Published with the generous permission of Catholic Family News.

Web Master's Note: Some of the footnotes appeared to be mis-sequenced as there were two numbered 36, sandwiched between other notes. I did my best to sort them out. This necessitated my renumbering a few of the notes. [The notes  1-30 did not require renumbering.]  However, even with my best efforts, present notes 34 and 35 [which refer to sedevacantist web sites] may have to be exchanged. You will have to judge as best as you can until CFN or the author provides a notice of correction.

Part 2 -------"Manifest" Heresy of the Conciliar
and Post Conciliar Popes

Summary of Part 1

In the first part of this essay I discussed the patent absurdity of the sedevacantist thesis-----i.e., that there has been no valid Pope since 1958 because the last five occupants of the See of Peter have all been guilty of "manifest heresy" which caused them to lose, or precluded them from  receiving the papal office. I showed how this claim contradicts the infallible teaching of Vatican I that the Petrine succession is perpetual and that an unbroken chain of the successors of Peter will rule the Church as its visible head and foundation until the end of time.

Hence, even when anti-popes, laid claim to the papal throne, as during the Great Western Schism, a true Pope always reigned at the same time. Allowing for interregnums between the death of one Pope and the election of his successor (the longest interregnum in Church history having been just over two years) the Church has never been without a validly elected true successor of Peter, even when an anti-pope was also on the scene.

Yet the sedevacantists argue that the Church has been at the mercy of five successive anti-popes since 1958 with no true Pope reigning anywhere for the past half-century, and that there is no end in sight to the train of anti-popes. ²⁵ In essence, they argue that the papacy has been overthrown.

The sedevacantists further argue that not only the last five Popes, but virtually all the cardinals and bishops of the Catholic Church are impostors because of "heresy," or because the new rites of priestly ordination and episcopal consecration adopted in 1969 are "invalid." Thus, in their view, virtually the entire hierarchy has ceased to exist since Vatican II. Under the conditions they imagine to exist, only a miracle would allow a true Pope to be validly elected in the future and true bishops to be consecrated.

In sum, according to the sedevacantist Enterprise, the papacy and the governing hierarchy have vanished, and we have no way of knowing when they will return. The spokesmen of the Enterprise would have us believe that all that is left of the "true Church" is a scattered remnant of bickering sedevacantists, whose clerics challenge the validity of each other's ordinations and episcopal consecrations. ²⁶ (The rest of us are viewed as either "apostates" or "tolerantly" conceded to remain in the "true Church" if we have not been culpable in our failure "to understand the situation.") This notion is plainly
contrary to the promises of Christ that He would be with His Church until the end of time, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. The theory of the vanishing Pope and hierarchy does not merit serious consideration by any Catholic. Some propositions are simply preposterous on their face, no matter how "logical" the arguments adduced in their favor.

Nevertheless, the sedevacantist Enterprise is misleading a growing number of Catholics with seemingly plausible arguments and piles of "documentation." The Enterprise's own logic has led to true and proper schism with the consecration of sedevacantist bishops and even the election of "Popes." Thus, the merits of the Enterprise's arguments must be addressed in some detail for the safety of souls, even if the sedevacantist thesis is untenable-----and obviously so, to the entire Church.

A Procedural Failure

As noted in Part I, the primary sedevacantist argument is that the conciliar and postconciliar Popes (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI) cannot be true Popes because of their "manifest heresy." The sedevacantists here attempt to apply the theological proposition taught by St. Robert Bellarmine (which one could hardly dispute in the abstract) that if a Pope were to become a manifest heretic-----that is, if he openly and pertinaciously (obstinately) denied an article of Divine and Catholic faith, such as the Trinity-----he would by that very fact cease to be Pope because his heresy would automatically exclude him from membership in the Catholic Church.

There is an insuperable practical problem with this logic, however. As observed by the Abbé de Nantes, who famously accused both Paul VI and John Paul II of heresy in his libers of accusation:

"Such reasoning, however excellent it may be in theory, does not take into account the psychological and sociological aspects of the situation . . . [S]uch a solution is inapplicable in practice . . . To admit the idea of the automatic deposition of the Pope on account of heresy would entail two possible consequences, the one disastrous and the other absurd. Either we should be left without any possibility at all of ridding ourselves of such a Pope, because the masses would continue to follow him regardless, or else any Tom, Dick or Harry who happened to have some grievance against the Pope could declare, on any grounds whatsoever, and claiming for himself the justification of St. Robert Bellarmine, that the Pope was a heretic and deposed on this account!" ²⁷

For this reason, as de Nantes notes, Cajetan, John of St. Thomas and other theologians held that a heretical Pope must, by some procedure, be deemed deposed by the Church so that her members would have juridical certainty as to the Pope's status. A general council could do this, Cajetan theorized, without claiming to exercise authority over the Pope as opposed to merely presenting the evidence of manifest heresy, which the Pope could rebut if he chose.

Likewise, St. Alphonsus Liguori, a doctor of the Church, following St. Antoninus, held that if a Pope were to fall into heresy "a resourceful Divine Providence would have a solution at hand through an ecumenical council." ²⁸ Indeed, it was the Council of Constance, convened by anti-Pope John XXIII, that resolved the Great Western Schism by obtaining the resignation of John XXIII himself, rival anti-Pope Benedict XIII and the true Pope, Gregory XII, declaring the deposition of all three rival claimants to the papal throne and electing Pope Martin V as the next Pope. What else could the Church have done? The Council of Constance was "a desperate measure but the only remedy for such a confused situation." ²⁹

The eminent pre-conciliar Jesuit theologian, Fr. Joaquin Salaverri, pointed out in a tract on this subject that "theologians admit that a General Council can lawfully declare a Pope to be heretical, if this defection be possible; but it cannot authoritatively depose him, seeing that a Pope is superior to the Council." ³⁰ In that case, as St. Alphonsus observes, the Pope "cannot then be deprived of authority by the Council as by one superior to a Pope, but would be immediately deprived of authority by Christ, assuming the presence of the conditions required for the deposition." ³¹ The function of the Council would merely be to provide juridical certainty for the Church.

Indeed, both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law provide that no one may insist that an ecclesiastical office has been lost due to heresy unless this has been established by a declaration of the competent authority. ³² Not even a parish priest can be deemed by isolated members of the Church to have fallen from office on account of heresy. Since no one is the competent authority over a Pope, the device of an ecumenical council is the only conceivable way for "the Church" at least to declare that an allegedly heretical Pope is such.

The Abbé de Nantes also noted the historical example of the "Libellus fidei" addressed by Pope Adrian II to the Eighth Council of Constantinople, which post-humously condemned Pope Honorius for his role in the spread of the Monthelite heresy. In that libellus, Adrian "reminds the faithful, in connection with Honorius, that they have the right to resist a Pope who errs against the Faith and to refuse the directives of superiors who are in heresy." He adds "that even in such a case, no patriarch or bishop would have any right to pass a sentence (of anathema) except with the consent of the Sovereign Pontiff himself. 'Cuipiam de eo quamlibet fas fuerit proferendum sententiam, nisi ejusdem primae sedis pontificis consensus praecessisset auctoritas'."

Based on this historical precedent, de Nantes presented his libers of accusation for the judgment of the Popes against themselves (or perhaps the judgment of a future Pope against his predecessors), or else their recantation. Meanwhile, de Nantes has steadfastly refused to conclude that the accused Popes are guilty, being merely the accuser and not the judge, and he has vehemently opposed the sedevacantists in their private judgment of papal heresy.

Whether the device of a councilor papal self-judgment is involved, it is clear that the "Tom, Dick and Harry" solution of the sedevacantist Enterprise is unworkable and absurd, just as de Nantes says. The views of random members of the Church as to what constitutes "manifest" papal heresy are utterly worthless, and this fact is procedurally fatal to the sedevacantist Enterprise.

Manifest Heresy?

Putting aside this fatal problem, let us address the sedevacantists' claims of "manifest" papal heresy, lest anyone be persuaded of their incredible contention that the last five Popes have been heretical impostors.

We must stress at the outset that we are speaking here of the canonical crime of heresy, by which a cleric would lose his office due to the sin of denying an article of Divine and Catholic faith. There is, however, a sin of heresy in the broader sense, which is committed if one willfully "rejects Divinely revealed truths not defined as such by the Church." ³³ Thus, it may have been (only God knows) that the 14th Century Pope John XXII committed the broader sin of heresy when (as I showed in Part I) he insisted that the blessed departed do not enjoy the Beatific Vision until the Last Judgment. But the Pope could not have lost his office for the canonical crime of heresy, as the immediacy of the Beatific Vision had not yet been infallibly defined by the Church. John XXII was thus not guilty of "manifest heresy" in the criminal canonical sense that matters here.

It is important to note that the sedevacantists themselves insist upon this point. For example, in replying to Part I of this series, sedevacantist spokesman Fr. Anthony Cekada argued: "the doctrine on the Beatific Vision had not yet been defined, so a denial of it would not constitute heresy." ³⁴ We shall hold the sedevacantists to the same standard of judgment with respect to the five Popes they accuse of "manifest heresy" concerning matters which have likewise not been infallibly defined, such as the right and duty of the State to repress public manifestations of religious error.

The sedevacantist claim of manifest "heresy" fails on many grounds. Oddly enough, some of these grounds are summarized by one of the leading sedevacantist web sites, which in a thoughtful and well-written discussion warns against "pitfalls to be avoided" in concluding that the last five Popes are "manifest" heretics:

"Pitfalls to be avoided:

". . . Giving the name 'heresy' to an error which is opposed to a doctrine taught by the Church, but not as having to be believed with Divine and Catholic faith, or which does not certainly belong in this category;
". . . Giving the name 'heresy' to an error which is opposed to a doctrine to be believed with Divine and Catholic faith, where the opposition is not direct and manifest but depends on several steps of reasoning: in such cases the qualification 'heresy' is not applicable before a definitive judgment on the part of the Church;
" . . . Affirming that pertinacity is present when other explanations could reasonably be supposed."
(all emphasis added) ³⁵

The same web site also cautions: "It is obligatory to incline, out of charity, as far as is reasonably possible, in favor of a suspect, and to reach the conclusion that anyone is a heretic only as a last resort."

These points------enunciated by sedevacantists themselves-----establish that in order to convict a Pope of "heresy': (1) the allegedly heretical proposition must be manifestly heretical "-----i.e., it must patently contradict a Catholic teaching that certainly belongs to the category of doctrines to be held by Divine and Catholic faith (e.g., the Immaculate Conception or the Holy Trinity), rather than just any teaching of the Church; (2) assuming the existence of some patently heretical statement, the pertinacity (obstinacy) required for the offense of heresy should not be supposed to exist if other reasonable explanations are possible; and (3) the conclusion that the Pope is a true and proper heretic who has lost his office is a last resort.

Let us now demonstrate how the sedevacantist thesis violates each of these criteria.

1. The alleged papal "heresies" are not manifest.

The dictionary defines "manifest" as "clearly apparent to the sight or understanding; obvious." ³⁶ Now, Fr. Cekada (replying to Part I)-----argues that "manifest heresy" means merely that the allegedly heretical statement is made openly, not that its heretical content is manifest, although he cites no direct authority for this claim. Indeed, here he contradicts his fellow sedevacantist spokesman, quoted above, who insists that the heretical content must be "direct and manifest" and that "not depend" on several steps of reasoning." ³⁷

Here Fr. Cekada appears to conflate the requirement that a heresy be "notorious" ³⁸ -----i.e. openly expressed and known to the Church, as opposed to a heresy harbored "secretly -----with the requirement that it also be clear heresy. The only reasonable interpretation of "manifest" in this context is one that denotes both notoriousness and clarity. Otherwise, the door would be thrown open to heresy hunters throughout the Church, who would claim to detect heresy in every ambiguous public statement of a Pope and declare that the Pope had lost his office -----which, in fact, is essentially what the Enterprise does. Thus, in his own debate with Fr. Cekada, the theologian Fr. Brian Harrison rightly pointed out that in addition to being open (notorious) the alleged "manifest" heresy must "clearly and directly contradict a truth of 'Divine and Catholic faith,' i.e., a dogma." ³⁹ Again, Fr. Cekada's own fellow sedevacantist agrees with the principle, as shown above. And indeed, how could it be otherwise, as the judgments of isolated members of the Church that ambiguous statements are "heresy" would mean nothing.

This fuller understanding of the word "manifest" accords with the usage of St. Robert Bellarmine in his observation that "A Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be Pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church." ⁴⁰ Bellarmine used the Latin word "manifestum" (papam haereticum manifestum), which denotes not merely "open" or "public," but "plainly guilty," "plainly apprehensible by the mind, evident, obvious," "revealed by clear signs, unmistakable, undoubted." Hence we shall use the term "manifest heresy" in the same sense that even Fr. Cekada's fellow sedevacantist recognizes concerning the canonical crime of heresy and consequent automatic loss of office: that is, a heresy that is manifest both in terms of its openness, and its heretical content.

Now, that which is manifest-----i.e., plain, evident, obvious, unmistakable and undoubted-----requires no explanation. The very quality of not needing to be explained is what makes a thing manifest. Thus, before the Enterprise can even get to first base, it must show us not merely papal statements made openly, but statements whose alleged heresy requires no explanation to demonstrate. The papal words themselves-----not sedevacantist interpretations of those words-----must denote heresy.
 
If a Pope were to proclaim to the whole Church in some document or public pronouncement "There is no Holy Trinity. There is only God the Creator, just as the Muslims believe!" his heresy would be manifest in the full and correct sense of the word. That is, it would not merely be an open or notorious statement, but also a clearly and indubitably heretical one. For the Pope would have publicly denied the existence of the Trinity, which is an article of Divine and Catholic faith, and the denial would require no explanation for us to see that it constitutes a heresy. The papal statement would speak for itself. All that would remain would be a determination of whether the Pope had uttered this heresy pertinaciously, i.e., knowing that he was contradicting the Faith and refusing to recant it (see discussion below), or whether the statement was rather the product of insanity, coercion (a threat on his life, for example) or some other motive short of pertinacious heresy. But, as we shall see, we're not dealing with such statements here.

Sister Lucy Was No Sedevacantist

As suggested in Part I, however, despite their prodigious output on the subject, the polemicists of the Enterprise have yet to identify a single papal statement since the election of John XXIII that qualifies as a manifest denial of an article of Divine and Catholic faith. They can certainly show statements of an ambiguous character in the teaching of Vatican II and the conciliar and post-Conciliar Popes, and even some statements-----never actually imposed upon the faithful-----that arguably "savor" of heresy or could be considered (under some interpretations) proximate to heresy. And, as already noted, even if the sedevacantists could show clearly heretical statements pertaining to matters not yet defined infallibly by the Church, such statements would not, as the sedevacantists themselves concede, satisfy the definition of "manifest heresy" in question here, although the sin of heresy (versus the narrower canonical crime of heresy) might be involved. (I hasten to remind the reader that, as I showed in Part I, Catholics would have every right to question and even oppose such statements, as did Catholics in the case of the erring Pope John XXII, for example.)

Sister Lucy of Fatima clearly believed that the current ecclesial crisis arose precisely from the spread of ambiguous teaching which, while not strictly heretical, reflects what she called "diabolical disorientation" in the Church. Never, however , did Sister Lucy declare that the victims of this disorientation, much less the Pope himself, were canonical criminals who had fallen from office.

Certainly we must resist this disorientation, just as the laity and a few faithful bishops, including St. Athanasius and St. Basil, resisted the disorientation of nearly the entire hierarchy during the Arian crisis of the 4th Century. It is important to note, however, that the members of the Church who resisted the Arian crisis did not declare that Pope Liberius, who signed a semi-Arian formula and approved the unjust "excommunication" of St. Athanasius, lost his office due to heresy, along with all the other Arian or semi-Arian hierarchs. Yet- Arianism, unlike the ambiguities which confront us today, was a definite heresy. Here the history of the Church shows us how members of the hierarchy, including the Pope, can be deceived or disoriented by an outright heresy without thereby losing their offices.

It is most telling that Sister Lucy urged us to pray for the Holy Father, who, as Our Lady of Fatima warned, would have to "much to suffer" if the Consecration of Russia were not carried out. She did not say. "the Holy Father will fall from office." Yet the Popes have not been immune from the diabolical disorientation in the Church, even if, at critical times (such as John Paul II's infallible pronouncement against women's ordination) they have defended the deposit of the Faith.

Indeed, it is precisely the current state of confusion in the Church, marked by problematical ambiguities even in certain papal statements, which precludes application of the definition of "manifest" heresy followed by the sedevacantists themselves, as discussed above, That is, the alleged opposition of certain statements of the accused Popes and other hierarchs to Divine and Catholic faith is "not direct and manifest but depends on several steps of reasoning . . ." or else the alleged "heresy" involves a Catholic teaching that "does not certainly belong in this category"-----that is, the category of truths to be held with Divine and Catholic faith. Let us now examine some examples of the Enterprise's failed attempts to find papal statements that qualify as "manifest" heresy.

A. The "Subsistent Superchurch Heresy"

I will first consider the argument by which the Enterprise conveniently sweeps Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and virtually the entire hierarchy into the category of "manifest heretic." The argument consists of the following syllogism: Major Premise: The documents of Vatican II contain manifest heresies. Minor Premise: Paul VI, the Council Fathers, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and virtually all the bishops and cardinals have either officially promulgated the Vatican II documents or since accepted them as valid. Conclusion: The said ecclesiastics are all manifest heretics who have, in consequence, lost their offices due to heresy. It is easy to demonstrate that the major premise is false, or, at the very least, highly debatable, and that, accordingly, the entire syllogistic  argument based on manifest heresy collapses.

A recent debate in The Remnant between a sedevacantist priest, Fr. Anthony Cekada, and Fr. Brian Harrison, a theology professor at the Pontifical University of Puerto Rico, is illustrative of this failure. Challenged by Fr. Harrison to provide evidence of "manifest" papal heresy in the  teaching of the recent Popes, Fr. Cekada, presumably taking his best shot, cited as one of two examples "Vatican II's, Ratzinger's and John Paul II's 'Subsistent Superchurch' heresy . . ." ⁴¹ But instead of simply quoting the obvious "heresy" to be found in the "Subsistent Superchurch heresy," Fr. Cekada merely referred the Remnant's readers to "analysis" in articles by other sedevacantist priests, without quoting a single word from the Vatican II documents. Small wonder. That the "Subsistent Superchurch heresy" requires "analysis" to demonstrate its allegedly heretical content is precisely what takes it out of the category of manifest heresy. A simple quotation of the alleged heresy would not suffice to make the case.

What Fr. Cekada calls the "Subsistent Superchurch heresy" is a reference to the statement of Vatican II in Lumen Gentium 8, that the one Church of Christ "subsists in" the Catholic Church, as opposed to the traditional formulation, expressed by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, ⁴² that the Church of Christ simply is the Catholic Church. Fr. Cekada, without the least explanation, asserts that the teaching of Vatican II, Cardinal Ratzinger and John Paul II on this point "denies [the dogma] that 'no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church' . . ." ⁴³

I do not defend the use of the ambiguous term "subsists in," which could be interpreted in an unorthodox sense to suggest that while the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church, it might also exist in some form elsewhere. It is precisely the use of such ambiguous terminology which has made Vatican II such a huge problem for the Church. But while it would have been better for the Council to have said simply that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII, in context Lumen Gentium's use of "subsists in" is not a "manifest" heresy, even if the term is problematical:

"This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as 'the pillar and mainstay of the truth.' This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward Catholic unity."

First of all, the term "subsists in" appears to involve an imprecision that is not theological but metaphysical: it makes no sense to say that one thing subsists in another. Rather, a thing simply subsists as that thing: the Catholic Church subsists (exists) as the Catholic Church, just as a particular man or a car subsists (exists) as that man or a car. One would never say that Mr. Smith subsists in the man who lives at 124 Maple Street; one would say that Mr. Smith is the man who lives there. In fact, defenders of "subsist in" insist that it really means only "is"-----i.e. that "the one Church of Christ . . . is the Catholic Church," but their insistence has not cured the ambiguity.

Nevertheless, the quoted passage hardly constitutes a manifest denial, of the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. On the contrary, while the Council asserts that "elements of sanctification . . ." exist outside the "visible structure" of the Catholic Church, it also asserts that these elements belong to the Church of Christ and that they impel toward Catholic unity.

This is certainly true, for example, with infant Baptisms performed outside the visible structure of the Catholic Church by Protestant ministers, which Baptisms nevertheless make the Baptized infants Catholics until they reach the age of reason and profess some other religion. Infants validly Baptized by Protestant ministers and who die while still infants are saved precisely within the Catholic Church as members of the Church, although they die outside her visible structure.

Nor can it be denied that there are "many elements . . . of truth" outside the Church's visible structure. Protestant Bibles, for example, contain many elements of truth, along with many errors in translation that favor Protestant heresies; and whatever is true in the Protestant versions of the Bible likewise belongs to the Catholic Church, which gave the Bible to the world: And it is certainly true that these "elements" can lead to Catholic unity for those who encounter them in good faith. It cannot be denied that many a convert has been led into the Catholic Church by the grace of insights obtained while reading a Protestant version of the Bible. ⁴⁴ For example, in his book The Bible Made a Catholic Out of Me, the renowned Protestant convert Paul Whitcomb gave the following testimony:

"My reason for embracing the Catholic faith was the evidence of Sacred Scripture. Yes, the title of this booklet will undoubtedly enflame the sensibilities of many Protestants and others who regard the Bible as their own private forte but it is nevertheless true that the Bible made a Catholic out of me. It was purely and simply my unswerving devotion to the written Word of God which ultimately convinced me that the Catholic Church, or 'Roman' Catholic Church if you prefer, is my true spiritual home, the Church wherein I could best effect the salvation of my soul."

Interpreted as conservatively as possible, one could argue that the conciliar teaching means nothing more than this: that there are things outside the visible structure of the Church, including Baptism, which belong to the Church and which lead souls toward the Church and salvation. True, the same teaching is capable of a heterodox interpretation, and this in itself is a scandal we have every right to protest. But it is also a far cry from manifest heresy. Nor should any Catholic countenance the Enterprise's unCatholic attempt to adopt the most liberal possible interpretation of a conciliar document or papal statement in order to arrive at the declaration of "manifest" heresy.
So, while "subsists in" may be ambiguous, unsatisfactory and even readily capable of a heterodox interpretation, that does not make the Council's teaching a manifest-----that is, an obvious-----heresy, such that no explanation to demonstrate heresy is even required. Rather, the conciliar ambiguity could be criticized as a "captious proposition," i.e., a proposition "reprehensible because of its intentional ambiguity . . . " ⁴⁵ Such propositions are not heresies, much less manifest ones, but are considered only as lesser errors against Church teaching. The so-called "Subsistent Superchurch heresy," therefore, is nothing more than a sedevacantist interpretation of the Council's captious proposition. But the very act of interpretation violates the sedevacantist's own rule, cited above, that the alleged heresy cannot be manifest if its detection "depends on several steps of reasoning." Nor has the Enterprise ever produced any papal interpretation of Lumen Gentium 8 that amounts to manifest denial of the dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation.

But let us assume for the sake of argument that by "analysis" involving steps of reasoning, one could make a case for heresy in the "subsistent Superchurch" teaching. Even if this were so, a Catholic would be bound to observe what even the sedevacantists admit is a necessary limitation on the "manifest" heresy argument: "where the opposition [to Catholic dogma] is not direct and manifest but depends on several steps of reasoning: in such cases the qualification "heresy" [i.e., the canonical crime of heresy] is not applicable before a definitive judgment on the part of the Church . . ." That is, given that the existence of heresy in the conciliar teaching is, at the very least, open to debate, only a definitive judgment of the Church could resolve the issue.

Meanwhile, even if one wished to go a bit further in criticizing the Council's teaching on this point, one would still be applying only the lesser categories of theological error noted in Part I. Thus, one could argue that the conciliar teaching is, rather than a strict heresy,

• a proposition proximate to heresy (propositio heresi proxima), i.e., one that is opposed to a truth which is proximate to the Faith (Sent. fidei proxima) but is not actually a dogma of the Faith, or

a proposition suspect or savoring of heresy but not manifestly heretical, or

• an erroneous proposition (prop erronea), i.e., one that is opposed to a truth which is proposed by the Church as intrinsically connected with a revealed truth (error in fide ecclesiastica), but is not itself a dogma, or
  

• a proposition opposed to the common teaching of theologians (error theologicus). ⁴⁶

But none of these categories of lesser error constitute manifest heresy as such, even if they could be applied to the Council's teaching. Rather, such errors justify our objection to dubious teaching and our calls for its correction (a la the French theologians who opposed John XXII's teaching on the Beatific Vision), but not our private conclusion that the authors and endorsers of the teaching have lost their offices due to "manifest" heresy.

Yet the Enterprise leapfrogs over all lesser categories of theological error to arrive immediately at the conclusion that the teaching can only be strictly, formally, and manifestly heretical. This jumping to conclusions violates another of the sedevacantists' own admitted limitations on their arguments, cited above: "It is obligatory to incline, out of charity; as far as is reasonably possible, in favor of a suspect, and to reach the conclusion that anyone is a heretic only as a last resort." Here, the conclusion of heresy is a first resort, and no effort is made to discern non-heretical interpretations of the allegedly "manifest" heresy. The only interpretation entertained is the heretical one.

What this shows us is that the Enterprise operates with an a priori presumption of papal heresy that it seeks to buttress with after-the-fact "analyses" of the very statements already deemed heretical in the analyst's mind. This is why the Enterprise's literature on "manifest" papal heresies is devoid of any attempt systematically to consider and rule out each of the categories of lesser theological error before arriving at the conclusion of "manifest heresy."

B. The "manifest heresy" of religious liberty.

Let us consider another of the sedevacantists' primary examples of "manifest" heresy: the teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty. Here too the "heresy" is far from "manifest," and much "analysis" is needed to demonstrate what is supposed to be obvious.

There is no question that the Popes before Vatican II consistently condemned the modern notion of "religious liberty"-----i.e., that everyone in society must have the right, both privately and publicly, to practice, preach and otherwise manifest the doctrines of the religion of his choice, even if that religion is filled with error and immorality. That such a "right" attacks both public morality and the very foundation of Catholic social order (where it exists) hardly needs to be proved. There cannot, obviously, be any "right" as such publicly to deny the Divinity of Christ or to preach in favor of contraception, abortion, divorce and other evils. No one has the right to do or to say what is wrong. A right to commit wrong is utter nonsense. Stated negatively, a right not to be prevented by the State from committing wrong is equally nonsensical. The State might for prudential reasons, as St. Thomas observed, tolerate certain public errors and vices, but there is no question of any right to be tolerated in spreading them.

For these reasons, religious liberty in the traditional Catholic sense means only liberty for the true religion, with (in certain circumstances) tolerance for the existence of false sects. Hence all the pre-Conciliar Popes who taught on the subject taught that in Catholic states the civil authority has the duty to prevent public violation of the Catholic religion in order to defend public morality and the right of Catholic citizens to the integrity of the Faith they hold and seek to pass on to their children. At most, the pre-Conciliar Popes counseled a civic tolerance of the public manifestations of false religions in order to avoid a greater evil, such as a bloody civil war.

At the same time, however, the Church has recognized that in private, within the realm of the family, the State has no right to require external conformity to the doctrines of the Faith, since the family is a kingdom prior to the State. Hence, for example, St. Thomas taught that the members of Jewish families living in Catholic states ought not to be Baptized against the wishes of their parents as this would violate the sovereignty of the familial kingdom: "Now it would be an injustice to Jews if their children were to be Baptized against their will, since they would lose the rights of parental authority over their children as soon as these were Christians. Therefore these should not be Baptized against their parents' will . . ." ⁴⁷ Nor does public authority have any right to force anyone to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, even if the State has the right to prevent or punish public attacks upon the Faith in Catholic states.

The Church's traditional teaching on religious liberty can be seen in the following papal pronouncements:

• Pius IX, Quanta Cura (1864), on the evil of unrestrained "religious liberty" and the duty of Catholic states to punish public violations of the Catholic religion:

"For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle, of 'naturalism,' as they call it, dare to teach that 'the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any, more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.' And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that 'that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.' From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an 'insanity,' viz., that 'liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society' . . ."

• Leo XIII, Libertas (1888), on the State's duty to repress the public spread of error and vice:

"Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State. The excesses of an unbridled intellect, which unfailingly end in the oppression of the untutored multitude, are no less rightly controlled by the authority of the law than are the injuries inflicted by violence upon the weak."

• Leo XIII, Libertas, on the limits of tolerance of error and vice by the State: 
  

"Yet, with the discernment of a true mother, the Church weighs the great burden of human weakness, and well knows the course down which the minds and actions of men are in this our age being borne. For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. God Himself, in His providence, though infinitely good and powerful, permits evil to exist in the world, partly that greater good may not be impeded; and partly that greater evil may not ensue . . . But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the State, it would not be lawful . . ."

• Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (1885), on how the State must not force anyone to profess the Catholic religion:

"And, in fact, the Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith, against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, 'Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will'."

The pre-Conciliar Popes also constantly affirmed the Catholic truth that not only each individual, but the State as well, has the duty to profess and defend the Catholic religion, for what is true of each man-----that  he must follow Christ and His Church-----is logically true of the collective of men in civil society. It would be absurd to say that men, but not their societies, have a duty to adhere to the one true religion. Thus, reason itself tells us that if Christ founded the Catholic Church, not only individuals but their societies  have the duty to profess and defend the Catholic Faith:

• Leo XIII, Libertas:

"Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-----namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide-----as they should do-----with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man's capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists . . ."

• Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (1925):

"Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: 'His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only Baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ.' Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ . . . If therefore the rulers of nations wish to preserve their authority, to promote and increase the prosperity of their countries, they will not neglect the public duty of reverence and obedience to the rule of Christ."

Now, according to the sedevacantists, the teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty found in Dignitatis humanæ (DR) is "manifestly" heretical because it contradicts the prior teaching of the Church, summarized above. The literature of the Enterprise typically makes the following comparison between DH and the prior papal teaching:

The Enterprise asserts that there is a flat contradiction between DR and the traditional teaching: DR affirms a natural right religious liberty in the public manifestations of false religions by the members of non-Catholic sects, while the traditional teaching condemns this notion. As the late Michael Davies has shown in his book on the subject, a case can certainly be made that there is at least an apparent contradiction that the Magisterium ought to address. For this reason, I am hardly a defender of the teaching of DH, which has given rise to scandal and confusion in the Church. As even Fr. Harrison, a defender of the document, has lamented: "The effects of DR have been much more harmful than beneficial for the Church, the world and most important, the honor due to Christ the King . . . The form in which it presents its truth is so one-sided, so poorly explained, so perilously open to unorthodox interpretation, and so infected with the spirit of liberal humanism, that its promulgation has turned out to be a cause of rejoicing for the Church's worst enemies: freemasonry and all the other forces which seek to promote the ever more total secularization of society, the ever more complete exclusion of Our Lord Jesus Christ from His rightful sovereignty over the public life of nations, and confusion and division within the Church itself." ⁴⁸
In no way therefore, do I mean to deny the right to criticize a document which, even in the view of one of its defenders, has had such an effect. On the contrary, I would argue that Catholics nave the right to object to the document and to ask that the Magisterium either clarify or rescind it. As I showed in Part I of this essay, this is the remedy Catholics always have had when faced with some problematical papal pronouncement or deed.

But let us assume for argument's sake that a flat contradiction exists between DR and the prior teaching, and that this contradiction is manifest-----i.e., no explanation is required to demonstrate it. Even so, the contradiction would not involve a manifest heresy as such, since the Church's traditional teaching on the right and duty of the State to repress external violations of the Catholic religion is not a defined dogma of the Catholic Faith, nor is the teaching that there is no right as such publicly to manifest a false religion in Catholic states. To recall the very limitation on the manifest heresy argument admitted by sedevacantists themselves: "Giving the name 'heresy' to an error which is opposed to a doctrine taught by the Church, but not as having to be believed with Divine and Catholic faith, or which does not certainly belong in this category." And, to recall Fr. Cekada's words in defense of John XXII in the 14th Century: "the doctrine . . . had not yet been defined, so a denial of it would not constitute heresy."

The Church has never declared and defined that the traditional teaching on the State's right to repress religious error must be held with Divine and Catholic faith. Thus, any "heresy' in DH would not constitute the canonical crime of heresy, even if one wished to argue that heresy in the broader sense already mentioned (denial of non-defined doctrines which could be defined some day) is present in its text.

Furthermore, even if by analysis and reasoning one could find a strict heresy in the teaching of DH, the very need for such analysis and reasoning triggers the other limitation on the manifest heresy argument conceded by the sedevacantists: "where the opposition [to Catholic dogma] is not direct and manifest but depends on several steps of reasoning: In such cases the qualification "heresy" is not applicable before a definitive judgment on the part of the Church . . ."

The Enterprise's claim of manifest heresy in DH becomes even weaker when one considers that Article 1 of DH states that the Council "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ." That is, the Council here appears to affirm without reservation the prior teaching on the duty of the State as well as the individual, to profess and defend the Catholic religion. Moreover, Article 7 DH also states that the State has the right to regulate abuses of the posited right to religious liberty:

"Furthermore, society has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partianship. ⁵⁰ Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, arid finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality."

On the other hand, Article 4 of DH states that "However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its [the State's] power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious." Further, while Article 1 states that it affirms the traditional teaching of the Church on the duty of the State to be Catholic, Article 6 teaches that "government is to see to it that equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common good, is never violated, whether openly or covertly, for religious reasons. Nor is there to be discrimination among citizens."

It is fair to ask how the State can control abuses of religious liberty to protect public morality, as Article 7 teaches, if the State would exceed its power if it sought to "inhibit acts that are religious," as Article 4 teaches. And how can the State be Catholic, as Article 1 affirms it ought to be in keeping with the Church's traditional teaching, if there is to be no discrimination among citizens based on religion, as Article 6 declares? A Catholic state cannot exist if there is not some form of juridical preference in favor of Catholics and the rights of the Church.

Thus, we are dealing with a document that contains apparent self-contradictions, which seem to have resulted from the Council's attempt to appease both conservative and liberal factions among the Council Fathers. A document that contradicts itself by appearing to uphold and negate the traditional teaching at one and the same time can hardly be said to constitute a manifest contradiction of the traditional teaching. And, again, even if there were such a manifest contradiction, it would not constitute heresy in the sense of the canonical crime of heresy by which the proponents of DH would all lose their offices.

As we can see, then, the Enterprise's attempt to demonstrate "manifest" heresy in the Council's teaching is anything but conclusive. For what is at issue are ambiguities, internal inconsistencies, and novelties which necessarily admit of the possibility of error. Therefore, according to the sedevacantists' own rules which we have been discussing, the state of the question precludes any private judgment of a manifest denial of Catholic dogma by the Second Vatican Council.

And the same is true with all of the other Enterprise's claims of "manifest" papal or conciliar heresy, of which we have considered only two of the most prominent examples. Every one of these claims involves "analysis" and interpretation of some novel statement which ipso facto take the alleged heresy out of the category of the manifest and into the category of the merely debatable.



St. Alphonsus Liguori, a doctor of the Church, following St. Antoninus, held that if a Pope were to fall into heresy "a resourceful Divine Providence would have a solution at hand through an ecumenical council." It is not for individual Catholics to declare the Seat of Peter vacant.

To consider another example, perhaps the most startling of all, not even Pope John Paul II's extemporaneous statement "May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam . . ." qualifies as a manifest heresy. The Pope's apparent wish that Islam receive Divine protection, while outrageous and offensive to pious ears, does not denote any manifest denial of Catholic dogma, but rather a scandalous expression of respect for a false religion that any Catholic has the right to protest. and even denounce, just as Pope John XXII was denounced by the French theologians for his heterodox views on the Beatific Vision, as we saw in Part I. The same is true of the statement in Lumen Gentium 16 that Muslims "together with us adore the one merciful God." This is simply a false statement of fact concerning the members of the Muslim religion, not a manifest denial of any truth of our religion. Yes, the statement is scandalous, confusing, and condemnable, and the faithful have every right to object to it. But we have no right, based on such statements, to declare that the conciliar and post-Conciliar Popes and virtually the entire hierarchy are heretical impostors-----including----- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who voted to adopt Lumen Gentium. ⁴⁹

The examples could be multiplied, but the point is made: the papal and conciliar statements the Enterprise indiscriminately catalogues under the label "manifest heresy" are not manifest heresy upon close examination. Rather, they are manifestly debatable proofs of heresy. Only a future judgment of the Church could determine whether any true and proper heresy is in question here. ⁵⁰

Continued next page, HERE.


Notes:
25. Some sedevacantists, venturing into the realm of ecclesiastical fantasy, argue that Cardinal Siri was elected at the conclave that produced Pope John XXIII, whose election they declare "invalid." They claim Siri was the "true" Pope, whose election was covered up by a vast conspiracy of the entire conclave of cardinals, and that Siri secretly designated his successor, This claim, supported by no competent evidence whatever, is a desperate attempt to avoid the Vatican I anathema by maintaining that Pius XII did have a valid successor: i.e., Cardinal Siri. It will be shown later in this essay that the "Siri thesis" has no ground in reality.
26. See, e.g. Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D., "I'm the Only One Ordained,"
where the author notes: "For example, the members of the Society of Pius V claim that only they are properly ordained-----but there are those who question this because of the mental status and secrecy surrounding Bishop Mendez through whom their orders derive. On the other hand the Society of Pius V denies the validity of any ordinations or consecrations that derive from Archbishop Thuc.  . . . And then there is Bishop Vezelis who holds that any bishop (or priest) who does not accept his primacy and what he calls his "universal jurisdiction" hasn't any right to distribute the Sacraments."
27. Abbé de Nantes, "THE QUESTION? OF PAPAL HERESY, SCHISM, SCANDAL," at http://www.crc-inter net.org/ june73.htm#action.
28. Fr. Alphonsus M. Sutton, FFI, STD, "Current Errors and Their Refutation," Christ in the World, N. 3 (1995), p. 258.
29. The Popes: A Concise Biographical History, Ed. Eric John (Harrison, NY: Roman Catholic Books, 1964), p. 289.
30. Sacrae Theologiae Summa of BAC, Vol. I, p. 698, cited by Sutton, loco cit., p. 258.
31. Liguori, Theologia Moralis, 1:121, cited by Sutton, loco cit., p. 258.
32. While a cleric who has defected from the Catholic faith is removed from office "by virtue of the law itself," such "removal . . . can be insisted upon only if it is established by a declaration of the competent authority." Can. 194, §§1, 2 CIC (1983).
33. Hugh and McAllan, Moral Theology, (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, 1929), p. 309.
34. http://sedevacantist.com/judgeheresy.html The website's paragraph numbering of these points has been deleted and the paragraphs reordered by this writer for sake of clarity of presentation.
  35. http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=66&catname=14
   36. American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition (2000).
  37. Cekada, loco cit.
  38. Can. 188.4, CIC (1917) on which the sedevacantists rely, as they deem the 1983 Code "heretical."
  39. "Two Priests Debate Sedevacantism," A Remnant Reprint, p. 4 (hereafter TPDS). The second example cited by Cekada was the 1998 Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. This example merits only a footnote because, as Fr. Harrison has noted, John Paul II "neither wrote the document, nor signed it, nor ordered its promulgation (it never appeared in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis) . . ." but merely praised it as an ecumenical "achievement" of a commission whose documents bind no one. What is more, the article by Fr. Sanborn "analyzing" the "manifest" heresy in the Joint Declaration fails to mention that nine days after its publication the Vatican published an official response by then Cardinal Ratzinger criticizing the ambiguities in the document and noting that "it is difficult to see how" they could be reconciled with the teaching of the Council of Trent on justification. The document was ultimately "salvaged" from the Vatican's perspective by appending Cardinal Ratzinger's 1998 response and a 1999 Annex which, as Fr. Harrison observes, "papers over a few of the more glaring doctrinal cracks." It was the resulting "3-document package" that the Pope praised as an ecumenical "achievement." Given these circumstances, it is impossible to speak of a "manifest" heresy in the Joint Declaration by which John Paul II would certainly have lost his office.
40. Oxford Latin Dictionary-----"manifestus."
  41. "Sedevacantism: A Further Reply to Fr. Cekada", Remnant Reprint Series.
42. "If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ-----which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church-----we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more Divine than the expression 'the Mystical Body of Christ' . . ." Mystici Corporis (1943), n. 13.
  43. TPDS, p. 4.
44. See, e.g., The Bible Made a Catholic Out of Me, online version at p. 2, at www.rosarygraphics.com/dni/BibleMadeACatholicOutOfMe.pdf
 45. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 10.
  46. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, (Tan) p. 10.
  47. Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 10, Art. 12.
  48. Father Harrison's review of Michael Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty, "Fidelity Magazine".
  49. The Council does not actually teach, nor could it possibly be the case, that the State would act arbitrarily or with unfair partisanship if it favored the Catholic religion by certain measures. General Audience Address, May 5, 1999; Prayer and Exhortation on March 21, 2000, in Wadi AI-Kharrar: "May St. John the Baptist protect Islam ..."
  50. For this very reason even the Abbé de Nantes, who filed libers of accusation charging Paul VI and John Paul II with heresy is not a sedevacantist. Rather, he awaits a decision of the Church and condemns the sedevacantists in their rash judgments of the conciliar and post-Conciliar Popes. (See, http://www.crc-internet.org/eglise.htm for de Nantes "refutation of the errors of the sedevacantists.") To accuse, he recognizes, is not to prove. It is not for the accuser to serve as judge of his own cause.

BACK TO PART 1--------------PART 3


HOME----------------------------E-MAIL

www.catholictradition.org/ferrara2.htm