Catholic Candle note: The article below shows the invalidity of an excommunication against a good man when it is imposed because he is a good man. One such excommunication was against Archbishop Lefebvre because he was good and upheld the truth.

But a reader would be wrong in supposing that this article supports the current “new” SSPX, which is trending liberal and no longer follows the course set out for the SSPX by their founder, Archbishop Lefebvre.

Here are a few of the many proofs that the “new” SSPX is liberal and should not be supported in any way:

• https://catholiccandle.org/2025/03/10/21-examples-of-liberalism-in-the-new-sspx/

  
  

• https://catholiccandle.org/category/resources-for-priests/society-of-st-pius-x/

Further, sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism. Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist.

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

In the seventeenth article of this series, we saw that we must have a pope because the Fatima apparitions show that a pope will consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.¹⁹

Now in the eighteenth article of this series, we consider whether excommunication is invalid if a person is excommunicated for being good or for defending the Catholic truth.

Since Pope John Paul II was a real pope, does that mean that Archbishop Lefebvre was really excluded from the Catholic Church by the pope excommunicating him?

Some sedevacantists seek to trap uninformed Catholics into believing that, if they support the position of good men, such as Archbishop Lefebvre, then they must declare that the post-Vatican II popes are not real popes.

One example of that trap is when the sedevacantists present a false alternative:²⁰ either:

• Declare that Archbishop Lefebvre died outside the Catholic Church;

  or

• Agree that John Paul II was not a valid pope.

But even if the sedevacantist who lays that trap is himself simply ignorant, we show (below) the error of this false alternative trap.

Short answer to the Sedevacantist Question

The pope has the power to decide whom to excommunicate. However, those excommunications have no effect if they are imposed unjustly.

Discussion and explanation

This question directly pertains to the pope’s power to excommunicate a wayward subordinate. But let us examine this power in its proper context of the more general powers that a superior (including the pope) possesses, to govern the community over which he is superior.

A pope must use his authority to keep order in the Church that he governs, and therefore he must punish wayward subordinates.

This duty is analogous to that of the father of a family, who must govern for the good of his family. This duty is also analogous to the duty of a civil ruler, who must govern for the good of civil society.

Civil and ecclesiastical superiors cannot read the interior souls of their subordinates any more than parents can read the souls of their children. Thus, the superior cannot infallibly determine his subordinates’ subjective interior culpability for their words and deeds.

But because superiors must care for the communities they govern (as a father governs his family), they must punish their subordinates who do evil things.²¹ They must do their best to administer justice, although they might judge mistakenly.²² God will judge how diligently those superiors sought justice.

St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, warns those whose duty is to judge to do it carefully and justly. Here are his words:

Through an unjust sentence a judge destroys a man, nonetheless he renders an unjust sentence in vain. The power of binding and loosing is given only for building, not for destroying.”²³

A civil judge can possibly misjudge an accused person of having inner guilt, but must judge based on the best available outward evidence and punish criminals as justly as possible. Likewise, because Church officials protect the Church community that they govern (e.g., the whole Church, in the case of the pope, or a diocese, in the case of a bishop, etc.), they must punish wrongdoers as justly as possible despite the possibility of misjudgment.

When a heretic (or other evildoer) refuses to repent despite his ecclesiastical superior’s efforts to convince him, that superior must punish him. Among other punishments, that superior can excommunicate him, i.e., exile him from the community.²⁴

From all the above, we see that excommunication is a necessary ecclesiastical power and part of good governing. But in a given case, fallible Church superiors might excommunicate unjustly²⁵ (without adequate cause or judicial process), and therefore invalidly.²⁶ In other words, it would be a great error to suppose that papal excommunications are always valid and can never be void. An excommunication must just in order to be valid.

St. Thomas, quoting St. Augustine, both cautions ecclesiastical judges to judge carefully and also declares that unjust censures have no force. Here are their words:

When Our Lord grants to the hierarchy the power to “bind [a person] on earth”, St. Augustine warns Church leaders: “Make sure that you bind justly, for justice shatters bonds which are unjustly imposed.”²⁷

Applying this principle to Pope John Paul II’s purported excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, that penalty was plainly invalid and of no effect because that penalty was imposed because Archbishop Lefebvre defended Catholic Tradition. This is similar to Pope Liberius invalidly excommunicating St. Athanasius for his orthodoxy.²⁸

Summary of this Article

The pope must use his authority to govern the Church wisely and render judgment justly. By his own authority, the pope can and must excommunicate seriously wayward, incorrigible subordinates.

The pope has the power to decide who to excommunicate. However, those excommunications have no effect if they are imposed unjustly – as would be the case when a person is excommunicated for defending the Catholic Faith. In other words, excommunications are not automatically valid.

The fact that it is possible for a pope to invalidly and unjustly proclaim an “excommunication” does not in any way serve as evidence that he is not a valid pope.

This truth “gives the lie” to the sedevacantist trick argument:

• Archbishop Lefebvre was good.
  

• John Paul II excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre.
  

• Therefore John Paul II cannot have been a real pope.

The truth is that Pope John Paul II was a valid pope but was simply abusing his authority and acting unjustly toward Archbishop Lefebvre.

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

(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.

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

Awhile back, a reader forwarded to us a question (below) which he found posted on a sedevacantist website. The question (which was directed to non-sedevacantists) troubled him. He asked how Catholics should respond to this question. We answer below, but change the name (Pope Francis) to reflect the current pope (Pope Leo XIV).

Below is the fifteenth article in a series which covers specific aspects of the error of sedevacantism. As context for this fifteenth article, let us recall what we saw in the earlier fourteen 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 “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.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 as pope 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 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 address a question which arises because we see that Leo XIV is Pope:

Does that mean we are in communion with him?

Below, we address that question.

All Catholics are in Communion with the Pope

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 (like themselves), by urging those Catholics: “Don’t be in communion with that man (viz., 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? In this article, we examine that question.

Answering a Sedevacantist Question

The sedevacantists’ question:

Are you in communion with “Pope” Leo and his religion?

Catholic Candle note: the quotation marks (around the word “Pope”) are in the sedevacantists’ original question, indicating they don’t believe he is a real pope. Again, though, the sedevacantists’ original question said “Francis” not “Leo”.

The sedevacantists’ question is deceptively-framed in two ways

1. We interpret the question’s reference to his religion, as a reference to the new conciliar religion (not Catholicism). Through this reference, the question sneaks in the assumption that Pope Leo has a single religion and it is not Catholicism. This sedevacantist ploy tricks an unwary Catholic into conceding this falsehood and participating in the sedevacantists’ rash judgment.¹⁷
   

2. The question is compound; that is, it is really two questions in one. Thus, it is deceptive (either intentionally or carelessly). The question seeks a single “yes or no” answer, but either answer would be false (see below our two-part, short answer).

Beware of sedevacantist traps for the unwary!

Two-part, short answer to the sedevacantists’ question

• Part one: All Catholics are in communion with Pope Leo.
  

However …

• Part two: No faithful and informed Catholics are members of (i.e., in communion with) the conciliar church (which is a false religion).

Summary of our full explanation below

1. Although Pope Leo does much evil, he is truly the pope and a member (as well as the head) of the Catholic Church.
   

2. To save our souls, we must be members of the Catholic Church.
   

3. Because all Catholics are joint members of the Catholic Church along with Pope Leo, all Catholics are in communion with him and with each other.
   

4. Although Catholics are joint members of the Catholic Church along with Pope Leo, this does not also make us members of whatever other groups he belongs to, including the conciliar church.
   

Below, we discuss each of these four points.

1. Although Pope Leo does much evil, he is truly the pope and a member of the Catholic Church.

As we have seen in past Catholic Candle articles, the Catholic Church infallibly teaches that we will always have a pope and we are not in a 67-year papal interregnum (as most sedevacantists pretend).¹⁸ (An interregnum is a period during which the papal throne is briefly vacant between the death (or abdication) of one pope and the election of a new pope).

Presently, our pope is Pope Leo XIV because he is visible to all (as a pope must be)¹⁹ and because virtually all Catholics accept him as pope (as is true of every pope).²⁰

Pope Leo is a bad pope and a bad father.²¹ We must oppose the evil he does²² but must avoid the sedevacantists’ (objective) mortal sins of rashly judging his interior culpability and of denying that he is the pope or is even Catholic.²³

This is like a child who has a bad father denying the paternal relationship. That would be wrong. Instead, if the father is bad, then the child must still recognize the paternal relationship and his father’s authority but also refuse to be led astray if his father attempts to cause him to sin.

2. To save our souls, we must belong to the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that Outside the Church there is no Salvation.²⁴ Thus, to save our souls, it is absolutely necessary that we are members of the Catholic Church.

3. Because all Catholics are joint members of the Catholic Church, with Pope Leo, we are in communion with him.

“Communion” is the mutual connection between members of the Catholic Church.²⁵

All Catholics are in communion with the pope and with each other because we are all mutually connected as members of the Church under one head, the pope. Id.²⁶

A person can only belong to the Catholic Church by being in communion with all Catholics, under one head, viz., the reigning pope.²⁷ Without being in communion with the pope and all other Catholics, a man is in schism and is outside the Catholic Church.²⁸

4. Although Catholics are joint members of the Catholic Church with Pope Leo, this does not make us members of whatever other groups he belongs to, including the conciliar church.

Everyone is a member of many groups. For example, at the same time, a person can be:

• a son in one group (a particular family);
  

• a father in another group (a different family);
  

• an employee in another group (his corporate employer);
  

• a coach in another group (a sports team);
  

• a parishioner in another group (a parish);
  

• a member of a civic orchestra group;
  

• a member (i.e., resident) of his state or province;
  

• a member (i.e., citizen) of his country;
  

• a member of volunteer civic or religious organization;
  

• perhaps a member of the true Catholic Church;

• perhaps a member of the conciliar church or some other false religion²⁹; and
  

• perhaps a member of the Freemasons.

Pope Leo, like everyone else, is a member of many groups. Because we are members of the Catholic Church with Pope Leo and acknowledge that he is pope, this does not make us members of any other group to which he belongs. So, for example, we do not become Americans, Peruvians, Chicagoans, Augustinians, or White Sox fans, merely because he is a member of those groups. Similarly, we are not members of (in communion with) the conciliar church³⁰ simply because he is.³¹

Conclusion

All Catholics are in communion with Pope Leo because we are members of the Church which he governs as pope. Every Catholic is also in communion with all other Catholics, including mainstream “new mass” Catholics.

Our joint membership with Pope Leo XIV in the Catholic Church does not make us joint members (with Pope Leo) of the conciliar church.

To be continued …

Catholic Candle Addendum:

There is No Such Thing as “Partial Communion” with the Catholic Church

From the above article, we see that all persons who are members of Christ’s Mystical Body are Catholics and only they can go to heaven, since There is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church.

We see from the above article that all Catholics are in communion with all other Catholics and with the Pope, since this is what it means to be Catholic and not be a schismatic.

As St. Thomas teaches:

Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Col. 2:18, 19: “Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God.” Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.39, a.1, respondeo (emphasis added).

Noah’s Ark is a figure of the Catholic Church, since all persons outside the Ark perished – just as all persons outside the Catholic Church perish and do not go to heaven. Just as no persons were “partially” in Noah’s Ark, likewise there are no persons who are partially in Christ’s Mystical Body or in “partial communion” with the Catholic Church.

The conciliar church promotes the heresy that a person can be in “partial communion” with the Catholic Church. Vatican II promotes this heresy in many places, for example:

For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Without doubt, the differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. … But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ.

Unitatis Redintegratio, §3, (emphasis added).

But there is no partial communion with the Church! “Whosoever … is not united with the Body is no member thereof, neither is he in communion with Christ its Head.” Pius XI, Mortalium Animos Jan. 6, 1928, §15.

Conclusion

Thus, we see that the same dogma that teaches us that all Catholics are in communion with the pope, also shows us that the conciliar church teaches heresy when it teaches that persons in heretical sects can be in “partial communion” with Christ and His Mystical Body.

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 …