SALT OF THE EARTH Nº 36, SPRING 2001Small catechism on sedevacantism
by Dominicus

- What is sedevacantism? Sedevacantism is the opinion of those who believe that the last popes, since the Council, are not true popes. Consequently, the See of Peter is not occupied, expressed in Latin as "Sede vacante".

- Where does this opinion come from? This opinion is prompted by the very serious crisis unfolding in the Church since the last Council, a crisis which Archbishop Lefebvre rightly called the "third war". the world". The main cause of this crisis is the failure of the Roman Pontiffs to teach or allow the most serious errors to be propagated on the issues of ecumenism, the religious freedom, collegiality, etc. Sedevacantists believe that real popes could not be responsible for of such a crisis, and therefore consider that they are not "real popes".

- Do all sedevacantists agree with each other? No, far from it. There are many different positions. Some think that, since Peter's seat is vacant, it should be filled, and they have elected a "pope". This is the case, for example, of the Palmar sect in Spain. Among those who do not go to such extremes, there are still different schools of thought. Some think the current pope is an anti-pope, others that he's half pope, pope "materialiter" but not "formaliter". Some sedevacantists consider their position a "probable opinion", and accept the sacraments not from sedevacantist priests, but from others, called "ultra" by Abbé Coache, make it a matter of faith and refuse to attend a mass where we pray for the pope. But what all sedevacantists have in common is that they believe we must not not pray publicly for the pope.

- Can you explain what it means to be pope materialiter? The main difficulty with sedevacantism is to explain how the Church can continue to exist in a visible way (for it has received from Our Lord the promise of lasting until the end of the world), while being deprived of a leader. Proponents of the "Cassiciacum" thesis have come up with a very interesting solution. subtle: the current pope has been validly appointed to be pope, but he cannot receive papal authority, because there is an obstacle in him (his heresy). He would then be able to perform certain acts for the good of the Church, such as name the cardinals (which are cardinal "materialiter"), but it wouldn't really be pope.

- What do you think of this solution? It has no basis in Tradition. Theologians (Cajetan, Saint Robert Bellarmine, Jean de Saint Thomas, etc.) examined the possibility of a heretical pope, but no one, before the Council, had imagined such a theory. It does not solve the main difficulty of sedevacantism: how can the Church continue to be visible? Indeed, if the pope, cardinals, bishops, etc., are deprived of their identity, how can the Church continue to be visible? of their "form", there is no longer any visible Church hierarchy. Moreover, this theory poses serious philosophical problems, since it assumes that a leader can be a "materialiter" leader without having authority.

- What arguments do the sedevantists base their theories on? On a theological argument and on a legal argument. The theological argument is that a heretic cannot be head of the Church, John Paul II is a heretic, so... The legal argument is that the laws of the Church invalidate the election of a Cardinal Wojtyla was a heretic at the time of the election, so...

- But isn't it true that a pope who becomes a heretic loses his pontificate? Saint Robert Bellarmine said that a pope who became a heretic in a formal and would lose the pontificate. For this to apply to John Paul II, he would have to be a formal heretic, i.e. one who consciously rejects the Church's magisterium; and even that that this formal heresy is manifest for all to see. But if John Paul II says often enough statements that are heretical or lead to heresy, it is not easy to show that he has the conscience to reject a dogma of the Church. And until we have proof of this Certainly, it's wiser not to judge. This was Archbishop Lefebvre's way.

- A Catholic who is convinced that John Paul II is a heretic in a formal and must therefore conclude that he is no longer pope? No, according to the "common" (Suarez) or even "more common" (Billuart) opinion, theologians believe that even a heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. He for it to lose its jurisdiction would require a declaration by the Catholic bishops (who alone judges of the faith, outside the pope, by divine will) noting the pope's heresy 1. "According to the more common opinion, Christ, by a particular providence, for the sake and the tranquillity of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to a pontiff even manifestly heretical, until he is declared a manifest heretic by the Church". (Billuart, De Fide, diss. V, a. III, § 3, obj. 2). But in such a serious matter, it's not wise to go against opinion. community.

- But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or his head? Father Garrigou-Lagrange, relying on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while not a member of the Church, can continue to be the head. Indeed, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (yet abnormal) for a secondary moral head. "The reason is that - whereas a physical head cannot exert influence on the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul - a moral head, like the [Roman] pontiff, can exert a powerful jurisdiction over the Church, even if he receives no influence of faith from the soul of the Church. and charity. In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he may but he is the head of the visible Church through the jurisdiction and power which can at the same time as a heresy.

- And what about their canonical argument? The sedevacantists rely on the Cum ex apostolatus apostolic constitution of the Pope Paul IV (1555-1559). But good studies have shown that this constitution had lost its legal force since the publication of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. See for For example, Father Albert O.P.'s article in Le Sel de la terre 33 (summer 2000). What remains valid in this constitution is its dogmatic aspect. And, by Consequently, it cannot be made to say anything more than what the theological argument says. examined above.

- Don't the sedevacantists think they'll find confirmation of their opinion in the errors of the Council and the harmfulness of the liturgical and canonical laws of the conciliar Church? Indeed, sedevacantists generally believe that the Council's teaching 1 - Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira's book La Nouvelle Messe de Paul VI : Qu'en penser (Chiré, DPF, 1975) often considered the reference on the question of the "heretic pope", presents an imperfect picture, in our opinion, the opinion of these theologians (Savonarola, Cajetan, Cano, the Carmelites of Salamanca, John of St. Thomas, Suarez, Billuart, Journet, etc.). Journet says that the analyses of Cajetan and Jean de Saint Thomas on this point are more than those of Saint Robert Bellarmine. The question needs to be addressed in its entirety.

should have been covered by the infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium, and consequently should not contain any errors. But as there are errors, for example on the question of religious freedom, they concluded that Paul VI had ceased to be pope at that point. In reality, if we were to accept this line of reasoning, we'd have to say that the whole Church Catholic Church disappeared at that point, and "the gates of hell prevailed against it". For the teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium is the teaching of all bishops, of all the peoples of the world. the teaching Church. It's simpler to think that the teaching of the Council and the conciliar Church is not covered by the infallibility of the universal ordinary magisterium for the following reasons explained in the article on "The authority of the Council" published in Le Sel de la terre 35 (winter). 2000-2001). One of the arguments of this article is that the conciliar teaching no longer presents itself as "necessary for salvation" (which is logical, since those who profess to believe that one can be saved even without the Catholic faith). Not being imposed with authority, this teaching is not covered by infallibility. The same can be said liturgical laws (the new Mass...) and canonical laws (the new Canon Law...) by the most recent popes: they are not covered by infallibility, whereas normally they should have been.

- Aren't sedevacantists right to refuse to use the pope's name at Mass? to show that they are not in communion with ("una cum") a heretic (in the and its heresies? The expression "una cum" in the canon of the Mass does not mean that we say "en cum". communion" with the pope and his erroneous ideas, but that we want to pray for the Church" and for "the Pope. To find out for sure, in addition to the scholarly studies produced on the subject, just read the missal section for when a bishop celebrates mass. In this case the bishop must pray for the Church "una cum (...) me indigno famulo tuo" which does not mean that he prays "in union with myself, your unworthy servant" (which makes no sense), but he prays "and for (...) myself, your unworthy servant".

- But doesn't Saint Thomas Aquinas say that in the canon we must not pray for the heretics? St. Thomas Aquinas does not forbid praying for heretics, but notes that simply that, in the prayers of the Mass canon, we pray for those whose Lord knows faith and has experienced attachment (quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio) (III q. 79, a. 7, ad 2). Indeed, he says, for this sacrifice to have its effect (effectum habet), it is necessary that those we pray for are "united to Christ's passion by faith and charity". But he doesn't mean you can't pray for a non-Catholic. This prayer not the same efficacy as for a Catholic, and is not provided for in the canon. All that can be drawn from this statement by Saint Thomas Aquinas is that if the pope is a heretic (which remains to be proven), praying for him does not have the intended effect, "non habet effectum".

- In conclusion, what should we think of sedevacantism? It's an unproven
  position at the speculative level, and it's a carelessness (which can have serious consequences in the long term). very serious). This is why Archbishop Lefebvre never went down this road, and why he even forbade the priests of his fraternity to profess sedevacantism. We must trust his prudence and theological sense. Father Muñoz points out that there is no saint in the history of the the Church, who were sedevacantist, even if many openly and strongly resisted to the errors of the popes. Let's do what they did!