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

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

In the thirteenth article of this series, we saw the falsehood of a related sedevacantist error (or “half-truth”), claiming that we have no pope because the conciliar popes had doubtful consecrations and/or ordinations.¹⁴

Now, in the fourteenth article in this series, we consider another way to see that sedevacantism is wrong and sinful, viz., because it is the sin of revolution.

Sedevacantism is Un-Catholic
Because it is Revolutionary

Resistance is different from revolt. When someone in authority commands something evil, it is one thing to resist that command, but it is a further step to use that evil command as a basis for rejecting the ruler’s authority as such. This further step is to revolt.

For example, the American revolutionaries considered it evil that King George III imposed taxes on them without their consent, and that he did many other things to which they objected. But the American revolutionaries not only resisted such commands of King George but also used the commands as a (purported) “justification” for their revolution.

In their Declaration of Independence, the revolutionaries objected to many things such as their king “quartering large bodies of armed troops among us”; “imposing taxes on us without our consent”; and “depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury”.

After listing their grievances, the American revolutionaries then did what all revolutionaries do: they said that their ruler was to blame for their own revolution because his conduct caused him to lose his status as their king. The American revolutionaries declared that King George III “whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

The American revolutionaries did what revolutionaries always do: they declared that their ruler had lost all authority over them. Here are their words:

[T]hese United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.

Finally, the American revolutionaries then did something else which revolutionaries always do: they declared that it was their right (or duty) to revolt:

[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations … evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is [the colonies’] right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.

This is what it is to be a revolutionary: to reject and resist not just particular (perhaps evil) commands but to also reject the very authority of one’s ruler.

The American revolutionaries followed the same pattern as countless other revolutionaries, e.g., in France, Russia, Latin America, and the Protestant revolutionaries. In all human history – civil as well as religious – there is not even one revolution¹⁵ which the Catholic Church recognizes to have been praiseworthy and not sinful.¹⁶

In summary, revolutionaries (including the sedevacantists) follow a common pattern:

1. they assert that their ruler committed wrongs (whether actual wrongs or merely imagined); and then

   
   

2. they use such wrongs as a basis to declare that their ruler’s own conduct has resulted in his losing his authority to rule them.

   
   

The Cristeros were Not Revolutionaries

On a superficial level, a person might have the false impression that the Mexican Cristeros were revolutionaries because they took up arms against their anti-Catholic ruler in the early 20^th Century. But the Cristeros’ goal was to defend their priests, their churches, and the Catholicism of their families. The Cristeros resisted the many wrongs committed by their anti-Catholic government. By successfully taking up arms, the Cristeros prevented the anti-Catholic government from unjustly harming them (arresting them, killing them, etc.).

But unlike persons who are revolutionaries, the Cristeros never used their government’s wrongs as a basis to declare that their government had lost all authority over them.¹⁷ Instead, by taking up arms, the Cristeros merely prevented their lawful (but anti-Catholic) government from doing the harm it intended.

Sedevacantists are Revolutionaries

Unlike the Cristeros, sedevacantists are revolutionaries. Sedevacantists correctly recognize that the pope has committed many wrongs. Instead of resisting only the pope’s wrongs, the sedevacantists follow the pattern of other revolutionaries by using these wrongs as a basis for denying that the pope has his authority and office. 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.

Some sedevacantists vainly attempt to avoid their status as revolutionaries, by saying they are not revolting against their ruler (the pope) because his conduct caused him to lose his status as their ruler (pope). But they fail to see how they beg the question. This would be like the American revolutionaries saying they are not revolting against their ruler (King George III) because his conduct makes him not their real ruler. Such circular “reasoning” merely assumes their conclusion as a premise for their “argument” that they are not revolutionaries. In other words, they would claim that they do not deny the authority of the ruler over them because they deny he has the authority of the ruler over them.

Of course, the Church has had several rulers (popes) in a row since the beginning of the sedevacantist revolution. Having revolted against Pope John XXIII, sedevacantists take as a “matter of course” the rejection of the subsequent popes’ authority, just as the American Revolutionaries took as a “matter of course” that King George III’s successors had no authority over them.

A person might wrongly believe that sedevacantists are not revolutionaries, based on the superficial supposition that revolution must involve physical fighting. But what is essential to revolution is for persons to declare that their ruler has lost his authority to rule them. A revolution need not involve physical fighting. For example, the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893 did not involve any physical fighting. Likewise, any physical fighting was not essential to the Protestant Revolution against the Catholic Church.

Also, a person might wrongly believe sedevacantism is not revolutionary, based on the superficial supposition that revolution must involve deposing a ruler from his throne or office. However, what is essential to revolution is the rejection of a ruler’s authority, but this might pertain to only certain persons or places. For example, in the American Revolution, the colonists did not cause King George III to lose his throne entirely. They succeeded merely in revolting against his authority in the thirteen American colonies. Similarly, the Protestant Revolution did not depose the pope from his throne but the Protestant revolutionaries merely rejected his authority among certain persons or in certain places.

Revolution is Always Wrong

It is un-Catholic to be a revolutionary. All authority comes from God, regardless of the method by which a ruler is chosen to wield civil or religious power. Here is how St. Paul teaches this truth:

[T]here is no power [whether civil or religious] but from God: and those [powers] that are, are ordained of God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power [whether civil or religious], resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. … For [the ruler] is God’s minister. … Wherefore, be subject of necessity, not only for [the ruler’s] wrath, but also for conscience’s sake.¹⁸

Pope Pius IX faithfully echoed St. Paul:

[A]ll authority [whether civil or religious] comes from God. Whoever resists authority resists the ordering made by God Himself, consequently achieving his own condemnation; disobeying authority [whether civil or religious] is always sinful except when an order is given which is opposed to the laws of God and the Church.¹⁹

Pope Pius IX taught this same doctrine in his infallible condemnation of the following erroneous proposition:

It is permissible to refuse obedience to legitimate rulers [whether civil or religious], and even to revolt against them.²⁰

Pope Leo XIII taught the same doctrine as St. Paul and Pope Pius IX. Here are Pope Leo XIII’s words:

If, however, it should ever happen that public power [whether civil or religious] is exercised by rulers rashly and beyond measure, the doctrine of the Catholic Church does not permit rising up against them on one’s own terms, lest quiet and order be more and more disturbed, or lest society receive greater harm therefrom.²¹

Because it is sinful to even willfully desire to sin, Pope Leo XIII taught that even the “desire for revolution” is a “vice”. Auspicato Concessu, §24.

St. Ambrose, Doctor of the Church, teaches this same truth, viz., that Catholics are not revolutionaries and must obey their rulers in those matters that are not sinful. Here are his words:

It is a great and spiritual lesson, which teaches Christians submission to the sovereign power, so that no one will allow himself to break the edicts of a king of the earth.²²

Although, as we saw earlier,²³ we are not allowed to commit a sin regardless of who commands us to commit the sin, St. Ambrose here teaches us that we are bound in conscience to otherwise submit to the edicts of the ruler. Thus, even more so, we cannot revolt against him.

Because revolution is always wrong, that is why Pope St. Pius X taught that revolutionaries could not possibly be the true friends of the people. Here are his words:

The Church, which has never betrayed the happiness of the people by consenting to dubious alliances, does not have to free herself from the past; that all that is needed is to take up again, with the help of the true workers for a social restoration, the organisms which the Revolution shattered, and to adapt them, in the same Christian spirit that inspired them, to the new environment arising from the material development of today’s society. Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists.²⁴

If We Cannot Revolt, Then What Should We Do When We Have Bad Rulers?

Although revolution is forbidden, Pope Leo XIII gave us the remedies of patience, prayer, and resistance to the particular evil commands of a bad ruler. Here are his words:

Whenever matters have come to such a pass that no other hope of a solution is evident, [the doctrine of the Catholic Church] teaches that a remedy is to be hastened through the merits of Christian patience, and by urgent prayers to God.

But if the decisions of legislators and rulers should sanction or order something that is contrary to divine and natural law, the dignity and duty of the Christian name and the opinion of the apostles urge that “we ought to obey God, rather than men” (Acts 5:29).²⁵

St. Thomas offers the same remedy to persons who suffer the evil of a bad ruler:

[S]ometimes God permits evil rulers [whether civil or religious] to afflict good men. This affliction is for the good of such good men, as St. Paul says above [ch.8, v.28]: “All things work for the good, for those who love God.”²⁶

St. Peter, the first pope, infallibly gives the same remedy (prayer and patience) – not revolution – when subjects have a bad ruler. Here are his words:

Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God’s sake: whether it be to the king as excelling; or to governors as sent by him … Honor the king. … For this is thankworthy, if for conscience towards God, a man endure sorrows, suffering wrongfully. … [I]f doing well you suffer patiently; this is thankworthy before God.²⁷

Notice that the revolutionaries intend the opposite of what St. Peter instructs us to do. They intend not to honor the king but to dishonor him by revolting against him. This is the most extreme way possible to dishonor him in so far as he is their ruler.

Further, St. Peter instructs us to “endure sorrows”, and to “suffer patiently” when we have a bad ruler. By contrast, revolutionaries seek the opposite, viz., to avoid enduring the sorrow of a bad ruler and avoid suffering patiently under him.

Plainly, revolutionaries seek the opposite of what St. Peter instructs us to seek.

The Examples of the Saints Show Revolution is Wrong

Look at the example of Catholics, including great saints like St. Sebastian, who served bravely and faithfully even in the army of the pagan emperors of Rome. They did not revolt, even when their emperor openly sought to kill all Catholics (although, of course, those soldier-saints did not aid in the persecution of Catholics).

Here is Pope Gregory XVI’s praise for those Roman soldier-saints, who were faithful to God first but also to their emperor (whenever the emperor’s commands were not themselves evil):

[T]he early Christians … deserved well of the emperors and of the safety of the state even while persecution raged. This they proved splendidly by their fidelity in performing perfectly and promptly whatever they were commanded which was not opposed to their religion, and even more by their constancy and the shedding of their blood in battle. “Christian soldiers”, says St. Augustine, “served an infidel emperor. When the issue of Christ was raised, they acknowledged no one but the One who is in heaven. They distinguished the eternal Lord from the temporal lord, but were also subject to the temporal lord for the sake of the eternal Lord.”

St. Mauritius, the unconquered martyr and leader of the Theban legion had this in mind when, as St. Eucharius reports, he answered the emperor in these words: “We are your soldiers, Emperor, but also servants of God, and this we confess freely . . . and now this final necessity of life has not driven us into rebellion.” …

Indeed, the faith of the early Christians shines more brightly, if we consider with Tertullian, that since the Christians were not lacking in numbers and in troops, they could have acted as foreign enemies. “We are but of yesterday”, he says, “yet we have filled all your cities, islands, fortresses, municipalities, assembly places, the camps themselves, the tribes, the divisions, the palace, the senate, the forum. … For what war should we not have been fit and ready even if unequal in forces – we who are so glad to be cut to pieces – were it not, of course, that in our doctrine we would have been permitted more to be killed rather than to kill? … [Y]ou have fewer enemies because of the multitude of Christians.”

These beautiful examples of the unchanging subjection to the rulers necessarily proceeded from the most holy precepts of the Christian religion.²⁸

Summary of this Article so Far

As shown above, it is Catholic dogma that revolution is always wrong but that resisting the particular evil commands of our ruler is permitted and sometimes necessary. When resisting is just, such resistance might include taking up arms and fighting the government soldiers who seek to enforce the ruler’s evil orders. The Cristeros did this in Mexico.

If the evil is great enough, the resisters may even place themselves beyond the reach of the harm which the ruler seeks to unjustly inflict on them. The Cristeros did this, succeeding in defending three quarters of Mexico from the anti-Catholic harm attempted by Mexico’s government.²⁹

However, even when strong resistance is justified by the greatness of the evil attempted by the ruler, those persons resisting the evil are not permitted to revolt, i.e., to declare that the ruler has ceased to be their ruler. The ruler does not lose his authority in principle, even when the resisters prevent him by force of arms from accomplishing in practice the evil he wishes to do. This is the meaning of Pope Pius IX’s infallible condemnation of the assertion that “It is permissible … to revolt”. (See above.)

Regarding the early soldier-saints fighting in the Roman army (see above) even while the emperor martyred Catholics: those Catholic soldier-saints faithfully served their emperor in other activities which were honorable and never aided the Roman persecution of Catholics. Those soldier-saints of Rome did not choose to do what the Cristeros did, viz., defend themselves (without revolting). As quoted above, St. Augustine, Pope Gregory XVI and the other authorities do not address the option of armed resistance, while they praise those soldier-saints for not revolting.

A Note About a Different but Related Issue: How Can We Determine Whether a Ruler is the Legitimate Ruler?

Above, we see that Catholics must never revolt against their legitimate ruler (although they may resist his evil commands). However, a person can ask: “How do we know when a ruler is legitimate?”

This article does not lay out principles from which we can know in all cases if a ruler is legitimate. There are many ways a ruler might not be the legitimate ruler. Here is an easy case of a ruler being illegitimate:

When the head of a foreign, attacking army first lands on a country’s soil and immediately declares himself the legitimate ruler of the country simply because he is there and is strong, this seems like an easy case that he is a usurper and not a rightful, legitimate ruler of the country he is attacking. The people of that country can deny his authority over them and fight against him to try to expel him from the country.

In this article, we don’t treat the various possible ways in which a ruler might be illegitimate since we don’t need to do that because the sedevacantists began their revolution against a pope whom they recognize as having been elected at the conclave. The sedevacantists do not raise a doubt about Pope John XXIII’s becoming pope. For example, the sedevacantists do not claim that the papal conclave did not conduct a proper vote. The sedevacantists reject the pope’s authority because of what he did and said, not because he had never been their ruler (pope) in the first place.

This is like the American revolutionaries, who did not say that King George III was never their king, e.g., because he was not the proper heir to the throne of England. Instead, sedevacantists and the American revolutionaries declare that their ruler lost his legitimacy (his authority) because of what he said and did. For this reason, the sedevacantists are revolutionaries.

Thus, although there are many circumstances in which it would not be revolution to deny that a particular ruler was legitimate and had authority because of how he (supposedly) received his office, that is not an issue either with the American revolutionaries or with the sedevacantists who claim their ruler (the king and the pope respectively) lost his authority by his actions.³⁰

Prohibition Against All Revolution Especially Forbids Rebellion Against the Pope’s Authority as Such.

Since the Catholic Church’s ruler, above all others, has authority from God, the prohibition against revolution most of all applies to revolt against the pope’s authority, as such. Thus, St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, explains that:

[I]t is licit to resist the Pontiff who … tries to destroy the Church.  I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.³¹

Sedevacantism is an Over-Simplification of the Truth.

A Catholic Dictionary characterizes the traits of revolution in this way:

The methods of the Gospel are not revolutionary; they do not deal in those sweeping general assertions which fuller experience always shows to be but half-truths.³²

A sedevacantist exhibits such revolutionary traits. He “leaps” from the truth that the pope has taught and done much evil, to the declaration that we have no pope. Thus, the sedevacantist over-simplifies the truth through sweeping general assertions and half-truths about his ruler (the pope).

Conclusion of This Article

Without judging sedevacantists’ interior culpability, it is nonetheless plain that sedevacantists follow the objectively sinful pattern of revolutionaries. They assert that the wrongs committed by the pope – who is their ruler – are (purported) justification both for declaring he has lost his authority to rule them and that he is not the pope. Thus, we see that, in addition to the other reasons why the sedevacantists are wrong, they are also wrong because they are revolutionaries.

But a Question Arises: If We Cannot Deny that Leo XIV is Pope, Does that Mean We Are in Communion with Him?

Sedevacantists attempt to show that their own Catholicism is “exalted and pure” by saying that they are not, and would never be, connected with that man (who is our pope) because his words and deeds are often so problematic, scandalous, and heterodox.

So these sedevacantists attempt to pressure Catholics into becoming schismatics by urging those Catholics: “Don’t be in communion with that man (the pope)!”, suggesting that somehow it is un-Catholic to be in communion with a bad pope.

So the question arises: Are we Catholics really in communion with the pope, even when he is a bad, scandalous pope or teaches heresy? We will examine that question in a future article.

To be continued …