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

Below is the seventeenth article in a series which covers specific aspects of the error of sedevacantism. As context for this seventeenth article, let us recall what we saw in the earlier sixteen 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 (i.e., believe) is the pope must be the pope, since the pope must be visible to all.¹⁰

In the ninth article, we addressed the superficial claim 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.¹¹

In the tenth article, we saw more deeply what schism is and how sedevacantism is inherently schism.¹²

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 but resist the evil of his words or deeds.¹³

In the twelfth article of this series, we saw how we ordinary Catholic laymen can recognize what the Catholic Truth is and how we can know when the pope (or anyone) is promoting heresy or other error.¹⁴

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.¹⁵

In the fourteenth article of this series, we considered another way to see that sedevacantism is wrong and sinful, viz., because it is the sin of revolution.¹⁶

In the fifteenth article of this series, we saw that even though Pope Leo XIV is objectively a very bad pope, all Catholics are in communion with him, since this is an essential condition of being Catholic and not schismatic.¹⁷

In the sixteenth article of this series, we considered the position (and saw the error) that those who pray for the pope in the Canon of the Mass are declaring that they adopt his errors.¹⁸

Now, in the seventeenth article of this series, we consider we must have a pope because the Fatima apparitions show that a pope will consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The Revelations to Sister Lucy of Fatima Show That the Catholic Church has a Pope Now

Part 17

The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that there will always be a pope.¹⁹ For example, the First Vatican Council 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.²⁰

This dogma fits perfectly with the revelations given to Sister Lucy (one of the Fatima seers) in connection with Our Lady of Fatima’s request (and her Son’s command) for the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart.

The Fatima Request that the Pope and Bishops Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

In 1917, Our Lady of Fatima revealed that God Wills that Russia be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart. Our Lady promised to come later and, at that later time, to ask for the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart. Here are her words in 1917:

I shall come [viz., in 1929] to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, by the Holy Father and all the bishops of the world. If my request is heeded [i.e., promptly], Russia will be converted and there will be peace. If not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecution against the Church.²¹

On this same day in 1917, Our Lady of Fatima revealed to the three Children of Fatima that the pope definitely will consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart and through this means God will grant peace. However, as shown further below, this consecration will be greatly delayed. Here are Our Lady’s words in 1917:

The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she [viz., Russia] shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.²²

Then Our Lady of Fatima came to Sister Lucy (one of the Fatima seers) in 1929 and told her:

The moment has come when God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save [viz., Russia] by this means.…²³

In 1929, Our Lord assured Sister Lucy that the pope and bishops would actually perform this consecration – but only after a long delay. Here are Sister Lucy’s words describing Our Lord’s revelation to her:

Later on, by means of an interior communication, Our Lord said to me, complaining: “They [viz., Pope Pius XI and the bishops of the world] did not want to heed My request! … Like the King of France, they [viz., the pope and bishops of the world] will repent and do it, but it will be late.²⁴

Again, in 1931, Our Lord assured Sister Lucy that the pope and bishops will perform this consecration – but He revealed that there will first be a long delay. Here are Sister Lucy’s words describing Our Lord’s revelation to her:

By means of an interior communication, Our Lord said to me, complaining: Make it known to My ministers [viz., the pope and bishops], seeing that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My demand, they will also have to follow him into misfortune. Like the King of France, they [viz., the pope and bishops of the world] will repent and do it [viz., the consecration], but it will be late.²⁵

Thus, from these revelations to Sister Lucy, we know that there will be a pope and bishops who will actually perform this consecration in obedience to Heaven’s request (although “it will be late”).

The Catholic Church has a full hierarchy (a pope and bishops), although they might not possess Episcopal sacramental power because of their doubtful conciliar consecrations.

The consecration of Russia does not require Episcopal sacramental powers.²⁶ This consecration must be performed by the Catholic Church’s rulers, who govern the Church.

Previously, we saw that the Catholic Church continues to have a full hierarchy (a pope and the local ordinaries of the dioceses of the world) and that the Church leaders’ jurisdictional power (authority to govern) remains.²⁷ It is these bishops (the local ordinaries), who must join the pope to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

This Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary Has Not Yet Occurred and so There Must Still be a Pope and Bishops to do this in the Future.

The pope and bishops have not yet consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the way that Our Lord commanded.²⁸ Our Lord promised that this consecration would occur although He predicted “it will be late”. Because this consecration requires a pope and bishops with jurisdiction, this shows indirectly that a pope (and bishops with jurisdiction) exists now, because otherwise there would not be means through which to elect a future pope (who appoints the future bishops).

Sedevacantists deny we now have a pope, so they concoct false scenarios imagining how a future pope could take office 68 years after the last pope they recognize.

We Catholics recognize the Catholic Church continues to be governed by a pope and bishops (scandalous though they are) and that the present Church leaders (or their successors) are the ones who will consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The contrast could not be greater, between the Catholic truth (that we have a full Church government) and the empty, sedevacantist position – viz., there is no one exercising the jurisdiction of the Church: no pope, no cardinals, no local ordinaries, no Church government!

Our Lord’s prophecy (viz., that the pope and bishops will perform the consecration but it will be late) is an unsolvable problem for the sedevacantists. They have no credible answer to this question:

From where will the pope and bishops come, who will consecrate Russia?

The sedevacantists’ fuzzy answer is that “somehow” there will be a pope and bishops in the future. Some sedevacantists (wrongly) suppose that perhaps God will choose a pope by some future, currently-unknown miraculous sign.

In any event, if the sedevacantists were correct (which they are not) that the Church has not had a pope in 68 years, there could be no future pope of the Catholic Church (who could perform the consecration of Russia in union with the bishops then in office).

If (as the sedevacantists claim) there has been no pope for 68 years, then any such future pope (who would “somehow” come into office to perform the consecration of Russia) would not reign over the same Catholic Church which has existed continuously from the time of Our Lord. Instead, such future pope (falsely imagined by the sedevacantists) would be part of a restored papal monarchy and a re-founded hierarchy which would be part of a different “church”.²⁹

As explained more fully below, there are two reasons why the sedevacantists’ (imagined) future “church” would not be a continuation of the true Catholic Church founded by Christ:

1. There would be no continuity between the true Catholic Church founded by Christ, and a (supposed) future “church” with a re-established government; this gap (discontinuity) would mean that the second “church” would be a different “church”.

2. Christ founded a Church with a succession of human vicars chosen by men, not by miraculous Divine selection.

Each of these reasons will be discussed below.

1. There would be no continuity between the true Catholic Church founded by Christ, and a (supposed) future “church” with a re-established government; this gap (discontinuity) would mean that the second “church” would be a different “church”.

The very essence and definition of the Catholic Church includes the concept of a continuous government by the Catholic Church’s living authorities ruling over the Catholics then living. This definition of the Catholic Church does not require that those leaders are virtuous, holy or faithful.³⁰ However, the Church’s very nature (definition) requires that there must be continuous Church government, i.e., a continuous Church hierarchy.

The very definition of the Church tells us that the Church will continuously have a hierarchy and government. For example, The Catechism of St. Pius X teaches:

Q. What is the Catholic Church?

A. The Catholic Church is the Union or Congregation of all the baptized who, still living on earth, profess the same Faith and the same Law of Jesus Christ, participate in the same Sacraments, and obey their lawful Pastors, particularly the Roman Pontiff.³¹

Again, this definition shows the Catholic Church will always have a living hierarchy which has authority over us. However, this continuity of Church government in no way implies that this hierarchy will be good or that we must blindly “obey” our superiors when they tell us to do evil.³²

The Baltimore Catechism similarly defines the Catholic Church as having a living human government:

Q. What is the Church?

A. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same Sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible Head.

Quoted from The Baltimore Catechism #3, Q. 489 (emphasis added).

If (as the sedevacantists wrongly suppose) there has been no hierarchy for 68 years, and further (as they imagine) that the hierarchy will “pop” into existence “miraculously” in the future, then this many-decades gap in Church government would result in a new or a re-founded “church”. This (supposed) future “church” would not be the same as the Catholic Church founded by Christ, because there would be many decades during which there was no Catholic Church that fit Her definition given above (which includes a continuously-existing unified government of living men who have authority over us).

This many-decades gap (imagined by the sedevacantists) between Pope Pius XII and the next pope would destroy the continuity of the Church, just as would a 68-year gap during which no one professed the Catholic Faith. Any gap in the Church’s government or Faith would discontinue the Church because She would no longer fit Her definition during those decades.

Thus, the sedevacantists are wrong that, after many decades without a Church hierarchy and government (as they falsely imagine), the supposed later revival of a hierarchy would be the same, true Catholic Church.

2. The Church that Christ founded has a succession of human vicars chosen by men, not by miraculous Divine selection.

Our Lord founded His Church with a perpetual government whose leaders are chosen by human means: election of a pope by men (not by miracle), and the pope ensures the appointment of bishops to govern the Church’s dioceses.

The sedevacantists’ error causes them to deny the continuation of those human means through which the Catholic Church’s government is perpetuated.

Conclusion of this Article

Our Lord prophesied that there will be a future pope who (together with the Church’s bishops) will consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This prophecy shows that there is a pope now. Therefore, the Seat of Peter is not vacant. We have a pope.

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

Below is the sixteenth article in a series which covers specific aspects of the error of sedevacantism. As context for this sixteenth article, let us recall what we saw in the earlier fifteen 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 (i.e., believe) is the pope must be the pope, since the pope must be visible to all.¹⁰

In the ninth article, we addressed the superficial claim 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.¹¹

In the tenth article, we saw more deeply what schism is and how sedevacantism is inherently schism.¹²

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 but resist the evil of his words or deeds.¹³

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 heresy or other error.¹⁴

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.¹⁵

In the fourteenth article of this series, we considered another way to see that sedevacantism is wrong and sinful, viz., because it is the sin of revolution.¹⁶

In the fifteenth article of this series, we saw that even though Pope Leo XIV is objectively a very bad pope, all Catholics are in communion with him, since this is an essential condition of being Catholic and not schismatic.

Further, some sedevacantists (and a smaller number of other confused persons) make a related false argument directed against Catholics. They say that we must not pray for the pope in the Canon of the Mass because doing so would mean that we adopt his errors.

Traditional Catholics who have never heard of this error, might be tempted to think the error is so “far-fetched” that a non-sedevacantist could never really think it was wrong to pray for the pope at Mass. However, tragically, some persons have been fooled by the claim that praying for the pope in the Canon of the Mass somehow means that we adopt his errors. In fact, one non-sedevacantist priest in Canada was fooled into not praying for the pope in the Canon of the Mass and subsequently succumbed to the error of sedevacantism.

Below, we address the question whether praying for the pope in the Canon of the Mass indicates that we adopt the pope’s errors.

We Must Pray for the Pope, Especially at Mass!¹⁷

An examination of the erroneous argument claiming that we should not insert the pope’s name in the Canon of the Mass

It is our duty to pray for others. When we pray the Mass, this is an especially perfect time to do this, since it is the infinitely meritorious sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Further, every pope has the frighteningly grave responsibility for the souls of everyone in the world, especially for Catholics. Thus, we should continually pray for the pope, and most especially when we pray the Mass. (Of course, in our current times, where most faithful and informed Catholics do not have access to an uncompromising priest, these prayers for the pope should be offered while sanctifying the Sunday without a priest.)¹⁸

In a previous article (#15) we saw that we Catholics are in communion with the pope – whether he is good or bad – and we are also in communion with all other Catholics – whether they are good or bad.

The devil knows the importance of praying for the pope and greatly fears this, especially the efficacious intercession for him at a non-compromised Mass. Satan knows that if God reforms the pope through prayers offered for him, this reformed pope could spiritually transform (the human element of) the Church. Thus, the devil uses every lie and trick he has to discourage prayer for the pope, especially in the Canon of the True Traditional Mass.

One trick the devil uses, is to make priests and people afraid to pray for the pope when they pray the Canon of the Mass, fearing that somehow mentioning the pope’s name in the Canon causes us to affirm we agree with the pope’s errors.¹⁹

For a priest not to pray for the pope during the Canon of the Mass is objectively a sin (since he is required to do so), even if no one ever knew the priest made this sinful omission.²⁰

This objective sin is increased if people do find out that the priest does not pray for the pope at Mass, because this omission is an objective sin of scandal, since all priests (and all Catholics) have a solemn duty to pray for the hierarchy, especially the pope.

Also, this scandal is gravely aggravated if anyone is led to conclude that the priest is a sedevacantist (because such a priest – like the sedevacantists – does not pray for the pope).

The Text of the Prayer for the Pope at the Beginning of the Canon of the Mass

Latin English

Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Jesum Christum Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum, supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas, et benedicas haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata; in primis quae tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia tua sancta catholica; quam pacificare, custodire, adunare, et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum: una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N., et Antistite nostro N. et omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae et aostolicae fidei cultoribus.

Therefore, most gracious Father, we humbly beg of Thee and entreat Thee through Jesus Christ Thy Son, Our Lord. Hold acceptable and bless + these gifts, these + offerings, these + holy and unspotted oblations which, in the first place, we offer Thee for Thy Holy Catholic Church. Grant her peace and protection, unity and guidance throughout the world, together with Thy servant [name], our Pope, and [name], our Bishop; and all Orthodox believers who cherish the Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

Memento, Domine, famulorum, famularumque tuarum N. et N. et omnium circumstantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est, et nota devotio, pro quibus tibi offerimus. vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis pro se, suisque omnibus, pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis, et incolumitis suae; tibique reddunt vota sua aeterno Deo, vivo et vero.

Remember, O Lord, Thy servants and handmaids, [name] and [name], and all here present, whose faith and devotion are known to Thee. On whose behalf we offer to Thee, or who themselves offer to Thee this sacrifice of praise for themselves, families and friends, for the good of their souls, for their hope of salvation and deliverance from all harm, and who offer their homage to Thee, eternal, living and true God.

(Emphasis added.)

Una cum Papa nostro Leone

When we pray in the Canon of the Mass: “una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro, [name]”, this phrase is part of the same sentence in which we offer the oblation for the Church because we offer this oblation for the Church and also (i.e., together) for the pope (and the bishop, etc.).

Some people mistakenly think “together with” means that we declare we are together in mind with the pope in whatever he teaches. In other words, such a false claim asserts that putting the pope’s name in the Canon declares we are united (“together”) with the pope in whatever he believes. There are six reasons why this is false:

1. In this prayer, the pope is mentioned in the middle of a longer “list”. The prayer offers the oblation for the Church, then there is mention of the pope, then the bishop, then all Catholics and finally in the next prayer, we recall the people near and dear to us “on whose behalf we offer” this same oblation. This list has a clear order. We pray for the Church, then those governing the Church, then all members of the Church and lastly, those near and dear to us whether or not our loved ones are Catholics.

   This grouping and the whole progression of thought shows that the reference to the pope and bishop is our prayer for them and is offering the oblation for them. It is unreasonable to understand this prayer as a declaration of solidarity: viz., as if the prayer were to state that we offer this oblation for the Church, then we declare we believe whatever the pope and others believe, and lastly we offer the oblation for those people dear to us.

If we were to wrongly assume (as this false claim does) that we break up the series of persons for whom we offer up the oblation, in order to declare sameness in beliefs with the pope, why wouldn’t we declare that we believe what the Church teaches, rather than only the pope? Whatever the holy and infallible Catholic Church teaches, we must always believe because it is always true. By contrast, we believe what the pope teaches only when he teaches what the Church teaches. (Any errors that the pope teaches are not the teaching of the Church nor are they worthy of belief.²¹) Plainly, it is wrong to think this prayer of the Canon unites us to whatever the pope teaches.

The Canon is the perfect time to pray for the pope, when we mention him immediately after we pray for the Church. Because the Canon of the Mass is perfect, we would expect the perfection of the Canon to include both the prayer for the Church and for the pope. This is a further reason to understand the prayer this way.

2. That the oblation is offered for all of these listed persons is further shown by this prayer (in the Canon) where it says the offering is made for the Church “in the first place”, and then proceeds to mention the pope, bishop, all Catholics and lastly those near and dear to us. This prayer’s phrase “in primis” (i.e., “in the first place”) shows that the offering will also then be made for others, the pope being the very next one listed.
   
   

3. That this reference to the pope (and bishop) is a prayer for him (rather than joining in his ideas), is shown by what the pope and bishops themselves say when they offer Mass. As the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia explains:

A diocesan bishop in saying Mass changes the form “et Antistite nostro N.” into “et me indigno servo tuo” [i.e., “and me thy unworthy servant”]. The pope naturally uses these words instead of “una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N.”, and omits the clause about the bishop.²²

In other words, the pope and bishop pray for themselves and offer the oblation for themselves. They plainly are not saying that they unite with themselves and believe whatever they themselves believe. As they pray for themselves in the Canon, likewise we pray for them in the same place, by inserting their names (and we are not declaring that we believe whatever they teach).

4. This groundless fear (viz., the fear of adding the pope’s name in the Canon) also ignores Church history. From the earliest days of the Church, the Canon of the Mass has included a prayer interceding for the Church, the pope, the bishop and Catholics generally, as well as (in some earlier manuscripts) also intercession for the emperor and for the priest celebrating the Mass.²³ The prayer was worded in various ways but always had this same intercessory meaning. That same meaning continues in the wording of the traditional missal we use.

By contrast, throughout the history of the Mass, in all the various formulations of the prayers in early manuscripts, the Mass has never included a declaration of solidarity in belief with the pope, as is baselessly feared by those who fear to include the pope’s name in the Canon.

5. There have been popes at different times of Church history who had problems in word or deed. If each person were supposed to decide whether to withdraw the pope’s name from the Canon of the Mass and not pray for him, this would create chaos. To take only two examples:

1. Pope Innocent VIII (1484 -1492) had illegitimate children whom he publicly acknowledged.²⁴ Pope Innocent VIII was so shameless that while his own illegitimate son was at the papal court and in the immediate papal circle, this son “paraded the streets at night … forced his way into the houses of citizens for evil purposes” and similarly led a life of avarice and debauchery.²⁵

Should Catholics have not prayed for Pope Innocent VIII in the Canon of the Mass under the theory that the pope’s open shamelessness was equivalent to showing that the virtue of purity is optional and therefore this pope was unworthy of prayers in the Canon of the Mass?

2. Pope Nicholas I taught the heresy “that baptism was valid, whether administered in the name of the three Persons or in the name of Christ only.”²⁶ Should each person at the time have decided if Pope Nicholas’ heresy meant he should be cut off from the prayers he greatly needed?

How great a division it would sow among Catholics if this wedge of discord and chaos were permitted to exist among the faithful! This would mean that faithful Catholics would shun priests who refused to pray for the pope during the Canon and confused Catholics would refuse priests who prayed for the pope in the Canon.

6. The pre-Vatican II commentators unanimously explain this passage of the Canon as a prayer (intercession) for the pope, not a declaration of united belief with the pope. Here is a small sample of such commentaries:

• The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia explains: “The priest prays first for the Church, then for the pope and diocesan ordinary by name.”²⁷

• The book entitled The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass explains: “[We have] a special and express offering and prayer for the Pope and for the chief pastor of the diocese in which the holy Mass is celebrated. … It is proper that, throughout the entire Church, the Pope should be prayed for and the Sacrifice be offered for him …”.²⁸

• The book entitled The Mass, A Study of the Roman Liturgy explains: “The Intercession (from “in primis”) … begins by praying for the Church, Pope, bishop and the faithful.”²⁹

• The commentator in The St. Andrew’s Daily Missal notes at the Canon’s “in primis” that the priest “prays for the living heads and members of the Church Militant”.³⁰
  
  

Conclusion: for all six reasons, it is plain that we insert the pope’s name in the Canon in order to pray for him (not to declare we believe whatever he believes). The pope is the only one on earth who can authoritatively reform the (human element of the) Church. Although we reject the pope’s errors, we must pray for him unceasingly (especially when praying the Mass), that he reverses his own course and leads souls back to the traditions of the Church.

The Devil Uses a Second False Reason to Eliminate Prayers for the Pope at Mass

Some Catholics plainly see that this prayer in the Canon is a prayer for the pope (not a declaration that we believe whatever he believes). Yet they do not pray for the pope at Mass. Their reason for this is that they are troubled by the scruple that somehow it is a sin to pray for a bad pope in the Canon of the Mass because this prayer is the Church’s public prayer, and that it would be a scandal to pray for any bad man (including a bad pope) in the Church’s public prayer. (These misguided people think it is fine to pray for a bad pope in private prayer, but not the Church’s public prayer.)

But this scruple ignores Common Sense, Church history, and Ecclesiastic Tradition.

First, common sense: our prayers for anyone beg God’s help for the person. Those prayers don’t show the person is perfect but are asking God to change and perfect him. So it is the most natural thing for loyal sons of the Church to pray publicly for bad leaders, especially when praying the Mass.

Second, Church history: through many hundreds of years, it was the practice of good priests, bishops and laymen to publicly pray in the Canon of the Mass, for the emperor – not only for a good emperor but for whoever was the emperor, good or bad. Similarly, when we pray the Mass, our prayers for the pope are not conditioned on the spiritual condition of his soul.

Third, Ecclesiastical Tradition: the prayers of Good Friday (going back almost 1800 years³¹) not only pray for the pope (for any pope, whether good or bad) but also publicly pray for the worst of men: heretics, schismatics, Jews, and pagans, who are inherently bad because they oppose Our Lord and His Church.

Conclusion

It is plain that, however much evil the pope is doing, we should pray hard for him, including public prayers and especially at Mass. Let us unite in fervent prayer for the pope – especially when praying the Mass – that God change his heart and enlighten his mind.