems to believe that if the pope hates the Catholic Church
and is a heretic though he is not really a Catholic he is still pope for the
pope is the marker of the true Church more than anything else.
The chief reason for the existence of the Church is to teach (page 231,
Catholicism and Fundamentalism) for it cannot sanctify without the teaching so
to dispute the teaching is to leave the Church. That’s logic. The pope who is a
heretic does not have to condemn himself as a heretic. It seems he can
excommunicate himself with a decree. Why not? Some say that a non-Catholic
pretending to be a Catholic can be a pope. In so far as he runs the Church and
teaches it he is pope though he will not have as much authority as one who is a
Catholic and will have to be watched carefully and they say too that only those
who are excommunicated by name by the Church and become popes would be becoming
fake popes for though a heretic or a person automatically excommunicated is not
a Catholic he is a real pope though an illicit one if he becomes pope. All this
is impossible to believe. Automatic excommunication amounts to you
excommunicating yourself and that is a better excommunication than one coming
from the Vatican for that is the Vatican forming an opinion of you and rejecting
you and it might be wrong for nothing is simple. At least you know what is in
your heart. If anything automatic excommunication is a greater hindrance to
valid accession to the papal throne than anything else. A Church declared
excommunication cannot possibly be valid if you sincerely think your heresy is
the true Catholic doctrine.
It could be argued, “The fundamental thing in religion is supposed to be
embracing the truth. Truth comes first. The Catholic Church says this. For you
then the true Catholic doctrine of God, is that there is no God, if you are
convinced God does not exist. Statements to the contrary in the Church are just
the Church falling short of what the Church should teach and the truth to which
it strives.” With that logic, you could be a Muslim atheist or a Mormon
agnostic. And why pick the Catholic Church? Islam and Mormonism claim to be the
truth as well.
The Society of St Pius X, Catholics who rejected Vatican II, rejects
Sedevacantism saying that there is no reason to think that the popes since
Vatican II are formal heretics but are just material heretics. Formal heretics
are those who know what the Church teaches and still reject it which pulls
automatic excommunication on them. Material heretics think they are orthodox but
are wrong. If the throne of Peter has had no legitimate pope on it since Vatican
II there would be no valid cardinals left to elect a true pope for the fake
popes could only appoint fake cardinals. Canon law says that the pope has to
come from real cardinals and is strict about how the pope is elected.
Sedevacantists say that Jesus himself will take care of that. The result of that
has been a number of individuals claiming to be the true pope appointed by
divine revelation from Heaven or by conclaves made up of sect members.
The idea that the promise of Christ that he would build his Church on the rock
of the papacy and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it means that the
pope cannot lose his legitimacy by falling into heresy or that the Church cannot
be left for decades without a pope though Sedevacantists are saying it has
happened is dubious. If Christ said that then what if a pope who is too young is
elected (like Benedict IX who was only eleven at his election) and is jailed for
the next seventy years and cannot rule or guide the Church? The Church would
have to go on without him. If that can happen and if the pope can’t be pope or
the rock then why can’t there be a long absence? The time makes no difference
anyway, the Church has to run itself when there is no pope so why not do it
twenty years as well as say twenty days? If a pope can wreck the Church by not
condemning serious apostasy and heresy and not doing his job then why can’t he
become a heretic which would do less harm? If God can let a boy devoted to the
sins of the flesh like Benedict IX or a jailed man become pope who is not able
to function as pope then there is no truth in the claims the Church makes for
the papacy. Hell prevails when that happens. And it has happened in the past.
The Church recognised Benedict IX as a real pope and bishop. This despite him
being too young to validly become a priest or bishop. Despite his consecration
ceremony as a bishop this pope can by no means be regarded as a true bishop. The
Catholic claim that modern bishops and priests are truly ordained is only a
guess. If a fake bishop came along the ordinations he performs are as bogus as
himself.
Most Catholics who say that the pope cannot become a heretic, or that the chair
of Peter cannot become vacant and have a fake pope on it who everybody thinks is
real still argue that if a woman was unknowingly elected pope this would simply
be an invalid election and the Church teaching on the papacy wouldn’t be
affected (page 168, Pope Fiction). They continually contradict themselves for
what if a heretic who was totally closed to divine grace became pope without
intending to be a real pope but just a pretend one to fool everybody? They say
that can’t happen and that sedevacantists are terrible for saying the Vatican II
popes are false popes and then they teach this sedevacantism themselves and
accept that it is right in principle. If the Church never realised that its new
pope was a woman and she gave out dogmas and called ecumenical councils and
taught the Church what then? The gates of hell then must have prevailed over the
Church.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of St Pius X, which
continued with traditional Catholicism in opposition to the “reforms” of Vatican
II wrote in 1978 that the last two conclaves to elect popes, for John XXIII and
Paul VI, could have questionable authority to choose the pope. Cardinals over
eighty were removed and there were secret meetings to prepare these conclaves
(see Archbishop Lefebvre’s position on The New Mass and the Pope, a leaflet you
can get from the Society of St Pius X). He argued that we must assume the
elections were valid because God needs the Church to have a visible head and to
be visible and wouldn’t let it happen that any intruder would end up
masquerading as pope for decades.
Conclusion
Sedevacantists are right that the Catholic Church is led by heretics but what’s
new? The pope claiming to be pope is heresy for such a claim was a Roman
Catholic invention. Sedevacantists show us what nonsense it is to follow the
Catholic Church. It is good to have them for they keep an eye on the mercenary
chameleon that is Catholicism and find new ways to break it up.