Sedevacantist
Watch…
SEDEVACANTISTS REJECT PRE-VATICAN II POPES
Because of this mentality, they obviously have absolutely no scruple in publicly rejecting the post-Vatican II Popes and
declaring them antipopes. But what many people may not know is that this same
mentality has led many Sedevacantist to reject the legitimacy of Popes who
reigned before Vatican II as well.
A case on point is a new Sedevacantist sect calling itself “Our Lady’s Resistance.” This new sect, which has apparently sprung up within the last several years, rejects the legitimacy of every Pope after Pius X (nine in all). They maintain that for more than a century, “Antichrist usurpers” have been sitting on the Papal Throne. They have even written a lengthy study to prove their case. The following is taken from their website:
A case on point is a new Sedevacantist sect calling itself “Our Lady’s Resistance.” This new sect, which has apparently sprung up within the last several years, rejects the legitimacy of every Pope after Pius X (nine in all). They maintain that for more than a century, “Antichrist usurpers” have been sitting on the Papal Throne. They have even written a lengthy study to prove their case. The following is taken from their website:
“The evidence exposing the Antichrist in
Rome since 1914. The goal of this study is to prove our assertion and prove the
claimants to the Papal throne after Pope Pius X to be usurpers. Hopefully this
article will wake up at least one soul to the grim realities of the present
moment”[1]
(Our Lady’s Resistance).
 |
| Mario Derksen |
“There are three canons in particular we
would like to present to our readers promulgated under Benedict XV which prove
his reign as an ANTIpope (sic) – having no infallibility.”[2]
This is what will inevitably occur when
individuals imagine that the legitimacy of a determined
Pope is a matter of
personal opinion to be decided by the private judgment of Catholics in the pew.
And it is not only the Popes of the modern era (the last century) whose
legitimacy is subject to this private judgment. The Sedevacantist blogger,
Steve Speray, rejects Popes who reigned more than millennia ago, even though he
concedes that they have always been considered true Popes by the Church.
For example, Speray claims that Pope
Honorius lost his office for heresy and became an antipope, even though the
Church has never taught such a thing. In
response to an article by John Salza, which pointed out the difficulties that
the case of Honorius presents for the Sedevacantist thesis, Speray wrote:
“As for Honorius, he was not considered
a pope after his heresy! The fact that he was at best doubtful afterwards, means he must be considered an
antipope. So Honorius proves sedevacantism not disproves it.”[3]
You see, when an historical case poses a
problem for Steve Speray, he simply declares that the Pope in question was not
a true Pope. But he doesn’t stop there. If you notice, after declaring, on his
own authority, that Honorius “must be
considered an antipope,” he then claims that the loss of office for Honorius
“proves the Sedevacantist position.” Now, think about that for a minute. Speray simply makes the statement (based on
nothing but his opinion) that Honorius was an antipope (which the Church has
never taught) and then claims that his statement “proves” the Sedevacantist position. This is the kind of utterly absurd “logic” that
one finds regularly in the arguments
presented by Sedevacantists apologists.
But we run into another problem with Speray’s
“proof.” The problem is that two other Sedevacantist apologists, namely John
Lane and Fr. Cekada, teach that Honorius did
not lose his office. For example,
Lane wrote:
“Pope Honorius was not a manifest
heretic, and nobody has ever claimed that he was. … even if we were to admit
the claim that Honorius really was a heretic, which we do not admit, he was
certainly not a manifest heretic, and thus his case has no bearing on the
question of the incompatibility of the status of ‘manifest heretic’ and the
possession of an ecclesiastical office.”[5]
Fr. Cekada also disagrees with Speray’s
private judgment about the legitimacy of Honorius. In his 2005 article,
“Sedevacantism and Ferrara’s Cardboard Pope,” Cekada wrote, “even if heretical,
Honorius’ statements could not have constituted the ‘public’ heresy required
for a pope to lose office.”[6]
So here we have three Sedevacantists
with two completely different conclusions about the Papacy of Honorius. If
Speray’s opinion “proves” Sedevacantism, what does the exact opposite opinion of Lane and Cekada prove?
And Pope Honorius is not the only
pre-Vatican II Pope that Steve Speray rejects. He also claims that Pope Stephen
VI was an antipope. According to Speray, Pope Stephen lost his office due to “insanity.”
Speray wrote:
“There is no question that Stephen’s
mental capacity was unstable. Because of
his insanity, Stephen should be considered an antipope. One theologian says
this isn’t a novel understanding among canonists: ‘Not few canonists teach
that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost
by falling into certain insanity…’”[7]
Thus, the
Sedevacantist rule (at least according to Steve Speray) includes the ability to
judge the mental state of a Pope who lived over a thousand years ago (which, as
we have seen, is a “question of fact” that only the Church alone could decide). Next, regarding the “question of law,” Speray cites a theologian who says “not a few canonists” teach that a Pope can lose his office due to
“certain insanity,” and then draws the conclusion that Pope Stephen was an antipope.
Here’s the syllogism:
Major: Some canonists teach that a Pope can lose his office due to
insanity.
Minor: Steve Speray thinks a Pope who lived over a thousand years ago was insane.
Conclusion: Steve Speray publicly declares that Pope Stephen was an antipope.
The problem, of
course, is that the Minor is nothing but the private opinion of Steve Speray,
which has never been proven or even
suggested by the Church. And even though Speray has absolutely no training
in canon law, theology, or psychology,
he doesn’t hesitate to declare that Pope Stephen was an antipope, even though,
as he concedes, Pope Stephen has always been “viewed as a true pope by his
successors and placed on the official papal list.”[8] In other words, Steve Speray, who calls
himself a Traditional Catholic, is quite pleased to publicly denounce what the
Church holds to be true.
Clearly, the public
judgment of the Church, for over a thousand years, in holding Stephen to be a
legitimate Pope, does not in any way hinder Speray from publicly affirming the exact opposite. In addition to the
Protestant mindset of private judgment, it is also clear evidence of the arrogance
and pride of these Sedevacantist apologists, who shamelessly imagine that their
private judgment constitutes a “fact,” even when it is directly opposed to the
public judgment of the Church.
And to show where
this dangerous, Protestant mentality eventually leads, the Sedevacantist author,
Richard Ibranyi, now claims that every
single Pope for the past nine centuries has been an antipope. You read that correctly. He claims that every
Pope since the year 1130 – over one hundred Popes in a row – have been false
usurpers of the Papal Throne. And he bases his position (which he considers to
be a “fact”) on what he describes as “conclusive evidence.” In his own words:
“As of January 2014, I have discovered
conclusive evidence that all the so-called popes and cardinals from Innocent II
(1130-1143) onward have been idolaters or formal heretics and thus were
apostate antipopes and apostate anticardinals.”[9]
And it is not
just the last 100+ Popes that are subject to Mr. Ibranyi’s private judgment. He also declares that all – yes “all” - of the
theologians and canon lawyers for the past seven and a half centuries have been
apostates! In Ibranyi’s own words:
“Also all of the theologians and canon
lawyers from 1250 onward have been apostates. Hence all their teachings, laws,
judgments, and other acts are null and void. Therefore, all of the ecumenical
councils, canon laws, and other acts from Apostate Antipope Innocent II onward
are null and void.”[10]
This, dear reader, is the fruit of the
Sedevacantist mindset. Whether it is Fr. Anthony Cekada
rejecting the last six
consecutive Popes after Pius XII, Speray adding several pre-Vatican II Popes to
the list, “Our Lady’s Resistance” rejecting all the Popes after Pius X, or
Ibranyi declaring that all the Popes for the past nine centuries have been
antipopes, it only shows why the legitimacy of a determined Pope is not a
personal opinion to be decided by each Catholic for themselves. These rotten
fruits alone demonstrate the complete absurdity of the
Sedevacantist thesis.
Infallible
Certitude of a Determined Pope
Fortunately, Catholics aren’t left with
the burden of deciding for themselves
which Popes have been true Popes, since the Church’s judgment concerning the
matter is infallible. The legitimacy of a determined Pope falls into the
category of a dogmatic fact. This fact
(i.e., is the Pope a true Pope) is considered infallible when the Pope who is elected
is peacefully and universally accepted by the Church. Msgr. Van Noort explains:
“Assertion 2: The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic facts. This
proposition is theologically certain. A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained
in the sources of revelation, [but] on the admission of which depends the
knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: ‘Was the
[First] Vatican Council a legitimate ecumenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a
substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible? Was Pius XII legitimately elected Bishop of
Rome? One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether
the decrees of the [First] Vatican Council are infallible, whether the Vulgate
is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Pius XII is to be recognized as supreme ruler
of the universal Church.”[11]
Fr. Berry teaches the same in his
Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, The
Church of Christ:
“DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one
that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of
faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain
knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly
ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate
pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided
with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as
infallibly true or binding on the Church. It
is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts,
and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it
follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in
accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected,
gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.”[12]
Here we see that the Church’s judgment
concerning who is a true Pope is infallible.
Rejection
of a Dogmatic Fact is a Mortal Sin Against Faith
In his 1951 book On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them,
Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J., explains that the rejection of a dogmatic fact is a “mortal sin against
faith”[13]
(and the example he uses of a dogmatic
fact is the legitimacy of a determine Pope). Hence, Sedevacantists - who publicly
reject the Church’s judgment concerning the legitimacy of a determine Pope, in
favor of their own personal opinion – have committed an objective mortal sin
against the Faith. And, needless to say, those who follow the private opinions
of these Sedevacantist apologists commit the same mortal sin (at least in the
objective order). We can only hope that these individuals renounce their grievous
error before they arrive at their Particular Judgment.
Cardinal
Billot on the Church’s Acceptance of a Pope
Cardinal Billot explains that the
acceptance of a Pope by the universal Church is not only an infallible sign of
his legitimacy, but it is also, quite logically, an infallible sign of the
existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy (one condition being
that the Pope is a member of the Church, and hence not a public heretic). Another relevant point the Cardinal makes is
that God might permit an extended vacancy of the Apostolic See, but he cannot permit the whole Church to
accept a false Pope as being the true Pope.
Here is Cardinal Billot’s teaching on this subject:
“Finally, whatever you still think about
the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [of a Pope
falling into heresy], at least one point must be considered absolutely incontrovertible
and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: the adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an
infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all
the conditions required for legitimacy itself. … As will become even more
clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the
Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time. He can also permit that doubt arise
about the legitimacy of this or that election. He cannot however permit that the whole Church accept as Pontiff him
who is not so truly and legitimately.
“Therefore,
from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her
as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a
possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever
necessary for legitimacy. For the
aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the
election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”[14]
This teaching completely refutes the Sedevacantist
claim that the recent Popes were not valid “matter” for the papacy (i.e.,
public heretics before being elected), since they were all accepted as Pope by
the Church – at least by a moral
unanimity of Catholics, which is the degree of acceptance necessary to
provide infallible certitude. It also plainly refutes the claim of Speray, the
sect known as “Our Lady’s Resistance,” Richard Ibranyi, and the other
Sedevacantists who reject pre-Vatican II Popes. In fact, Cardinal Billot used
this teaching to refute the claim, which was held by some at the time, that the
scandalous Alexander VI was not a legitimate Pope.
 |
| Savonarola |
Commenting on the case of Pope Alexander
VI, Cardinal Billot explains that his legitimacy is confirmed by the fact that
he had been accepted as Pope by the entire Church. In the Cardinal’s own words:
“Let this be said in passing against
those who, trying to justify certain attempts at schism made in the time of
Alexander VI, allege that its promoter [Savonarola] broadcast that he had most
certain proofs, which he would reveal to a General Council, of the heresy of
Alexander. Putting aside here other
reasons with which one could easily be able to refute such an opinion, it is
enough to remember this: it is certain that when Savonarola was writing his
letters to the Princes, all of Christendom adhered to Alexander VI and obeyed
him as the true Pontiff. For this very reason, Alexander VI was not a false
Pope, but a legitimate one.”[16]
But what do Sedevacantists say about the
case of Alexander VI? Not surprisingly,
Steve Speray disagrees with the judgment of the Church and sides with
Savonarola, even though, in the end Savonarola himself submitted to the
excommunication that was imposed on him by Alexander VI, and, before being put
to death, even knelt at the feet of Bishop Romolino to receive the blessing and
plenary indulgence granted to him by the same Pope, which suggests that he had renounced
his previous opinion about Alexander’s legitimacy. Yet in spite of this, Steve Speray
wrote:
“Sometime between the years of 1494 and
1494 A.D., Girolamo Savonarola denounced Alexander for simony, which according
to the former, invalidated the election of Alexander thus making him an
antipope. (…) Although Alexander is considered a true pope, and listed as such on the
official list, it appears that Savonarola was correct.”[17]
So notice, Speray admits that Alexander
“is considered a true Pope” by the Church, and is even ”listed as such on the
official list” of Popes, yet Speray disagrees with the Church based on his own
private judgment. As we have seen, we have infallible
certitude that Speray’s judgment is erroneous by the fact that Alexander
was accepted as Pope by the Church. Therefore, as Cardinal Billot said, “Alexander
VI was not a false Pope, but a legitimate one.”
But none of this is likely to persuade Steve
Speray or any of his Sedevacantist colleagues, since for them the public
judgment of the Church means virtually nothing. When a Pope is elected and
accepted by the Church, well, YOU DECIDE! It is curious to behold those who
call themselves Catholics publicly and pertinaciously reject dogmatic facts without the least
scruple, when doing so constitutes a mortal sin against the Faith. And, needless
to say, this public sin cannot be forgiven unless they first repent and renounce
their position which, for Sedevacantist apologists, requires a public retraction of their errors.
Unfortunately, this has not yet occurred
with any of the Sedevacantist apologists, who continue to publicly persevere in
their position, even after being publicly proven wrong (with their latest
defenses descending ever more into the quagmire of ad hominem attacks, dishonest arguments and self-contradictions).
But this public sin against Faith (and consequent darkening of the intellect)
does help to explain why Sedevacantist apologists are unable to see their way
out of their glaring errors. For those entrenched in the darkness of
Sedevacantism, prayer is the only hope.
[1]
http://www.ourladysresistance.org/the-mystery-of-iniquity.html?m.
[2] “Mystery of
Iniquity: A Study of the Antichrist Since 1914,” pp. 27-28.
[3] Quoted in: Salza, J.,
Siscoe, R., True of False Pope? Refuting
Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors, STAS Editions, 2015, p. 320.
[4] Not only has the
Church never declared that Honorius lost his office due to heresy, but the
Church has also condemned the idea that Catholics can formally separate from
their bishops if they personally believe them to be heretics, before a judgment
of the Church (Constantinople IV; Ex Quo).
[6] Cekada,
“Sedevacantism and Mr. Ferrara’s Cardboard Pope,” 2005.
[7] Speray, “Papal Anomalies
and Their Implications.”
[8] Ibid.
[9]
Richard Joseph Michael
Ibranyi, “No Popes or Cardinals since 1130,” January 2014. http://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/articles/rjmi/tr37_no_popes_cardinals_since_1130.pdf.
[10] Ibid.
[13] See: http://www.the-pope.com/theolnotes.html.
Quoted in Journet’s The
Church of the Word Incarnate, p. 484 (emphasis
added).
[17] Speray, “Papal
Anomalies,” pp. 133, 136.
