Published with the generous permission of Catholic Family News.
Part 4 -------Section 1: Last-Ditch Arguments
The theme of this series refuting the sedevacantist hypothesis is that when all is said and done its fundamental claim is preposterous and inadmissible to the Catholic mind. The idea that every Pope since 1958 has been a heretical impostor, and that every bishop at Vatican II, including Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, fell into formal heresy and lost his office on account of approving the Council documents, cannot be reconciled with the promises of Christ concerning the Church's indefectibility or the infallible teaching of Vatican I that the divinely established office of the papacy will have perpetual successors.
The only conceivable explanation for the crisis in the Church is that something other than formal heresy on the part of the popes and the hierarchy is at work. That something is what Sister Lucy called "diabolical disorientation" in the Church. This disorientation, while destructive of the Church's good order, does not mean that prelates affected by it, much less the accused popes, have lost their ecclesiastical offices due to the personal sin of heresy. Quite the contrary, as I noted at the close of Part 3 of this series, Sister Lucy urged us to pray for the Holy Father. She was no sedevacantist, even though she knew the contents of the Third Secret in complete detail.
Faced with the unthinkable outcome of their own logic, which leads to the conclusion that the visible Church vanished half a century ago, the sedevacantist Enterprise has advanced a number of last-ditch arguments aimed at diverting attention from the ultimate absurdity of its position. Let us examine these arguments briefly.
The "No True Pope Would Need to Be Resisted" Argument
Attempting to turn the tables on their critics, sedevacantist spokesmen such as Fr. Cekada argue that what is absurd is not the sedevacantist position, but rather the position of those who say that Catholics have the right to "resist" certain statements and prudential judgments of Vatican II and the conciliar and post-conciliar Popes. In replying to my series in CFN/FC, Fr. Cekada refers derisively to resistance "on a continuous basis-----so far, forty years and counting, with no end in sight." He accuses non-sedevacantist traditionalists of thinking they can "decide which papal teachings, laws, sacramental rites, or commands are good, and which you'll reject, resist or publicly denounce." 69 The need for such resistance against a line of Popes, he argues, is inconsistent with the reign of true Popes. What Catholics must do instead, he argues in all seriousness, is to conclude that the Popes in question must be impostors! This, he assures us, is not private judgment, unlike traditionalist "resistance" to Popes who are recognized as such.
First of all, Fr. Cekada misstates the issue to his own advantage. "Resistance" to the crisis by traditional Catholics who recognize the accused Popes as lawful successors of Peter does not actually involve "rejection" of "papal teachings, laws . . . or commands . . ." This augment, borrowed from neo-Catholic thinking, conveniently ignores any distinction between binding papal actions on the one hand, and, on the other, certain recent novelties in the Church which have never been imposed on the faithful as either a doctrine to believe or a practice to be followed by the universal Church.
As we have already seen, neither the Council nor the Popes since then have purported to impose on the Church any new teaching as binding doctrine, but rather have merely introduced ambiguous new "pastoral" terminology that in no way alters the deposit of the Faith, such alteration being impossible. Nor are traditionalist "resistors" disobeying any "laws" or "commands" of the Church. There is no law or command requiring Catholics to be "ecumenists" or to engage in "dialogue," for example.
Nor were Catholics ever actually commanded to attend the New Mass and abandon the traditional Latin Mass, although that impression was certainly allowed to arise. As the Vatican itself now admits, however, the traditional Latin Mass was never forbidden de jure and the promulgation of the New Mass did not legally abrogate the Old Mass. Hence traditionalists are not unlawfully abstaining from the New Mass.
As a matter of fact, the Vatican has not even forbidden Catholics to attend the traditional Latin Mass at chapels of the "schismatic" Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), so long as their "intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, [and] this would not be a sin . . ." The same Vatican advisory even declares that "a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified." 70 So where, exactly, is the "command" or "law" Fr. Cekada claims non-sedevacantist traditionalists are violating by abstaining from the New Mass? It does not exist.
Therefore, the "resistance" of which Fr. Cekada speaks is actually a conscientious and perfectly permissible abstention from recent novelties in the Church. This abstention, which the Church has never forbidden, is combined with legitimate criticism of such contingent matters as "ecumenism" and the "liturgical reform," which are not doctrines of the Faith but rather prudential judgments that are either wise or unwise, rather than true or false.
Indeed, the currently reigning Pope himself, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote the French language preface to the Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber, in which the New Mass comes under the harshest possible criticism, with Gamber calling the liturgical reforms of Paul VI nothing less than "the destruction of the Roman Rite," even if he did not question the essential validity of the New Mass. Nor did Christ ever promise that every papally-approved rite would be the best possible rite, or that His Vicar would, by the Holy Ghost, be rendered ontologically incapable of imprudent liturgical innovation.
As for "ecumenism," John Paul II, himself, the very Pope of Ecumenism, declared in his inaugural encyclical that "it is perhaps a good thing" that concerned Catholics express their fears that ecumenical efforts "are harmful to the cause of the Gospel, are leading to a further rupture in the Church, are causing confusion of ideas in questions of faith and morals and are ending up with a specific indifferentism." 71 While the Pope added that "correct limits" must be observed in these criticisms, neither he nor his successors have set those limits or in any way censured the criticisms already leveled. In fact, the public criticism of ecumenism has even included a book that calls ecumenism a heresy (in the broad sense, not the sedevacantist sense of a deliberate sin causing loss of ecclesiastical office), with a foreword written by no less than the dean of the faculty of philosophy at the Pontifical Lateran University! 72
It is rather amusing to note that it is not the Pope or Vatican officials who say we cannot abstain from or criticize the ecclesial novelties in question, but rather the sedevacantists and their neo-Catholic counterparts. Both of these constituencies, but for opposite motives, promote the same false notion that Catholics must mindlessly embrace every policy and utterance of a "true" Pope, even if (as we have seen) the Pope himself allows for freedom of criticism! Fr. Cekada, at least, should know better as a former member of SSPX. Yet it clearly suits his purposes to adopt the line of the neo-Catholic papal idolaters, whose motto has always been The Pope Can Do No Wrong.
But let us suppose that non-sedevacantist traditionalists were indeed engaged in a resistance that is more than mere conscientious abstention or licit criticism. Let us suppose that we were engaging in outright disobedience of a direct command to participate in the "renewal of Vatican II" by attending the new Mass and participating in ecumenism and dialogue, and to refrain from all criticism of these novelties. There is no such command, of course, but even if there were, what of it? Where is the sedevacantists' authority for the proposition that any Pope who has to be resisted in any of his statements or acts of governance must be an impostor? And which is more reasonable: that successive Popes have said or done things in the name of Vatican II to which the faithful have a right to object, or that the same Popes are all heretical impostors?
What the sedevacantists are really saying is that "true" Popes would never have to be resisted in the exercise of their office. But this is nonsense, for the Church has taught exactly the opposite: a Pope who abuses his power, gives scandal, and endangers faith not only may, but must, be opposed. Let us recall the earlier mentioned teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine, a doctor of the Church, and Francisco Suarez, the Jesuit theologian honored by Pope Paul V as "Doctor Eximius, a pious and eminent theologian." 73
Saint Robert Bellarmine:
Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist the one who aggresses souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by preventing his will from being executed; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these acts are proper to a superior. 74
Francisco Suarez:
And in this second way the Pope could be schismatic, if he were unwilling to be in normal union with the whole body of the Church, as would occur if he attempted to excommunicate the whole Church, or, as both Cajetan and Torquemada , observe, if he wished to overturn the rites of the Church based on Apostolic Tradition . . . If [the Pope]
. . . gives an order contrary to right customs, he should not be obeyed; if he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good, it will be lawful to resist him; if he attacks by force, by force he can be repelled, with a moderation appropriate to a just defense. 75
Faced with these texts Fr. Cekada tries to reduce the teaching of Bellarmine and Suarez to "nothing more than this: if a Pope gives you a command to do something contrary to the moral law, you don't have to obey . . ." Fr. Cekada then provides the less-than-enlightening hypothetical example of a Pope who says: "I'm ordering you this time, Monsignor: Bring me a blonde chorus girl, and if the piano player complains, shoot him between the eyes . . ." 76
This sort of wit might beguile Fr. Cekada's gallery of supporters, but the quoted teachings plainly contradict his reading of them. Bellarmine speaks not merely of direct papal commands to commit personal sinful acts such as procuring chorus girls, but also of resisting a Pontiff "who aggresses souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, who attempts to destroy the Church." Fr. Cekada conveniently ignores the italicized language. Yet even as to a Pope who attempts to destroy the Church, "it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these acts are proper to a superior." This is hardly music to sedevacantist ears.
Likewise, Suarez does not limit himself to papal commands to commit sins, but says that a Pope may be resisted if "he attempts to do something manifestly opposed to justice and the common good . . ." The same, of course, is true of the ruler of any commonwealth; this is a matter of natural law. Here Fr. Cekada distracts the reader by focusing on Suarez's phrase "contrary to right customs," which refers to morals, while once again conveniently ignoring the language that extinguishes his interpretation. 77
Fr. Cekada also argues that St. "Bellarmine is justifying 'resistance' by kings and prelates, not by individual Catholics." While the context of Bellarmine's teaching might have been a discussion of kings and councils, he was merely applying a general principle to them. It is ridiculous to suggest, however, that Bellarmine stands for the proposition that only kings and councils, but no one else, may resist papal abuses.
No less than St. Thomas Aquinas, whose teaching is cited by Bellarmine, teaches the positive duty to rebuke and correct even the Pope when his acts or omissions present a danger to the Church, but not to declare his
authority to have been forfeited. In the Summa Theologica, under the question "Whether a man is bound to correct his prelate," St. Thomas concludes: "It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith . . . ." (Peter had scandalized potential converts and threatened the mission of the Church by continuing to follow Mosaic dietary laws and refusing to eat with Gentiles). 78
It is perhaps a good thing that concerned Catholics express their fears that ecumenical efforts are harmful to the cause of the Gospel, are leading to a further rupture in the Church, are causing confusion of ideas in questions of faith and morals and are ending up with a specific indifferentism.
. . . Pope John Paul II
So, St. Thomas, like Bellarmine, contemplated a Pope who endangers the Faith and must be rebuked on that account, yet is still Pope. Offering no real argument against this, Fr. Cekada mocks my statement in the CFN/FC series that implicit in Thomas's teaching is the recognition that a Pope thus rebuked remains Pope: "Implicit indeed! So implicit that one cannot find it at all," he huffed. Come, now, Fr. Cekada. Are you seriously suggesting that St. Thomas had to state explicitly that a Pope who is rebuked by his subject for "scandal concerning faith" remains the Pope?
The papal Magisterium itself reflects the teaching of St. Thomas, St. Bellarmine and Suarez, as we see in the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (1559) of Paul IV. Gravely concerned that in the midst of the Protestant rebellion a future Pope might succumb to a Protestant heresy, Paul IV declared that "the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith." Thus, the Roman Pontiff himself teaches that a Pope who deviates from the faith may be contradicted while yet remaining Pope.
In reply to my CFN/FC series Fr. Cekada again engages in distraction by discussing what Paul IV's Bull provides in the case of a prelate who was a manifest heretic before his election to the papacy and was known as such. In that case, the manifestly heretical prelate's election would be invalid. But, obviously, such preexisting manifest heresy could not be determined after the election by isolated members of the Church, such as Fr. Cekada. A validly elected Pope could not be unseated merely because someone shows up after the conclave to declare: "Excuse me! According to my analysis, you have elected a heretic."
But this is beside the point, as I suspect Fr. Cekada understands. The real point I made concerning this Bull is that it also teaches that a validly elected Pope, once recognized as such by the universal Church (as the last five Popes have certainly been), may be contradicted by the faithful should he deviate from the Faith, but may be judged "by none in this world." 79 Cekada thus conflates the Bull's treatment of two distinct cases: the election to the papacy of a known heretic (the very matter not proven here), and the alleged heresy of a pope after his election (also not proven). In the latter case, Pope Paul IV teaches, the correct approach to a wayward Roman Pontiff by isolated members of the faithful is contradiction, not judgment or deposition, just as I have argued.
So much, then, for sedevacantist attempts to delegitimize lawful resistance to papal abuses, scandals and errors. When confronted with a wayward Pope the faithful are certainly not limited to the absurd conclusion that a bad Pope is no Pope at all. But that, in fact, is what the sedevacantist argument on this score boils down to.
I hasten to remind the reader, however, that nothing I have said thus far is meant in any way to diminish the magnitude of the crisis that confronts us, or the role of papal governance (or the lack thereof) in its emergence. My point, rather, is that this crisis has resulted from acts and omissions in matters where it is possible for the Church's leaders, including the Pope, to err. In the Church, as in every other organization, whatever can go wrong will go wrong. That everything that can go wrong in the Church has gone wrong all at once is no reason to conclude, as Fr. Cekada does, that the Pope and the hierarchy have simply vanished. Rather, we must offer conscientious opposition to certain papal statements and actions-----none of which, I repeat, have been made binding upon us-----that have provoked harm to the Church.
Hence traditionalists are within their rights to prescind from the novelties of the past forty years. Loyal opposition, not deposition, is the way for us. But it is precisely a ceaseless vituperative attack on loyal opposition, in favor of reckless deposition, that makes the sedevacantist Enterprise a threat to our cause and a danger to the Church. It is becoming more and more apparent that the attack on traditionalists who recognize the Pope and the bishops is a raison d'être of the sedevacantist Enterprise. We must oppose this insidious development.
Forward for:
Conclusion (Attempts to Avoid Absurdity)
Notes:
69. http://www.traditionalmassorgiarticles/article.php?id=66&catname=14.
70. Letter from Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, dated January 18, 2003. The full text may he found at http://wwwunavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm.
71. Redemptor hominis (1979), n. 6.
72. "The Mystery of the Blindfolded Synagogue" (2003) by Enrico Maria Radaelli, with foreword by Robert Livi
73. "Francisco Suarez," Catholic Encyclopedia (1907 Ed.).
..
74. St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 29.
75. De Fide, Disp. X, Sec. VI, N. 16.
76. http://www.traditionaimass.org/articles/article.php?id=66&catname=14.
77. Fr. Cekada makes a cheap debating point by pouncing on my phrase "nowhere does [Bellarmine, Suarez] teach" Fr. Cekada's view, posing the arch question whether I have read the entire multi-volume Latin texts of both theologians. Score one for Fr Cekada. But he fails to show how his idiosyncratic interpretation is supported by anything in those texts, and he conspicuously fails to provide quotations that contradict the obvious interpretation of the passages I quoted.
78. ST, Q. 33, Art. V, Pt. II-II.
79. As discussed above, this teaching obviously does not apply where the judgment of a pope is by a successor pope or by a general council whose judgment is confirmed by a successor pope, which we see in the condemnation of Honorius.
BACK TO PART 1--------------BACK TO PART 2---------------BACK TO PART 3--------------PART 4: CONCLUSION
HOME----------------------------E-MAIL
www.catholictradition.org/ferrara4.htm