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

Below, in the twelfth article of this series, we will examine 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.

Judging the Pope’s Words & Deeds According to Catholic Tradition

We saw in an earlier article in this series that it is (objectively) a mortal sin of rash judgment for a person to decide that the pope is a formal heretic.¹³ Also, in a future part of this article, we will see further that it is (objectively) a mortal sin of revolution for a person to declare the pope has lost his authority as such.

On the other hand, in the eleventh article, we saw that we have a duty to resist the pope’s errors and the harm he causes.¹⁴

However, we are not Church Doctors or popes. How do we know what is true (and so know what to believe), unless we simply (and blindly) believe whatever the pope teaches us? Should we just decide for ourselves what to believe? If not, then how do we know when we have a duty to resist what the pope says or does? This seems like a quandary!

One false argument many sedevacantists use, is to present the following false alternatives:

• Either you must deny the authority of the pope in the Vatican (as they do);

• Or you must accept everything he does and says. Because (according to the false assertion of these sedevacantists), if he were pope and you pick and choose what you accept from him, then (they falsely say) it shows you have a protestant mentality (of picking and choosing).

This superficial sedevacantist “argument” relies on a false understanding of papal infallibility.

The Pope’s Ex Cathedra Infallibility

We know the pope’s words are infallible (viz., from the very fact that he utters them), only when he:

speaks ex cathedra, that is, when:

1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,

2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,

3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals,

4. to be held by the whole church.¹⁵

Here is an example of Pope Pius IX speaking ex cathedra, fulfilling these conditions, in Quanta Cura (with its syllabus of errors):

We, truly mindful of Our Apostolic duty, and especially solicitous about our most holy religion, about sound doctrine and the salvation of souls divinely entrusted to Us, and about the good of human society itself, have decided to lift our voice again. And so all and each evil opinion and doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority, We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed and condemned by all the sons of the Catholic Church.

The post-conciliar popes have taught nothing false which fulfills these rigid conditions for ex cathedra infallibility.¹⁶

Popes Can Err in All Other Teachings

Popes can err in any other teachings, unless those teachings are themselves a faithful repetition of truth contained in infallible Catholic Tradition. No pope (or anyone else) can err when faithfully repeating the teachings of Catholic Tradition.

But popes cannot teach any new doctrine infallibly. As the First Vatican Council declared: “the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine”.¹⁷

We Must Measure All Doctrine According to Its Fidelity to Catholic Tradition

Catholic catechisms distinguish between the pope’s infallible and non-infallible teachings because infallible teachings cannot conflict with the Catholic Faith (but rather, are part of it), whereas non-infallible teachings might conflict with the Catholic Faith. This distinction warns Catholics to accept all infallible teachings without possibility of error, but to accept the non-infallible teachings only provided that they do not conflict with the Catholic Faith, including infallible Catholic Tradition, i.e., the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church through the ages.

This distinction (between the pope’s infallible and non-infallible teachings) also shows that Catholics must both understand their Faith and measure other teachings against the standard of infallible Catholic Tradition.

This is why St. Paul instructed his flock to “hold fast to the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” 2 Thessalonians, 2:14. St. Paul is telling Catholics to measure all doctrine according to Catholic Tradition.

St. Paul further warned his flock to reject all new or different doctrines, which do not fit with the Tradition he taught them: “If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received [viz., from St. Paul], let him be anathema”. Galatians, 1:9 (bracketed words added to show the context).

In the year 434, St. Vincent Lerins, gave this same rule to all Catholics: viz., to adhere to Catholic Tradition and reject what is contrary:

[I]n the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic” …. [I]f some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then [a Catholic] will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty.

Commonitorium, Chs. 2-3 (emphasis added).

St. Athanasius, Doctor of the Church and Patriarch of Alexandria, told his flock that faithful adherence to Tradition shows who is Catholic: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” St. Athanasius’ letter to his flock (emphasis added).

This Catholic duty to judge all doctrines according to Catholic Tradition, is described in Liberalism is a Sin:

[B]y use of their reason[,] the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, … they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times, with the applause of the Church.¹⁸

Not only does the Church instruct us to measure new doctrines according to Catholic Tradition, but even the way God made the human mind requires this measurement. When we understand a truth of our Faith, we understand there is a connection between the particular subject and predicate which form that truth. For example, we understand that our Faith teaches us there is the link between “God” and “omnipotent”, so that we profess that “God is omnipotent”. For this reason, we know the opposite statement (i.e., de-linking this subject and predicate) must be false, viz., that “God is not omnipotent”.

It would be false to suppose that a Catholic is forbidden to compare current conciliar teachings, with Catholic Tradition, because this supposition would forbid a Catholic from understanding what he is saying (and believing) when he is professing his Faith.  (In the above example, it would forbid a Catholic from noting that “God is omnipotent” is the opposite of “God is not omnipotent”.) Similarly, by knowing what the Church has always taught and knowing the conciliar church’s teaching, a Catholic cannot help but notice these teachings are often opposites. 

To say that a Catholic is forbidden to notice this opposition would be simply to say that Catholics are forbidden to understand, and must simply memorize the sounds of words without understanding their meaning.  In other words, Catholic Tradition itself “measures” the conciliar church’s teachings.  Faithful Catholics merely notice this fact.

In contrast to our duty to measure all doctrines according to Catholic Tradition, Protestants wrongly set their own private judgment as the measure and rule of all faith. So, a Protestant chooses what he wants to believe (i.e., either the new or the old teaching). But God chooses what Catholics must believe (Catholic Tradition) and we must measure everything according to this standard.

Catholics Do Not Have a “Cut Off” Date, After Which They Ignore Papal Teaching.

Because sedevacantists deny the post-conciliar popes’ authority as such, they ignore all papal words and deeds after the “cut off” date they choose, based on when they (wrongly) decide that the Church last had a pope. Beginning on that date, they ignore anything the pope says regardless of what it is. This attitude (of the sedevacantists) is what makes them schismatic – viz., because that attitude is a rejection of the pope’s authority as such, not merely a refusal to “obey” him when he tells us to do something bad. ¹⁹

The post-conciliar popes – like all popes – have the duty to teach the Faith. If the present pope were to teach doctrine with all of the conditions of ex cathedra infallibility (as set forth in Vatican I), then this teaching would be infallible.

Further, if a post-conciliar pope teaches without fulfilling the conditions for ex cathedra infallibility, then what he teaches might be wrong. Traditional Catholics would have to carefully consider what the pope taught, to measure the pope’s teaching according to Catholic Tradition. So Traditional Catholics (unlike sedevacantists) do not have a “cut off” date for papal teachings, after which they automatically ignore such teachings.

It is true that Traditional Catholics approach a post-conciliar pope’s teaching with much greater wariness than they do the (non-infallible) teaching of Pope St. Pius X. There is good reason for this wariness. It is not that a post-conciliar pope is not pope. But faithful Catholics approach his teachings warily, like a child would approach his own father who in the past has attempted to lead the child into sin. The father has not ceased to be the child’s father (with a father’s authority), but it is good and reasonable for the child to be more wary about his father who has attempted to lead the child into sin in the past, as compared to the lack of such reserve in the child who has a saintly father.

So, a true Catholic does not refuse submission to the pope’s authority but must refuse to “obey” the pope’s abuse of his authority. If the pope is bad enough, it might appear that there is hardly anything in which the pope should be obeyed. In this way, there might be the superficial appearance that faithful Catholics and sedevacantists have the same position. But this appearance is completely wrong! Faithful Catholics do not forget the pope is their superior, even on occasions when they cannot follow what he teaches or does. By contrast, sedevacantists revolt against the pope’s authority as such, judge his interior culpability, and declare he is not Christ’s vicar. This contrast is the difference between Catholicism on the one hand, and revolution and (at least material) schism on the other hand.

We Catholics (and that child, in the above example) must hold ourselves ready to obey our superior whenever we can. So, for example, if the bad father told the child to add an extra Hail Mary to his night prayers, the child must obey. Likewise, if a post-conciliar pope told us to begin abstaining from meat on an additional day of the week (e.g., Wednesday), we would have to obey.²⁰

Conclusion

We see that sedevacantists are wrong that, just because Catholics recognize the authority of the pope, we must accept everything he says and does. Instead, Catholics must measure the pope’s words and deeds against the standard of Catholic Tradition. We must accept what conforms to Tradition and reject what conflicts with Tradition.