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

Below is the eighth article in a series which covers specific aspects of the error of sedevacantism.  As context for this eighth article, let us recall what we saw in the earlier seven 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 1.3 billion[2] people who profess that they are 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.[3]

Thus, we must judge Pope Francis to be a material heretic, not a formal heretic, and that he was the pope (until his death on April 21, 2025).  Regarding any of the world’s 1.3 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.[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 Pope Francis’ heresy (or the heresy taught by any pope) by declaring that he is not the pope.[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] 

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 the seventh article of this series, we saw that the Catholic Church is a visible Body and will be 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 he is visible to all.[9]

Below, in the eighth article of this series, we see that the necessary visibility of the Catholic Church and the pope, requires as a corollary that whoever all Catholics see (believe) is pope must be the pope, since the pope must be visible to all.

 

 

Because the pope must be visible, a necessary corollary of this truth is that whoever is accepted as the pope by nearly all Catholics, we know must be the pope by that very fact, since the pope must be visible to the Church as the pope.  This is true because, if almost all Catholics accepted the legitimacy of an anti-pope, then the true pope would be “invisible”, i.e., unknown to the Church.  Thus, because the pope must be visible to all, whoever is accepted as pope by virtually all Catholics, we know must be the pope.

 

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, explained this truth as follows:

 

It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud.  It is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such an acceptance he would become the True Pontiff.”[10]

 

When teaching this same truth, Louis Cardinal Billot identified the cause of this truth, viz., the indefectibility of the Church:

 

Beyond all doubt, it ought to be firmly held, that the adhesion of the universal Church would, in itself, always be an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a particular pope, and even for the existence of all conditions which are required for his legitimacy as pope.  Nor does it take long to identify the reason for this fact.  For the reason is taken directly from the infallible promise of Christ and from Providence: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against Her [the Church]”.  And again: “Behold, I am with you all days”, which is equivalent.[11]

 

In his book The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated, Bishop Francis Kenrick discusses whether bribes (simony) can invalidate the election of a pope.  He teaches that the Church’s acceptance of a pope cures any defect in his election but that the pope nonetheless has a moral duty to resign:

 

Should the contemplated case unfortunately occur, the guilty individual must know that he cannot conscientiously exercise the papal power.  …  [T]he acquiescence of the Church heals the defect as far as the faithful are concerned, although it does not relieve the delinquent from the necessity of abdicating the high office which he sacrilegiously assumed.[12]

 

Similarly, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology declares this same principle:

 

[W]henever the Church at large recognizes any man whatever as being Pope, that man is Pope, whatever many have been the circumstances that led to his being recognized.  … [A]cceptance by the Church is a proof that such or such a person is lawful Pope.[13]

 

But a person could ask:

 

How does this fit with the historical fact of the occurrence of the Great Western Schism? 

 

The answer is that this Western Schism in the 14^th and 15^th centuries shows nothing to the contrary.  In that schism, lasting over 40 years, there was no single man recognized by virtually all Catholics living then, as the true pope.  Instead, there was a very large faction which supported each of the two main claimants to the papacy (one of which was the true pope).  Here is how the Catholic Encyclopedia explains this great division:

 

The greater number of the Italian and German states, England, and Flanders supported the pope of Rome. On the other hand, France, Spain, Scotland, and all the nations in the orbit of France were for the pope of Avignon.[14]

 

Thus, we see that the Great Western Schism was not a situation where almost all Catholics accepted an anti-pope as the real pope.  Similarly, it would be impossible at any time for almost all Catholics to accept an anti-pope as the real pope.

 

 

There are Five Consequences of the Fact that Whomever the Whole Church Accepts as Pope, is the Pope.

 

1.   Pope Francis was the pope until his death on April 21, 2025.

 

More than 1.3 billion people worldwide, profess to be Catholic.[15] 

 

Virtually all 1.3 billion Catholics accepted Pope Francis as pope (until his death).  Thus, we know that Pope Francis was the pope, i.e., until his death on April 21, 2025.

2.   Pope Benedict XVI was not pope after his resignation in 2013.

 

The fact that Catholics universally accepted Pope Francis as pope, is one of many reasons why it is wrong to suppose that Pope Benedict XVI did not “really” resign, and continued to be the pope (instead of Pope Francis).  Virtually the whole Church accepted Pope Francis as pope (until his death), and the whole Church could never accept an anti-pope (as shown above).

3.   Each of the other post-conciliar popes was the pope in his turn.

 

Over the last 67 years (as of 2025), virtually the whole Church accepted each of the other post-conciliar popes, as pope in his turn.  Thus, we know each was the pope. 

4.   This is a further reason we know Cardinal Siri was not pope.

 

It is clear that Cardinal Siri was not pope (as a tiny group supposed).  Not only was his supposed “pontificate” invisible, but it would have opposed the pontificate of the pope universally accepted by Catholics. 

5.   This further shows the impossibility of the Church being now in a papal interregnum.

 

The Church accepted Pope Francis as pope and accepted each of his post-conciliar predecessors.  This is one of many compelling reasons why we know the Church is not in a decades-long papal interregnum because, when the Church accepted each post-conciliar pope in his turn, each one became the true pope (even if we were to suppose that, somehow, his election was irregular and that he wasn’t pope already).[16]

 

 

Further Objection:  “I understand the above reasoning showing that if virtually the entire Church accepts a man as a pope, that shows infallibly that he is the pope.  But that reasoning does not hold if the man was already a heretic upon his acceptance of that office, as surely all the post-conciliar popes have been, including Jorge Bergoglio.”  

 

Further Response:  This objection is answered by the arguments contained in the first and second articles of this series.  This objection fails to make the crucial distinction between formal and material heresy.  Material heresy (alone) does not prevent a man from becoming or from being accepted universally as pope, no matter how publicly he insists on teaching his heretical opinion. 

 

In those first two articles, we saw that we have no evidence that Pope Francis or any of the post Vatican II popes are/were formal heretics (rather than a material heretics only).  Thus, we cannot conclude that they are/were outside the true Catholic Church, based simply on their persistent, public teaching of heretical opinions.^[17]   All of the post-Vatican II popes professed to be Catholic before and after their election.  Thus, we cannot judge them to be formal heretics.