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

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

In the first article, we saw that we cannot know whether the pope (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 1.4 billion² people who profess to be Catholic. We must not judge they are not “real” Catholics if they tell us that they are Catholics. Instead, we should count them as Catholics who are very confused or are uninformed.³

Thus, we must judge the conciliar popes to have been material heretics, not formal heretics (if we judge them at all), and that each was pope in his turn until his death (or abdication). Regarding any of the world’s 1.4 billion self-described Catholics who hold heresy, we must judge them to be material heretics only (if we judge them at all), unless they themselves tell us that they know they don’t qualify to be Catholics.⁴

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.⁵

In the fourth article, we saw that it does not help us to protect ourselves better from a conciliar pope’s heresy, to declare that we know he is not the pope and is not a Catholic.⁶

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.⁷ We looked especially at the cases of Pope John XXII and Pope Nicholas I, who both taught explicit heresy while pope and nonetheless continued to be the pope. Pope John XXII also taught the same explicit heresy before he became the pope.

In the sixth article, we saw that the Church infallibly assures us that we will have a pope at all times until the end of the world, except during 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.⁸ In this sixth article, we saw that we are not presently in an interregnum (even though the sedevacantists absurdly claim we are in a many-decades-long interregnum).

In the seventh article of this series, we saw that the Catholic Church is a visible Body and remains visible to all. The Catholic Church has a visible monarchical government and the pope is visible to all. Thus, we know we have a pope and that the one who is pope is visible (known) to all as the pope.⁹

In the eighth article, we saw that the necessary visibility of the Catholic Church and the pope, requires as a corollary that the one who virtually all Catholics see (believe) is the pope must be the pope, since the pope must be visible to all.

In the ninth article, we addressed the superficial “argument” of sedevacantists (addressed to Catholics) saying that “if you think we have a pope, then you have to obey him in whatever he tells you to do”. We examined the true Catholic virtue of obedience and saw that we must not obey the commands of even a real superior like our pope, if/when he commands us to do something evil.¹⁰

In the tenth article, we saw more deeply what schism is and how sedevacantism is inherently schism.¹¹

In the eleventh article of this series, we saw more deeply how we should respond to a pope (or other superior) who does harm – viz., we should recognize his authority as pope but resist the evil of his words or deeds.¹²

In the twelfth article of this series, we saw how we ordinary Catholic laymen can know what the Catholic Truth is and how we can know when the pope (or anyone) is promoting error.¹³

Below, in the thirteenth article of this series, we will examine a related sedevacantist error, claiming we that we have no pope because the conciliar popes had doubtful consecrations and/or ordinations.

An Explanation How the Catholic Church Continues to Possess A Full Hierarchy even in these Times of Great Apostasy

Against the Sedevacantist Argument that only a Valid Bishop Can Be Pope because He is Bishop of Rome

From the many prior articles in this series (linked above), it is plain that sedevacantism is wrong. However, some sedevacantists use a different, more indirect attack on our present pope’s possession of his office. They assert that because one of the pope’s titles is “Bishop of Rome”,¹⁴ he cannot be pope because he is not a valid bishop. 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.

While those sedevacantists are rash¹⁵ to the extent they claim certitude that conciliar consecrations are invalid, it is true that conciliar consecrations and ordinations are inherently doubtful, and that doubtful sacraments should be treated as invalid (because they might be invalid).¹⁶

However, as shown below, a more careful examination of this sedevacantist argument (viz., that the pope must be a valid bishop because he is the Bishop of Rome) shows that even if the pope is a layman (i.e., not a bishop or priest), this is not an obstacle to his valid papacy.

The papacy is a monarchy, giving the pope jurisdiction (i.e., governing authority) over the entire Catholic Church, as Vicar of Christ. But this jurisdiction which is the essence of the papal office, does not require the pope to be a bishop or even a priest, to validly hold the papal office. Certainly, the Catholic Church has good reason for Her custom that the pope be a bishop, because it is very fitting that the ruler over even the bishops, would himself be a bishop.

However, to hold the papal office and possess this universal jurisdiction which the pope has, does not require him to be a bishop as an essential condition which would otherwise prevent him from being pope.

A pope must be a male Catholic¹⁷ who has use of his reason when elected. To become pope, any such male Catholic¹⁸ only needs to be elected and to consent.¹⁹ By being elected and consenting, this male would immediately become the pope but he would have the moral obligation to seek Episcopal consecration so he could fulfill the sacramental duties of a pope.²⁰

But once a male Catholic is elected and consents to be pope, he is the pope without any need of ceremony, coronation, or confirmation in office.²¹

Thus, because all conciliar popes have been Catholic males who had the use of reason, each of them, in his turn, was a valid pope with full papal jurisdiction (to govern), even if he were not a valid bishop (or even a priest) and did not have Episcopal powers to perform sacraments.

With full papal jurisdictional powers, he governs not only the universal Church but he also governs Rome as Bishop of Rome,²² although, again, he could not ordain priests or otherwise exercise Episcopal sacramental powers without himself being first validly consecrated a bishop.

This same principle (which allows a layman to be pope) applies to local ordinaries throughout the world, who exercise true jurisdictional power over their dioceses, even if they are laymen.

For the same reason that the pope does not have to be consecrated a bishop or even ordained a priest, in order to wield universal jurisdiction to govern the Catholic Church as pope, likewise the Ordinary of a diocese does not need to be consecrated a bishop or even ordained a priest to govern his diocese.

Being the Ordinary of a diocese is an office of jurisdiction (viz., of governing). The Ordinary receives jurisdiction from the pope by being appointed by the pope. He is like the “king” of the diocese (under the pope) and wields jurisdictional power (under the pope) in that particular diocese.²³ As is the custom of the Church, it is very fitting that the local Ordinary be a bishop, since the Ordinary will govern the Church in that diocese, including any auxiliary bishops and diocesan priests there.

Conclusion One of this Article: The Catholic Church has a full, worldwide hierarchy (not only a pope), even though that (post conciliar) hierarchy abuses its power and promotes error.

The Catholic Church not only has a Pope but also a full worldwide hierarchy of diocesan Ordinaries possessing true jurisdiction to govern those dioceses (portions of the Catholic Church) even if they are laymen (and even though they abuse their authority).

Each Ordinary around the world has been appointed by the pope to govern his diocese. Even if he is a layman, he has the jurisdiction to govern.

Conclusion Two of this Article: The Catholic Church has in place the structure to elect future popes.

When the pope dies, it is the cardinals’ duty to elect another pope. A cardinal does not need to be a bishop (just as Cardinal John Henry Newman was not). The recent popes have used their jurisdictional power to continue appointing cardinals (even supposing they are laymen) to elect future popes, leaving in place the structure for papal succession.

By contrast, sedevacantists speculate that God will somehow miraculously intervene to raise up a pope, although they deny the Church has had any pope, cardinals, or hierarchy for decades.

The sedevacantists’ false, unfounded supposition that God will revive the Church by Divine intervention, would really be a new, second founding of the Church (or founding of a new church). This (false) sedevacantist theory is un-Traditional because God founded His Church once, with the Church perpetually handing down Her doctrine and Her hierarchical authority.

It is as baseless for the sedevacantists to assert that God will miraculously choose a new pope as it would be for God to miraculously establish a new doctrine.

Conclusion Three of this Article: Because a Man Elected Pope must also Voluntarily accept his Election (in order for the Papal Office to vest in him), this further Refutes the False Theory that Cardinal Siri Was the Real Pope in Place of one (or more) of the Conciliar Popes.

One small, confused sedevacantist group denies the real pope because they believe that Cardinal Siri was validly elected in one or more of the conclaves after the death of Pope Pius XII. This group variously speculates either that Cardinal Siri was pressured not to accept the office or pressured to resign during the conclave, after he first (but very briefly) accepted his election as pope.

In fact, if it were true (hypothetically) that Cardinal Siri had been elected but had been pressured to not accept the office, then (as shown above) he would never have been pope, since the man who has been elected does not become pope without accepting this office.

If (hypothetically) Siri accepted his election and then decided to resign almost immediately (e.g., because he was threatened), then having resigned, the conclave could elect another pope (and so Siri would have been the real pope for only a few minutes).

Further, some members of this small, confused group of Siri advocates somehow suppose that Cardinal Siri continued to be pope but that the oath of secrecy prevented him from revealing that he was elected pope. However, this oath pertains to the secrecy of deliberations and to inconclusive votes.

There is obviously nothing to prevent a cardinal from disclosing his own election or any other person’s election after it occurs. This is obvious because all the cardinals swear this oath of secrecy. If they could never reveal the successful election of a pope, then a successful election could never be disclosed and no one outside the conclave would ever know who the new pope is.

Thus, if (hypothetically) Siri were elected pope, had accepted his election, and continued in office, he would have had a duty (as would everyone else in the conclave) to state this “fact”. Yet, in the decades after these conclaves, Siri never claimed to be pope nor did any other member of the conclave proclaim him as pope. Instead, Cardinal Siri recognized those same popes recognized by everyone else. Plainly, the Siri hypothesis is unworthy of belief.