Catholic Candle note: Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism.  Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist. 

Below is the sixth article in a series which covers specific aspects of the error of sedevacantism.  As context for this sixth article of this series against the error of sedevacantism, let us recall what we saw in the earlier five articles:

In the first article, we saw that we cannot know whether Pope Francis (or anyone else) is a formal heretic (rather than a material heretic only) – and thus whether he is outside the true Catholic Church – based simply on his persistent, public teaching of a heretical opinion.[1]

Then in the second article, we saw that we must not judge a man to be a formal heretic if he professes to be Catholic and says he believes what a Catholic must believe now, in order to be Catholic now.  When a person professes a heretical opinion, we must judge him in the most favorable light (if we judge him at all).  So, we must avoid the sin of rash judgment and we must not judge negatively the interior culpability of the pope and the 1.2 billion people who profess that they are Catholic.  We must not judge they are not “real” Catholics if they tell us that they are Catholics.[2]  Instead, we should count them as Catholics who are very confused.

Thus, we must judge Pope Francis to be a material heretic, not a formal heretic, and that he is the pope.  Regarding any of the world’s 1.2 billion self-described Catholics who hold heresy, we must judge them (if we judge them at all) to be material heretics only, unless they themselves tell us that they know they don’t qualify to be Catholics.[3]

In the third article, we examined briefly the important difference between persons in authority who fulfill their duty to judge those under their charge in the external forum, as contrasted to a sedevacantist or anyone else except God who judges the interior culpability of other persons and (rashly) judges them to be formal heretics.[4] 

In the fourth article, we saw that it does not help us to protect ourselves better from Pope Francis’ heresy by declaring that he is not the pope.[5]

In the fifth article, we saw that it is possible for a pope to teach (or believe) heresy and, in fact, popes have taught and believed heresy at various times during Church history.[6] 

Below, in the sixth article of this series, we see that the Church infallibly assures us that we will have a pope at all times until the end of the world, except very short interregnums between papal reigns, during which the Church is in the process of electing a new pope and during which the Church’s unified government continues to function.

The Catholic Church Will Always Have a Pope

Because the Post-Vatican II popes have regularly committed shocking scandals – especially Pope Francis – a Catholic might be tempted to conclude from mere feelings rather than from an informed mind, that there is no pope.  However, that reaction is an error.  The Catholic Church teaches that She will always have a pope, until the very end of the world:

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.[7]

The great Doctor of the Church, Saint Francis de Sales, teaches the same thing:

St. Peter has had successors, has them in these days, and will have them even to the end of the ages.[8]

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.[9]

Conclusion

We know with complete certainty that the sedevacantists are wrong in their (objectively-heretical) assertion that the Catholic Church does not have a pope.

The Catholic Church is Not in an Interregnum

Sedevacantists generally hold that Pope Pius XII has had no successors during the last 67 years.  In an attempt to avoid the contradiction between Vatican I’s infallible teaching and their own (false) theory, the sedevacantists simply label the last 67[10] years as a “papal interregnum”.

But if a sedevacantist would examine his position objectively, he would see that the supposed “facts” he asserts would not constitute a real interregnum but rather would be in an interruption in papal (monarchical) succession.  The sedevacantists assert that there will be a pope in some future time.  But their theory (viz., no pope now, but there will be a future pope) really supposes there would be (what historians call) a restoration of the (papal) monarchy which had been interrupted.[11] 

The Difference between a Real Papal Interregnum and the Sedevacantists’ False Assertion of a Current Interregnum.

Throughout Church history, no pope was ever elected until the previous pope died (or abdicated).  Thus, there was always a short interregnum, during which the electors promptly began the process of choosing a new pope and they continued their task until a new pope was chosen.

Choosing a new pope has often taken only days.  But the sedevacantists try to liken the 67-year (supposed) papal interregnum which they assert, to the very extreme and unusual interregnum which ended in Pope Gregory X’s election in 1272.  This interregnum was 2¾ years and is the longest in Church history.[12]

The election of Pope Gregory X took 2¾ years because the Cardinal electors had a profound disagreement which caused those Cardinals to labor that long electing a new pope.  But they kept trying until they succeeded in electing a new pope.

This interregnum (before Pope Gregory X’s election) is very different from the supposed interregnum asserted by the sedevacantists, for five reasons:

1.    The sedevacantists assert an interregnum which is over 24 times longer than the Church’s longest interregnum (ending in the election of Pope Gregory X).

2.    Taking into account the speed of communication of particular times throughout history, never in Church history did virtually every Catholic think that a pope reigned when the papal throne was vacant.  By contrast, the tiny sedevacantist “elite” thinks that the Chair of St. Peter is vacant and only this “elite” “knows” it. 

3.    In the case of every 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.  In fact, it would be impossible for this to happen as will be shown in a future article.  But the tiny sedevacantist “elite” wrongly thinks this has occurred today and that only their tiny “elite” “knows” the truth.

4.    In every interregnum beginning with St. Peter’s death, the papal electors promptly set about the task of choosing a new pope.  Even in the most extreme case of laboring 2¾ years to choose a new pope, the electors began promptly and did not stop trying until they succeeded. 

By contrast, the sedevacantists assert there has been no attempt to even begin electing a new pope during this 67-year (supposed) interregnum, because the sedevacantists assert that no Cardinal electors remain to elect a new pope because they are all disqualified by (supposedly) ceasing to be members of the Catholic Church.

5.    During papal interregnums, 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.  See the discussion below.

A Quick Reminder of Basic Catechism Concerning the Four Marks of the Catholic Church.

Before we look more deeply into the impossibility of the sedevacantists’ false theory that we are in a long papal interregnum, let us remember a little basic catechism concerning the Four Marks of the Church.

The Four Marks of the Church are One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.[13]  These four marks are only contained in the Catholic Church and are the way to always discern the True Church founded by Jesus Christ.[14]

1.    The Church is One because its members 1) are all united under one government, 2) all profess the same faith, 3) all join in a common worship.[15]

 

2.    To show that the Church possesses the note of holiness it suffices to establish that her teaching is holy: that she is endowed with the means of producing supernatural holiness in her children.[16]

3.    The third mark of the Church is that she is Catholic, that is, universal.[17]

 

4.   Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles.[18] 

The Sedevacantist Interregnum Theory Contradicts Catholic Teaching that the Church’s Unity of Government is Part of the Church’s Mark of Unity.

It is a basic truth of the catechism that the Catholic Church has a unified, monarchic government.[19]  This unity of government makes the Church one throughout the world.[20]  This central government is an element of the Church’s Mark of Unity.[21]

One large Catholic Dictionary explained the need for the Church’s unity of government by setting forth the contrast to the disunited German States of the early 19^th Century, which were united under a common language, beliefs, and practices, but were not one country:

The Catholic Roman Church … is one because all her members are united under one visible head ….  Some years ago, a great deal was said about the unity of Germany, which was eagerly desired by many.  Germans had many points in common: they all spoke the same language; the same blood flowed in their veins; they were proud of the same literature; they were bound together by many ennobling recollections, and, in some measure, by common aspirations.  But the German States were not one because they were not under one government.[22]

For the Catholic Church to lose Her unity of government, even temporarily, would be to lose an element of the Mark of Unity, at least temporarily.  Id.  If there were times when the Church did not have this element of the Mark of Unity, then this element would never be part of the Mark, because the Marks of the Church are inseparable from the Church and are signs by which we can always discern the true Church.[23] 

Just as the Church is always unified in Faith, She is always unified in Government.  Thus, when a pope dies, if the Church’s central Government ceased to function, the Church’s unity of government would also cease.  That does not happen. 

Even during papal interregnums, the Church’s central government continues to function, although under somewhat different rules.   Important Pontifical matters which are not urgent are deferred until the election of the new pope.[24]  Urgent Pontifical matters are handled by majority decisions of the cardinals.[25]  Sacred Congregations continue to handle routine matters.[26]  We could list many more details about the continued functioning of the Church’s central Government during a true interregnum.[27]  But in summary, the Church’s central Government always continues functioning and the Church maintains Her Mark of Unity in Her Government even during a papal interregnum.

Above, we use as an example, Pope St. Pius X’s 1904 revision of the rules for the operation of the Church’s central Government during a papal interregnum.  But this revision is only one of the various versions of the rules over the centuries.  The rules have also been tweaked by Pope Pius IV, Pope Gregory XV, Pope Clement XII and other popes.  But regardless of the details, the Church’s central Government always continues to function even during an interregnum (although, as said above, under somewhat different rules than when a pope is alive).

Because sedevacantists (falsely) assert that not only the pope but everyone else in the Church’s government (Cardinals, Chamberlains, etc.) is outside the Catholic Church, the sedevacantists’ interregnum theory results in the (supposed) destruction of the unity and the continuity of the Church’s central government for 67 years now.  This results in a concrete denial of Catholic teaching that unity of government is an element of the Church’s Mark of Unity, since the Church’s Marks are never lost, even temporarily.

Conclusion of This Examination of the Sedevacantists Assertion that the Church is in an Interregnum

The past 67 years are much different than a papal interregnum.  The sedevacantist theory contradicts the consistent Catholic teaching concerning the unity and continuity of the Church’s government, which is an element of Her Mark of Unity.

The truth is that the Catholic Church will always have unity and continuity in Her central government even during a papal interregnum, but this does not mean that She will always be governed well.

So, we know that we must have a pope because St. Peter will have “perpetual successors”; he “has them in these days”; and there is a pope who is “alive at the moment”.[28]