By Nich Flüe, August 27, 2024
This is the first of what is hope to be a series of informative articles on the very important subject of Sedevacantism. Constructive commentary is most welcomed. It is not the author’s intent at this time to conclude one way or another that the seat of the Vicar of Christ is empty. Rather it is an intent to initiate active and in a Catholic sense, informative dialogue to help devout Roman Catholics understand what the topic means and where our beloved Church institution stands during what the Venerable Holzhauser called these troubling “End Times”. Readers are welcome to contact me through the website: www.nichscafeendtimes.com
So, let’s begin with the very narrow and traditional teaching regarding “Sede Vacante”
Sede vacante (lit. 'with the chair [being] vacant' in Latin) is a term for the state of an (arch)diocese without an installed (in office) (arch)bishop. In the canon law of the Catholic Church, the term is used to refer to the vacancy of the (arch)bishop's or Pope's authority upon his death or resignation.
Vacancy of the Holy See, A Historical Perspective
Early in church history, the archpriest, archdeacon, and "primicerius of the notaries” in the papal court made a regency council which governed the sede vacante period. It was the obligation of the Camerarius (papal chamberlain), the head of the Camera Apostolica, to formally establish the death of the pope. Gradually, this evolved in the theory that the Camerarius, as the chief of the curia, should conduct normal business even after the death of the pope, and also conduct the burial and the preparation for the new election. This process was evident with Camerarius Boso Breakspeare. During the long sede vacante of 1268 to 1271, the importance of the Camerarius was so clear that the Cardinals were ready to elect a new one if he died.
After the death or resignation of a pope, the Holy See enters a period of sede vacante. In this case the particular church is the Diocese of Rome and the "vacant seat" is the cathedra of Saint John Lateran, the cathedral church of the Bishop of Rome. During this period, the Holy See is administered by a regency of the College of Cardinals.
Now, please note that:
Read Benedict’s resignation letter. Regardless of the popular view that munus and ministerium are identical, it is a notable distinction that Pope Benedict XVI only referred to his “ministry” or “ministerium” as Bishop of Rome and never referred to his “Munus”, role as the spiritual leader and pope. The role of “Pope” is two-fold, that is, he is “Pilot” and “Shepherd”. Pilot relates to his unique spiritual role, given directly by Jesus Christ, as the Vicar of Christ, with Petrine Authority, and Infallibility. Shepherd refers to the Pope’s administrative and episcopal role as the Bishop of Rome. Regardless of today’s popular claim by Modernist apologists, these two roles, Munus and Ministerium are distinctly different. Where are the references from Scripture, Tradition, and commentary from Fathers, Doctors and Traditional Theologoians to back up the claim of these Modernist apologists? Also, note that a number of Catholic seers, e.g., St. John Bosco and Maria Valtorta have conveyed via images and the messages of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ that the Pope is both, Pilot and Shepherd. And, Benedict never removed his Piscatory Ring while he was alive. Apparently, Pope Benedict XVI was following the Vatican II proclamation in “Christ’s Dominus” regarding episcopal resignation due to burden of age or some other grave cause. One must ask, how much the Bishop of Rome is merely a bishop or the “legal equivalent” of one? This continues to be an endless Church question.
Bergoglio always refer to himself as “The Bishop of Rome” and never as the Vicar of Christ, i.e. The Pope.
Note that Bergoglio’s administration is governed behind the scenes by a group of Cardinals.
Bergoglio is promoting the use of the “Synodality Process” to effectively delegate all the Petrine primacy/ authority to the Episcopal level and perhaps even lower than that. Apparently, as part of establishing a worldwide “Pan-Religion” he is also preparing to invite Protestants, and other cults to join the Process and become members of the worldwide Pan Religion; and
Given the above, one is compelled to ask the question: Is the Holy Ghost guiding this Bishop of Rome or is Bergoglio free to speak and take actions that defy Tradition and Dogma of the Catholic Church? Is Francis an anti-pope?
According to Universi Dominici Gregis, the government of the Holy See and the administration of the Catholic Church during sede vacante falls to the College of Cardinals, but in a very limited capacity. At the same time, all the heads of the departments of the Roman Curia "cease to exercise" their offices. The exceptions are the Cardinal Camerlengo, who is charged with managing the property of the Holy See, and the Major Penitentiary, who continues to exercise his normal role. If either has to do something which normally requires the assent of the Pope, he has to submit it to the College of Cardinals. Papal legates continue to exercise their diplomatic roles overseas, and both the Vicar General of Rome and the Vicar General for the Vatican City State continue to exercise their pastoral role during this period. The postal administration of the Vatican City State prepares and issues special postage stamps for use during this particular period, known as "sede vacante stamp”. Also, a sede vacante coin is produced. My understanding as illustrated in the image at the beginning of this article indicates a coin was produced in 2013.
Additional notes for the record:
If Munus and Ministerium are identical [notwithstanding so-called Latin translations] why did Jesus only declare that Peter is the “Rock”? Why are the other Apostles not equal to Peter? If there is no distinction other than a title as a ceremonial figurehead, have the Protestant’s view of anti-papacy finally achieved?
Again, note that Bergoglio calls himself “The Bishop of Rome” and if Pope Benedict XVI did retained the “Munus” of his office as Pope when he died, why was there no new enclave initiated to assign/transfer the Munus to Bergoglio? When Pope Benedict XVI died, was his Piscatory Ring removed and smashed/ broken? If so, did that mean his Papal Authority (Munus) was over?
In other words, none of the procedural or administrative activities associated with a sede vacante situation occurred with the death of Pope Benedict XVI. The question is: should there have been?
Clearly, Benedict XVI resignation was unprecedented and unorthodox to say the least, and there appears to be some inconsistencies with the transfer of this Pope’s authority to Bergoglio.
Sede Vacante Periods From A Historical Perspective
The longest such period was between Pius VI and Pius VII of 197 days. The shortest was Benedict XVI to the enclave of Bergoglio of 13 days. This presumes that Bergoglio, a.k.a. Francis I, is actually a pope and not just the Bishop of Rome.
Adoption of Sedevacantism By Some Catholic Traditionalists
Since Vatican II, a pastoral council (not dogmatic or compulsory to adhere to its teachings), a growing group of Traditionalists that adhere to the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church from before Vatican II claim that The Chair of Peter, The Vicar of Christ is empty. This is particularly the case with the Society of Saint Pius V (SSPV), and the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI) and their parishioners, and perhaps Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). I say "perhaps" since it can be shown that it appears that SSPX and their derivative, Bishop Williamson, are in my opinion behaving as Sedevacantists because:
I appreciate that the so-called popular view of SSPX is typically categorized as 'recognize and resist". But, Take note that the SSPX (as it exists today, not in Lefebvre's time) has not to date made any public written statement on the subject (at least as I am aware of).
Additionally, though rumors swirl, there is a very big debate inside the SSPX regarding any reconciliation with Rome. There is much talk that if Bishop Fellay attempts to do this, many of the clergy will schism.
Keep in mind Archbishop Lefebvre technically ordained 4 bishops in 1988. That got him and them excommunicated. Say what they want, those episcopal ordinations are not an endorsement of the Vatican and its modernist/heretical Popes. They were reinstated much later. So what.
Now, since then, the Vatican subsequently excommunicated Bishop Williamson and Bishop Jean-Michel Faure. Later, Bishop Williamson also elevated/ ordained Tomas de Aquino Ferreira da Costa, Gerardo Zendejas and Giacomo Bellino as Bishops. Collectively they all oppose any reconciliation by the SSPX with the Vatican. Why is that? Williamson and his allies cannot reconcile with the Vatican, let alone SSPX. Thinks there is a schism? Why?
The SSPX condemned Williamson's consecrations as "not at all comparable to the consecrations of 1988" and as proof that Williamson and Faure "no longer recognize the Roman authorities, except in a purely rhetorical manner".
Now with all that said, I contend that this group of prelates, whether they claim publicly and officially as "Sedevacants" are certainly behaving as if Rome has lost the Faith. In other words, SSPX and Williamson are a little pregnant. And this is the whole point of my efforts to author this article. Like I said, this is a complex and difficult subject to tackle and readers may differ, but that is OK. We need to bring all of this out into the open.
There are also a number of independent traditional bishops, many whose declared apostolic succession is tied to Marcel Lefebvre (e.g. Donald J. Sanborn, Bishop Charles McGuire and Brazilian Bishop Rodrigo H.R. da Silva) and priests that agree with this conclusion. In the case of Bishop Sanborn, he may be characterized a proponent of Sedeprivationism, that is a duly-elected pope who lacks the authority and ability to teach or govern unless he recants the changes he promotes and the Second Vatican Council. Such a bishop would declare that post-Vatican II popes; especially anti-pope Bergoglio are “materializer sed non formalizer”, that is “materially but not formally” occupants of the See of Peter. Bishop Sanborn does not agree with this term saying, for example, “Ratzinger [Benedict] is in possession of a formal election but he is not in possession of the power to rule and teach and sanctify.” Other Sedevacant groups include: Guild of St. Peter ad Vincula, St. Louis — King of France Group, Bishop Andres Morello’s Company of Jesus and Mary, Willing Shepherds Group, Son Abbey, Mater Boni Consilii Institute, Bishop Thomas Sebastian’s Priestly Society Christ the King (SSCR), Bishop Williamson’s SSPX Resistance Group, and Bishop Giles Butler, OFM Franciscan Friars of the Strict Observance.
It is reasonable, therefore to conclude the following:
There is apparently a fast-growing fragmentation of a varied number of “interested parties” who wish to uphold Catholic Traditionalism and remain separate and distinct from the Progressivists/ Vatican II apostate leadership in the Vatican, yet also establish separate episcopal leaders to grow and protect their flocks. Being these episcopates are rather distinct and separate; they have no unified administrative agency and leadership.
There is little to no published declarations/ teachings of a scholastic nature made by anybody in Church Leadership, traditional or otherwise, that has effectively explained how Sedevacantism is associated with the Extraordinary or Ordinary Teachings (Magisterium) of the Catholic Church throughout its 2,000-plus history; especially citing the Fathers, Doctors and Traditional Theologians.
It is critical to the health and wellbeing of all of mankind in these very disturbing and prophetic End Times that these various Traditional Catholic Episcopates and Independent Traditional Priests attempt to organize together to create a unified strategy to compete with the apostate Vatican. May I suggest that their individual differences need to be subordinated to the greater good of the whole Roman Catholic Church.
Sedevacantism: What is it?
This is a difficult topic to wrap one’s hands around dispassionately and scholarly. Research on the internet indicates very little from a Catholic teaching perspective, that is, what the Fathers, Doctors and Traditional Theologians say about it. There is a lot of “banter and bickering” over what people, including some bishops, assert that exists in today’s Roman Catholic world. They appear to rely on demonstrative behavior of the pope(s) acting in a materially heretical fashion. Yet, they have not effectively concluded; using the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church over the ages, that an implied/ after-the-fact excommunication of a pope automatically means the Chair of Peter, the Vicar of Christ is vacant.
Worse, apologists for the Vatican are inclined to castigate, uncharitably I would contend, sedevacantists as pseudo-Protestants or worse. These apologists are obstinate and refuse to view the Vatican leadership as “Apostates” regardless of their behavior over the past at least 75 years. These Apostates include not only Popes since Vatican II but modernist, progressive, luciferian, and satanic Cardinals and Bishops since the time of Pope Benedict XV. Geeze, I wonder why?
I wish to add that over the past 2,000+ years there have been dozens of “Anti-popes” in the Roman Catholic Church including a John XXIII from 1410 to 1415 — whereas why did Roncalli [Ed: an anti-pope as well choose the same name?]; yet I see no consistent, published historical evidence that under such a tragic situation, the Papacy was declared vacant. Why? Does it have to do with fear that schism and apostasy would rule and the Protestants would win?
Let’s be clear, there is no excuse for putting up a dead corpse on trial, i.e., Pope Stephen VI putting Pope Formosus on trial. Yet, our Church has experienced a number of material heretics as Popes. Was the Papal Seat vacant all these times? The Cardinals could have initiated a new enclave. They didn’t. Of course, there were competing Popes, e.g. aforementioned Anti-pope John XXIII vs. Gregory XII. I suspect the Cardinals were and are compromised by political power (governments and money). Nothing new here. The apologists for the Vatican would never demand that the Cardinals fulfill their princely duties. No! These apologists prefer to pick on devout religious and laity instead. What cowards!
Think about the consequences of what I just said. Imagine if all of these fragmented Traditionalists and Sedevacantists got together to create one homogeneous organization dedicated to the Deposit of Faith and the traditional Roman Catholic Church. Imagine putting together a united front to market and proselytize this uniate organization around the world. Whoa! That would put the Vatican on notice, indeed. Don’t hold your breath.
To add more confusion, Tradition-In-Action, a very good Catholic website, invited a “Guest” Dan O’Connell to present an article on “Sede-Vacantism?” He begins with his definition of what is sede-vacantism. As he understands it, the sede-vacantist is a Catholic who believes in all the rights and authority of the Papacy but does not believe that the man currently holding the title of Pope, in his case and at that time, His Holiness Benedict XVI, is really the Pope; he is fundamentally someone posing as the Pope, an impostor, although the rest of the world accepts the man as the Pope. Hence the Latin term sede-vacante, “the chair (of Peter) is vacant.”
O’Connell gives a myriad of examples of misbehavior by our Popes so he is surely no fan of theirs. His basis against Sedevacantism is Scripture. He points to the fact that Our Lord accepted Annas and Caiaphas as High Priests, including the assertion that the Holy Ghost was with them because Christ says in St. Matthew (23: 2-3) “The scribes and the Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say and do not.” O’Connell therefore concludes there is no sedevacantism with Annas and Caiaphas so there is no sedevacantism with our Popes. Hmm.
Ok, a few constructive criticisms I wish to ask. Is the Holy Ghost with the Jewish religious leaders today? Matthew (23:2-3) was stated BEFORE, the arrest, torture and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Was the Holy Ghost with Annas and Caiaphas when they arrested and handed over Christ to the Romans to crucify? Were these men “Infallible”? In other words, when did the Holy Ghost leave Annas and Caiaphas? Discerning and devout Roman Catholics would want to know this. O’Connell never touched that third rail.
William of Ockham (c.1285-1349)
This proto-sedevacantist was labeled a “nominalist” — claimed that all ideas were really images or impressions on the imagination originating in sensual perception confounding the individualized image of the imagination with the concept or idea which resides in the intellect which differed from St. Thomas Acquinas view of images vs. ideas. For the record, Ockham was excommunicated for leaving Avignon without permission.
Ockham wrote—"at the end of his letter to the General Chapter in Assisi in the spring of 1334" (cf. Tractatus de Successivis translation p.12), defending his opposition to Pope John XXII, who opposed the (then-material) dogma that the souls of the deceased destined to heaven behold the Beatific Vision immediately after death, defined by John XXII's successor Benedict XII in Benedictus Deus—that: “Because of the errors and the heresies mentioned above and countless others, I turned away from the obedient of the false Pope and all who were friends to the prejudice of the orthodox faith. For men of great learning showed me that because of his errors and heresies the same pseudo-Pope is heretical, deprived of his papacy, and excommunicated by Canon Law itself, with need of forth sentence…. In proof thereof several volumes have been published…. For against the errors of this pseudo-Pope I have turned my face like the hardest rock, so that neither lies nor calumnies nor any persecution (which cannot touch my innermost self in any bodily fashion), nor great numbers of men who believe in him or favor him or even defend, shall be able to prevent me from attacking or reporting his errors, as long as I shall have hand, paper, pen and ink….
“If anyone should like to recall me or anyone else who has turned away from the obedient of the false Pope and his friends, let him try to defend his Constitutions and sermons, and show that they agree with Holy Scripture, or that a Pope cannot fall into the wickedness of heresy, or let him show by holy authorities or manifest reasons that one who knows the Pope to be a notorious heretic is obliged to obey him. Let him not, however, adduce the great number of his adherents, nor base his arguments on reproaches, threats, and false calumnies, show that they are void of truth and reason…. I prefer Holy Scripture to a man unlearned in holy science, and I have a higher esteem for the doctrine of the Fathers who reign with Christ than for the tradition of men dwelling in this mortal life.”
Wow, does this all not bespeak of what is going on today? Let’s summarize:
Since Vatican II, material heresy/ errors are countless.
The notorious heretic, Bergoglio — “The Bishop of Rome”, appears to be an anti-pope..
Arguments, reproaches, threats and false calumnies are manifested against devout religious and laity who prefer to remain Traditional Catholics. Persecution, including excommunication, e.g. Vigano, is ramping up.
Despite the persecution, devout Roman Catholics remain steadfast.
Unfortunately, it is typically always some lonely low-level prelate or lay person that stands up to an anti-pope. The Church Leadership of Cardinals and Bishops do not, because they are compromised or worse.
This reminds me of a quote by Cristina Siccardi regarding her admiration of Pope St. Pius X, who “did not look for the approval of the Roman Curia, the priests, the bishops, the faithful, and most of all he did not look for the approval of the world, but always and only he looked for the approval of God, at the risk of damaging his public image, and doing thus, he undoubtedly made many enemies whilst alive, and even more in death.” Keep in mind this quote is from a Pope regarding himself, not others.
Note that modern day Traditionalists and Sedevacantists, like Pope St. Pius X, are not afraid of disapproval and the risk of damaging their public image and making enemies within and outside the Church.
How To Reconcile What Freemasonry and Holy/ Blessed Prophets Say?
Here is a fundamental question: If the Roman Catholic Church’s leadership falls prey to Freemasons, Talmudic Jews, Luciferians and Satanists how should devout religious and laity react? Here are a number of prophetic examples to ponder:
Pope St. Pius X, August 15, 1910: “… the great movement of APOSTASY being organized in every country for the establishment of a ONE-WORLD CHURCH which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, nor discipline for the min, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world the reign of legalized cunning and force, the oppression of the weak, and of those who toil and suffer.”
Alta Vendita, Page 6: ”Our ultimate end is that of Voltaire and the French Revolution — the final destruction of Catholicism, and even of the Christian idea.” [Ed. Note: Recall the goal of Freemasonry: “Tolle Papem, Tolle Ecclesiam, Tolle Missam".] Has all of this not occurred?
Our Lady of La Salette, September 19, 1846: “The Church will be in eclipse…Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”
Marie-Julie Jahenny, 1904: From Jesus, “I give you a warning. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas, and under the influence of the enemy of souls, a Mass that contains words which are odious in My Sight. When the fatal hour arrives where the faith of my priest is put to the test, it will be these texts that will be celebrated, in this second period…. The first period is the one of My Priesthood, existing since Me. The second is the one of the persecution, when the enemies of the Faith and of Holy Religion will impose their formulas in the book of the second celebration. Many of My holy priests will refuse this book, sealed with the words of the abyss. Unfortunately, among them are those who will accept it.” On May 10, 1904, Our Lady described the new clergy and its liturgy: “They will not stop on this hateful and sacrilegious road. They will go further to compromise all at once, and in one blow, the Holy Church, the clergy, and the Faith of my children”. She announced the “dispersion of the pastors” by the Church herself; true pastors, who will be replaced by others formed by Hell: “…new preachers of new sacraments, new temples, new baptisms, new confraternities.”
Purported 3rd Secret of Fatima, Tuy, September 1, 1944: “But there was a difference from the true holy Father, his devilish gaze, this one had the gaze of evil…. Then, after some moments we saw the same Pope enter a Church, but this Church was the Church of hell….” Then the Blessed Virgin Mary said, “You saw the apostasy in the Church…. Because the dogma of faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima.” (Source: Tradition-In-Action, A.S Guimaraes)
Sister Jeanne Royer, 18th Century: “The new Constitution will appear to many other than what it really is. They will bless it as a gift from heaven; whereas, it is in fact sent from hell and permitted by God in His just wrath. It will only be by its effects that people will be led to recognize the Dragon who wanted. To destroy all and devour all.”
Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerick, 19th Century: “Once more I saw the Church of St. Peter was undermined by a plan evolved by the secret sect…I saw a strange church being built against every rule… it is probably a church of human creation, following the latest fashion… I saw again the strange big church that was being built there. There was nothing holy in it.”
St. Nicholas of Flüe, 15th Century: “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and low, will become so perverted. The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished….”
Ecstatic of Tours, La Ville de la Victoire du Christ, 1882: “ When everyone believes that peace is assured. When everyone least expects it, the great happenings will begin. Revolution will break out in Italy almost at the same time as in France. For some time, the Church will be without a Pope. England, too, will have much to suffer.”
Venerable Holzhauser, 17th Century: “When everything has been ruined by war, when Catholics are hard-pressed by traitorous co-religionists and heretics, when the Church and her servants are denied their rights….”
Padre St. Pio of Petrelcina, 1960: Around 1960, the Roman Catholic priest and world renowned exorcist, Father Gabriele Amorth met with Padre Pio and talked with him about the Third Secret of Fatima. Father Amorth spoke about the meeting in a 2011 interview. According to Father Amorth, Padre Pio said: “Satan has been introduced into the bosom of the Church [the physical structures] and he will within a very short time come to rule a false Church.” Father Amorth says that Padre Pio was “really tormented” by one issue, that is, the great apostasy. Encouraging the daily recital of the Rosary, Padre Pio recommended the prayer, “O Jesus, save the elect in the hour of darkness.” By the way, Padre Pio received a dispensation from the Vatican and never celebrated the Novus Ordo/ New Mass. When Padre Pio heard abut the growing number of radical priests, nuns and laity, as well as dissent from Catholic teaching and the lack of vocations, he was reported to have remarked more than once: “Thank God I am old and near death!”
Sister Agnes Katsuko Sasagawa, Our Lady of Akita 1973 -79: From Father Meiji Yasuda regarding the lachrymation (weeping) of the statue with the Apparition of the BVM in Akita, Japan: “Sister Agnes immediately ran to my office to tell me the angelic message that had followed the apparition and that confirmed what I thought. But this message had to remain hidden, because it was linked to a very serious event for the Catholic Church: the arrival of a false pope, an antichrist pope who, like Judas, would sell Jesus and the Catholic Church to the enemies and ridicule the role of our Mother as Co-Redemptrix.”
In a homily of Jorge "Francis” Bergoglio on December 12, 2019, Bergoglio referred to the belief that Mary is Co-Redemptrix as “tonterias”, that is, nonsense, ineptitude, absurdities.
This is just a small sample of the preponderance of bona-fides Catholic prophecies from Catholic Seers and Blessed and Venerable Saints consistently describing the challenges of our End Times. To summarize:
There is a definite and determined effort by evil people with influence throughout the world, outside and inside the Roman Catholic Church who are determined to end Catholicism/ Christianity; especially the institution known as the Roman Catholic Church and its Papacy.
Freemasonry wants to take away the Pope, the Faith and the Traditional Latin Mass. Has this not been happening since Vatican II?
Mankind was forewarned by Our Blessed Mother and Her Son, Jesus Christ of a “New Mass” that is not of the Catholic Gospel and for Jesus is “Odious in His sight”.
Catholic prophecies indicate that it is not the devout religious and laity that are in schism, apostasy or division with Rome. It is Rome, the Vatican itself that is in apostasy. Our Blessed Lady is clear, “Rome has lost the Faith.” You wonder why the Vatican proscribed the messages of La Salette in the early 20th century?
Multiple Catholic Seers indicate that the Chair of Peter, The Vicar of Christ will be “empty for some time”. It is apparent that this claim pertains to these End Times and begs the question is this the case presently?
The present situation of numerous/ separate groups of like-minded Traditional Catholic bishops and clerics is an understandable outcome representing what Jesus, Himself calls ‘The First Period of My Priesthood” whereas the “Second Period” includes religious that are practicing the ‘Odious” Mass and are formed in Hell. This is truly scary.
This all begs the question, if Rome has lost the Faith and the Novus Ordo is from Hell, who is in schism — who is apostasizing? And the following question is: does the Bishop of Rome have the Holy Ghost? If he does not, does sede vacant exist, ipso facto?
Now, A Word From Bishop Mark Pivarunas, CMRI
This is the first contemporary source located from a “Bishop” that offers some appreciation of Sedevacantism based on Scripture and Tradition. With so little out there based on Church Teaching, perhaps this is worth reading and contemplating.
As an introduction to this article, let the traditional Catholic first ask himself why he is a traditional Catholic. Why does he not attend the Novus Ordo Mass? Why does he reject the teachings of Vatican Council II on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism? Why does he reject the new code of Canon Law (1983) in which under certain circumstances schismatics and heretics may, without an abjuration of their errors and a profession of the Catholic Faith, be administered by a Catholic priest the Sacraments of Penance, Extreme Unction, and Holy Eucharist? If the traditional Catholic answers the first question correctly, he would state quite simply that the New Mass is without a doubt a danger to his faith and that due to the radical changes in the Offertory and Consecration, it is questionable whether transubstantiation even takes place. In answer to the second question, the traditional Catholic would properly state that the teachings found in Vatican II decrees of Religious Liberty and Ecumenism have been condemned by previous popes, in particular by Pope St. Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors. Lastly, to the third question, the traditional Catholic would surely answer that such a law in the new code can never be considered as true and binding legislation since the sacraments would be sacrilegiously administered to heretics and schismatics.
How appropriately did the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on the occasion of his Suspension a divinis by Paul VI write the following reflection on June 29, 1976:
“That the Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.
“This Conciliar Church is schismatic, because it has taken as a basis for its updating, principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church, such as the new concept of the Mass expressed in numbers 5 of the Preface to (the decree) Missale Romanum and 7 of its first chapter, which gives the assembly a priestly role that it cannot exercise; such likewise as the natural — which is to say divine — right of every person and of every group of persons to religious freedom.
“This right to religious freedom is blasphemous, for it attributes to God purposes that destroy His Majesty, His Glory, His Kingship. This right implies freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and all the Masonic freedoms.
“The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”
Let the traditional Catholic, especially the members of the Society of St. Pius X, ask themselves to what extent have the Pope, bishops, priest and laity adhered to this new Church which would, as Archbishop Lefebvre reflected, separate themselves from the Catholic Church. Francis, as did Benedict XVI and John Paul II before him, completely adheres to the Conciliar Church. He enforces the Novus Ordo Mass and false teachings of Vatican II. He follows in the footsteps of John Paul II, who promulgated the New Code of Canon Law (1983), and who boldly practiced false ecumenism and heretical religious indifferentism in Assisi, Italy, on October 27, 1986, by the atrocious convocation of all the false religions of the world to pray to their false gods for world peace!
As unpleasant as this subject may be, traditional Catholics are confronted by the terrible and burning questions:
Is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church?
Is Francis, as the head of the Conciliar Church, a true pope?
The sedevacantist would unhesitatingly and unequivocally say no.
To believe otherwise, to answer yes to the above questions, would be to imply that the Catholic Church has failed in its purpose, that the Church of Christ is not infallible and indefectible, that the Pope is not the rock upon which Christ founded His Church, that the promise of Christ to be with His Church “all days even to the consummation of the world” and that the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, have failed the Church — conclusions which no traditional Catholic could ever maintain. Consider the following quote from Vatican Council I (1870):
“For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ …for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32).”
Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Satis Cognitum, taught that the Teaching Authority of the Church can never be in error:
“If (the living magisterium) could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error.”
How can a traditional Catholic on one hand reject the New Mass, the heretical teachings of Vatican Council II, and the New Code of Canon Law (1983), and on the other hand, continue to recognize as pope the very one who officially promulgates and enforces these errors?
To consider yet another question, is the faith and government of the traditional Catholic the same as Bergoglio and his Conciliar Church? Do traditional Catholics believe the same doctrines as Francis and his Conciliar Church on the New Mass, false ecumenism, and religious liberty?
Are traditional Catholics subject to the local hierarchy and ultimately to Rome?
Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Mystical Body of Christ, taught:
“It follows that those who are divided in faith and government cannot be living in the one Body such as this, and cannot be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
Are traditional Catholics united or divided in faith and government with the Conciliar Church?
The sedevacantist honestly recognizes that his faith is actually not the same as Francis and his Conciliar Church. He recognizes that he is actually not subject and obedient to him. As a traditional Catholic, the sedevacantist believes and professes all the teachings of the Catholic Church, and this profession of the true Faith includes a rejection of the false teachings of Vatican II (“all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive” — Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, June 29, 1976).
During the first prayer of the Canon of the traditional Mass which begins Te Igitur, the priest in normal times would recite una cum papa nostro N. (one with our pope N.). What significance does this short phrase convey — una cum, one with? One in faith, one in government, one in the Mass and Sacraments — united— this is the significance! Can a traditional priest honestly recite in the "Canon of the Mass" that he is una cum Francis? In what is he una cum Francis? In the Conciliar teachings, in government, in the official New Mass and Sacraments — is he actually una cum?
One last consideration on this subject of sedevacantism is the manner in which all these things have come to pass. When did they take place? How did they take place? This is an area in which sedevacantists themselves differ. Some hold that the papal elections were invalid based on the Bull of Pope Paul IV in 1559, Cum Ex Apostolatus:
“If ever at any time it appears that… the Roman Pontiff has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy before assuming the papacy, the assumption, done even with the unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, stands null, invalid and void; nor can it be said to become valid, or be held in any way legitimate, or be thought to give to such ones any power of administering either spiritual or temporal matters; but everything said, done and administered by them lacks all force and confers absolutely no authority or right on anyone; and let such ones by that very fact (eo ipso) and without any declaration required to be deprived of all dignity, place, honor, title, authority, office, and power.”
Some Sedevacantists quote the Code of Canon Law (1917) in Canon 188 No. 4: “All offices shall be vacant ipso facto (without a declaration required) by tacit resignation… #4 by public defection from the Catholic Faith.”
Others hold the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice (Chapter XXX):
“The fifth opinion (regarding a heretical pope) therefore is true; a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact (per se) ceases to be pope and head (of the Church), just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian (sic) and a member of the body of the Church. This is the judgment of all the early Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
Pope Innocent III as quoted by the theologian Billot in his Tract. de Ecclesia Christi, p. 610:
“The faith is necessary for me to such an extent that, having God as my only judge in other sins, I could however be judged by the Church for sins I might commit in matters of faith.”
Suffice it to say, the issue of the pope is a difficult one, an unpleasant one, and a frightful one; yet it is a necessary and important issue which cannot be avoided.
In conclusion, let it not be said that the sedevacantist rejects the papacy, the primacy, or the Catholic Church. On the contrary it is because of his belief in the papacy, the primacy, the infallibility and the indefectibility of the Catholic Church that he rejects Francis and his Conciliar Church.
For the sedevacantist, the Catholic Church cannot and has not failed. The great apostasy predicted by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Thessalonians has taken place:
“Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God…. And now you know what restrains him, that he may be revealed in his proper time. For the mystery of iniquity is already at work; provided only that he who is at present restraining it, does still restrain, until he is gotten out of the way.And then the wicked one will be revealed…” (2 Thess. 2:3-8).
Who is this one “who is at present restraining it… until he is gotten out of the way. And then the wicked one will be revealed”? Perhaps Pope Leo XIII has the answer in his Motu Proprio of September 25, 1888, when he wrote in his invocation to St. Michael:
“These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”