Sedevacantism Reconsidered

Some recent polemicists have argued that the law of the Church does not exclude a heretic from election to the papacy. They are wont to cite the following legislation as proof.

Pius X: “None of the Cardinals may be in any way excluded from the active or passive election of the Sovereign Pontiff under pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict or other ecclesiastical impediment.” (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904)

Pius XII: “None of the Cardinals may, by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff.” (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945)

Essentially the same wording appears in legislation governing papal elections promulgated by Clement V (1317), Pius IV (1562) and Gregory XV (1621).

It is replied that this legislation concerns only such impediments as are of ecclesiastical law, such as “excommunication, suspension, or interdict” or infamy and thus the texts say, “or other ecclesiastical impediment”. That is, it does not concern impediments that are of divine law.

This is borne out by the canonists who explained that a heretic is excluded from election to the papacy by divine law. A pope could not lift this impediment.

Austin Dowling: “Though since Urban VI none but a cardinal has been elected pope, no law reserves to the cardinals alone this right. Strictly speaking, any male Christian who has reached the use of reason can be chosen, not, however, a heretic, a schismatic, or a notorious simonist.” (Conclave, 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)

William H. Fanning: “A layman may also be elected as pope, as was Celestine V. Even the election of a married man would not be invalid. Of course the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void.” (Papal Elections, 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)

Caesar Badii: “The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points: […] Barred as incapable of being validly elected are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptised, heretics and schismatics.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici,1921)

Maroto: “Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself, because, although by divine law they are not considered incapable of participating in certain type of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nevertheless, they must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1921)

Wernz-Vidal: “All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Jus Canonicum, 1943)

Matthaeus Conte a Coronata: “Appointment to the office of the Primacy. What is required by divine law for this appointment: The person appointed must be a man who possesses the use of reason, due to the ordination the Primate must receive to possess the power of Holy Orders. This is required for the validity of the appointment. Also required for validity is that the man appointed be a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici, 1950)

The Church cannot change or override divine law.

Moreover, the law of the Church has not changed on this count since the 1559 bull Cum Ex Apostolatus of Paul IV that excluded heretics from election to the papacy. Indeed the bull was cited in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (188.4) to explain how the law of the Church governing the loss of the Church’s offices is to be understood, so we can be confident that the provision remains part of the ecclesiastical code. Paul IV decreed as follows.

“In addition, if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

“(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

“(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

“(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

“(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

“(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

“(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.” (Cum Ex Apostolatus)

It is recognized in this bull that a heretic can be invalidly elected to the papacy by the unanimous consent of all the cardinals and that he would not be pope even if he were enthroned, acted as pope and was recognized as pope by all of the Church and for any length of time. His appointments and his acts would all be entirely void. No declaration would be needed from the Church that he is a heretic: even if he were accepted by all of the cardinals and all of the Church, he would not be pope.

Pius V issued the bull Inter Multiplices in 1566 for the sole purpose of confirming Cum Ex Apostolatus and its provisions.

So, we have the consensus of all of the twentieth century theologians and canonists, trained and approved by the Church, that a heretic cannot be validly elected to the papacy according to the law that governs elections. Further, this was legislated in the bull of Paul IV, which was cited in the 1917 Code of Canon Law; Pius V confirmed the legislation.

A public heretic cannot retain the papacy

The number and the weight of the theological authorities support the contention that a validly elected pope who committed a public and notorious act of heresy would automatically cease to be pope. The authors tell us that it is the “most common” teaching of the canonists and theologians or that they “commonly teach” it. Moreover, three doctors of the Church have taught it, none have taught contrary; the canonized theologians are unanimous; Bellarmine wrote that “this is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers”.

We shall first see the teaching of the Doctors of the Church, whose writings the Church directs us to in a special way as theological teachers.

Saint Antoninus (1389-1459): “In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.” (Summa Theologica. Quoted in Actes de Vatican I)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor (1542-1621): “Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: ‘He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’ According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.

“This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.

“The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved.” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30)

Saint Frances de Sales, Doctor (1567-1622): “Now when [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church.” (The Catholic Controversy)

Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor (1696-1787): “If, however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and contumacious heretic, he would by such a fact cease to be pope, and the apostolic chair would be vacant.” (Verita della Fede, III, VIII. 9-10)

Moreover, Bellarmine indicated that the ancient Fathers based their arguments not on any ecclesiastical law but taught that heretics lose any Church office, including the papacy, by the unalterable divine law because of the very nature of heresy.

“There is no basis for that which some respond to this: that these Fathers based themselves on ancient law, while nowadays, by decree of the Council of Constance, they alone lose their jurisdiction who are excommunicated by name or who assault clerics. This argument, I say, has no value at all, for those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law, which furthermore perhaps did not exist in relation to the matter, but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy. The Council of Constance only deals with the excommunicated, that is, those who have lost jurisdiction by sentence of the Church, while heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms.” (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30)

Bishop Josef Fessler, who was professor of canon law at the University of Vienna from 1856 to 1861 and was Secretary-General of the Vatican Council of 1870, discussed Cum Ex Apostolatus in a work that was honoured by a brief of approbation by Pius IX after it had been submitted to a committee of cardinals to examine its orthodoxy. Fessler discussed a case where a purported pope would attempt to impose heresy upon the faithful and pointed out that the election of such a man would be nullified.

“If, then, as has been suggested, a man were elected Pope who might uphold heretical doctrine to the whole Church formally as Catholic doctrine de fide, or prescribe it to be held as such, then we should have the case before us for which Pope Paul IV, in the above-named Bull provides, by quashing the election of such a man to the Papacy, and declaring it ‘null and void.’” (The True and False Infallibility of the Popes, Burns and Oats, London, 1875)

Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio gave an address at the same Vatican Council, on the infallibility of the Pope as defined at the Council; he explained as follows.

“The question was also raised by a Cardinal, ‘What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?’ It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

“If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, ‘I believe in Christ,’ etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.”

Cardinal Billot (1846-1931): “Once the hypothesis that a Pope can become a known and public heretic is conceded as a possibility, it would follow that it must be admitted without hesitation that such a Pope would ipso facto lose his papal authority since, in betraying the faith, he would by his own will, have separated himself from the body of the Church.”

J. Wilhelm: “The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.”(Heresy, 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)

J. Wilhelm: “For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head.” (General Councils, 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia)

Code of Canon Law of 1917. Canon 188: “Through tacit resignation, accepted by the law itself, all offices become vacant ipso facto and without any declaration if a cleric: … #4) has publicly forsaken the Catholic faith.”

Caesar Badii: “Cessation of pontifical power. This power ceases: [...] (d) Through notorious and openly divulged heresy. A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina 1921. 160, 165)

Dominic Prummer: “The power of the Roman Pontiff is lost. [...] (c) By his perpetual insanity or by formal heresy. And this at least probably. [...] The Authors indeed commonly teach that a pope loses his power through certain and notorious heresy, but whether this case is really possible is rightly doubted.” (Manuale Iuris Canonci. Freiburg im Briesgau: Herder 1927. 95)

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally, there is the fifth opinion - that of Bellarmine himself - which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church. Indeed, a publicly heretical Pope, who, by the commandment of Christ and the Apostle must even be avoided because of the danger to the Church, must be deprived of his power as almost all admit.” (Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:453)

Udalricus Beste: “Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See is judged by no one. The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously cannot be its head.” (Introductio in Codicem. 3rd ed. Collegeville: St John’s Abbey Press 1946. Canon 221)

A. Vermeersch, I. Creusen: “The power of the Roman Pontiff ceases by death, free resignation (which is valid without need for any acceptance, c.221), certain and unquestionably perpetual insanity and notorious heresy. At least according to the more common teaching, the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically fall from a power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.” (Epitome Iuris Canonici. Rome: Dessain 1949. 340)

Matthaeus Conte a Coronata: “2. Loss of office of the Roman Pontiff. This can occur in various ways: [...] c) Notorious heresy. Certain authors deny the supposition that the Roman Pontiff can become a heretic. It cannot be proven however that the Roman Pontiff, as a private teacher, cannot become a heretic - if, for example, he would contumaciously deny a previously defined dogma. Such impeccability was never promised by God. Indeed, Pope Innocent III expressly admits such a case is possible. If indeed such a situation would happen, he would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence, indeed, without even a declaratory one. He who openly professes heresy places himself outside the Church, and it is not likely that Christ would preserve the Primacy of His Church in one so unworthy. Wherefore, if the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence (which would be impossible anyway) he would lose his authority.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1950. I:3I2, 3I6)

Donald Attwater: “A pope can only be deposed for heresy, expressed or implied, and then only by a general council. It is not strictly deposition, but a declaration of fact, since by his heresy he has already ceased to be head of the Church. […] An heretical pope necessarily ceases to be head of the Church, for by his heresy he is no longer a member thereof: in the event of his still claiming the Roman see a general council, improperly so-called because without the pope, could remove him. But this is not deposition, since by his own act he is no longer pope.” (A Catholic Dictionary 1951)

Naz: “It is enough that a pope teaches heresy as a private doctor to lose, without any sanction, his supreme office.” (Dictionnaire du Droit Canonique, Paris: 1953, VII, 27)

Eduardus F. Regatillo: “The Roman Pontiff ceases in office: [...] (4) Through notorious public heresy? Five answers have been given: 1. ‘The pope cannot be a heretic even as a private teacher.’ A pious thought, but essentially unfounded. 2. ‘The pope loses office even through secret heresy.’ False, because a secret heretic can be a member of the Church. 3. ‘The pope does not lose office because of public heresy.’ Objectionable. 4. ‘The pope loses office by a judicial sentence because of public heresy.’ But who would issue the sentence? The See of Peter is judged by no one (Canon 1556). 5. ‘The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.’ This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could be its head.” (Institutiones Iuris Canonici. 5th ed. Santander: Sal Terrae, 1956. 1:396)

Serapius Iragui: “For this reason, theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head.” (Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959)

It is possible that we are in an interregnum

In addition to the foregoing authorities, we cite the following to support the possibility that there is sometimes no pope but an antipope.

St. Hippolytus

Saint Hippolytus of Rome (died about 236) was a sedevacantist, believing that Callistus was a heretic and therefore no pope. Hippolytus’ followers elected him pope.

“When Callistus, to whom he showed a strong personal enmity, was elected Pope, Hippolytus, who had become Bishop of Pontus, set himself to oppose him, and declaring that a heretic could not be Pope, and that those who adhered to him were not the faithful, but formed “a school” and not the Church, he came to the conclusion that he himself was Pope, and that such as remained to him of his flock in the Tiburtine Way were the true Church.” (Butler et al., Jesus, Peter and the Keys, 1996, p.217)

This is the man whose canon is supposedly the basis of Eucharistic Prayer no. II in the Novus Ordo mass. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “Hippolytus was the most important theologian and the most prolific religious writer of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era.” He is remembered in the Roman Martyrology on August 13th.

St. Felix

Pope Liberius is said by some of the early Fathers to have subscribed to the Aryan heresy. The Church went over to Felix II (355-358) who the Church recognizes as pope and martyr. He died before Liberius and could only have been pope if Liberius had ceased to be. The claim of Saint Felix to rank among the popes was discussed during the reign of Gregory XIII (1572-1585) and his sarcophagus was opened to see whether any miraculous help might aid. The words ‘Pope and Martyr’ were found inscribed on his body as a supernatural testimony.

St. Robert Bellarmine: “In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. [...] Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.” (On the Roman Pontiff)

Felix is commemorated as “pope and martyr” in the Roman Martyrology on July 29.

“At Rome, on the Aurelian Way, the burial day of holy Felix the Second, pope and martyr, who was cast out of his see for his defence of the Catholic faith by the Arian emperor Constantius, and died gloriously, being secretly slain by the sword at Cera in Tuscany. His body was taken thence by the clergy and buried on the same road, but having been afterwards taken to the church of SS. Cosmos and Damian, it was found there under the altar by Pope Gregory XIII, together with the relics of the holy martyrs Mark, Marcellian and Tranquillinus, all together buried in the same place again on July 31.”

The heretic Honorius

Three ecumenical councils posthumously anathematized Pope Honorius (625-638) as a heretic who positively taught heresy in official papal letters. The ecumenical council Constantinople III (680-681) excommunicated him from the Church. All newly elected popes had to profess his condemnation before they could assume their office until the eleventh century and all Latin priests recited it in their breviary until the sixteenth. We give a brief summary from the acts of Constantinople in his regard.

“We find that these documents [including those of Honorius] are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics…there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines…To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!… [The devil] has actively employed them [including Honorius]…we slew them [including Honorius] with anathema, as lapsed from the faith and as sinners, in the morning outside the camp of the tabernacle of God.”

The condemnation of Honorius is discussed further here.

Papal oath

It was recognized in the Papal Oath used from the time of Pope Saint Agatho (678-681) until the eleventh century that a pope could go against the tradition of the Church and therefore be excommunicated from her.

“I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

“To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

“To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinances of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with thy support, being subject to severest accounting before thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

“I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

“I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be someone else or I.

“If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willest not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

“Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone - be it ourselves or be it another - who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction of this constituted evangelical Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.” (Liber Diurnus Pontificum)

Formosus

Formosus, who ruled as pope from Rome between 891-896, was posthumously declared by Pope Stephen VI in 897 to have been an antipope because he was barred by the law of the Church from valid election to the papacy as he held another see than that of Rome. Pope Sergius III (904-911) later upheld the decision. Never has the Church denied the possibility that a pope ruling from Rome could be declared an antipope.

“Stephen VI lent himself to the revolting scene of sitting in judgment on his predecessor, Formosus. At the synod convened for that purpose, he occupied the chair; the corpse, clad in papal vestments, was withdrawn from the sarcophagus and seated on a throne; close by stood a deacon to answer in its name, all the old charges formulated against Formosus under John VIII being revived. The decision was that the deceased had been unworthy of the pontificate, which he could not have validly received since he was bishop of another see. All his measures and acts were annulled, and all the orders conferred by him were declared invalid. The papal vestments were torn from his body; the three fingers which the dead pope had used in consecrations were severed from his right hand; the corpse was cast into a grave in the cemetery for strangers, to be removed after a few days and consigned to the Tiber.” (J. P. Kirsch, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1914, Pope Formosus)

Jean-Paul Laurens (1838-1921) did a painting of Stephen declaring the corpse of Formosus to be an antipope at the Cadaver Synod.

Pascal II

Pope Pascal II (1099-1118) was suspected of heresy because he delayed to withdraw support for lay investiture when the coercion applied by the Emperor Henry V had ceased and he was admonished by saints, cardinals and bishops. A movement arose to depose Pascal.

St. Bruno, bishop of Segni and abbot of Monte Casino led the opposition to Pascal in Italy. He wrote to him as follows.

“We have the canons; we have the constitutions of the fathers, from the time of the apostles up to you. The apostles condemned and expelled from the communion of the faithful all those who obtained charges in the Church by means of secular power. This determination of the apostles is Catholic and whoever would contradict it, is not a Catholic.”

Pascal resolved to depose Bruno first, from control of the monastery, before he had him deposed from the papacy. He wrote as follows.

“If we do not remove him from the rule of the monastery, he with his arguments will take away from me the government of the Church.” (Cited by Baronus, Annales)

In 1112, Archbishop Guido of Vienne, who went on to become Pope Calistus II, convened a local synod against Pascal. St. Hugo of Grenoble and St. Godfrey of Amiens attended and, with the other bishops, they revoked Pascal’s decrees on investiture and sent a threatening letter to him.

“If, as we absolutely refuse to expect, you choose another way, and you refuse to confirm the decisions of our authority, may God help us, for thus you will be separating us from obedience to you.” (Cited by Bouix, Tract. de Papa)

Pascal wrote a letter confirming the decisions taken by the bishops at Vienne and praising Guido for his zeal. (Hefele-Leclercq, tom V, I, pp. 536-7)

The view of the other saints, that a pope would lose his office in the case of heresy, is corroberated by St. Ives, bishop of Chartres, who wrote as follows.

“We do not wish to deprive the principal keys of the Church (that is, the pope) of their power, whoever be the person placed in the See of Peter, unless he manifestly departs from the evangelical truth.” (PL, 162, 240)

Innocent III

Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) recognized the possibility that a pope could fall into heresy and be “cast out”.

“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rash glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who does not believe is already judged. (John 3:18) In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’” (Sermon 4)

St. Francis

Shortly before he died, St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) called together his followers and foretold the reign of an antipope.

“The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase. The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death. […] Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.” (Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, Washbourne, 1882, p. 248)

Beguin

Some fourteenth century Franciscans, known as Beguin, were sedevacantists regarding John XXII who facilitated changes in Franciscan culture, which shows that the possibility of a pope and his prelates ipso facto losing office and jurisdiction was well-known at that time; never was it condemned. The case is interesting also because John XXII is notorious for having pertinaciously denied that the saints would have the vision of God before the final judgement. Bernard Gui wrote as follows about the Beguin in his Inquisitor’s manual.

“Again, they say that Pope John XXII, in issuing a certain constitution beginning Quorumdam, which dispenses or concedes to the Brothers Minor that they may store wheat and wine for the future in granaries or cellars at the discretion of their leaders, acted against evangelical poverty and hence, as they say, against the gospel of Christ. Thus they say that he has become a heretic and consequently lost the papal power to bind, loose and do other things (granting that he perseveres in this course of action), and that the prelates created by him since he issued the constitution have no ecclesiastical jurisdiction or power. Again, that all the prelates and others who consented to the issue of said constitution or now knowingly consent to it by this very act have become heretics if they pertinaciously continue to do so and have lost all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Again, they say that the Brothers Minor who asked for the constitution, or who now consent to it and accept it, or who make use of it, have by their action become heretics. [...]

“Again, they say that the aforementioned Lord Pope commanded or consented or still consents that the aforesaid four Friars Minor should have been condemned as heretics by the inquisitor. Through this he has become a heretic himself, the greatest one of all, since as head of the church he should defend evangelical perfection. Thus, as they say, he lost papal power, nor do they believe him to be pope or to be obeyed by the faithful, for from that moment he vacated the papacy.”

William of Ockham

The Franciscan philosopher William of Ockham (1280-1349) was also a sedevacantist, believing that John XXII was a heretic who had automatically lost his office for what he argued about the souls of the saints. “He is considered, along with Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus, one of the major figures of medieval thought and found himself at the center of the major intellectual and political controversies of the fourteenth century.” He spent his last 20 years campaigning to have John and his next two successors deposed as heretics or supporters of heresy. He published various writings to this end, in particular showing and refuting John’s arguments on the saints. “The ultimate purpose of his tract on heresy [Dialogous], moreover, was to establish the possibility of papal heresy and to consider what action should be taken against a pope who had become a heretic.” (John Scott, Theologians vs Canonists on Heresy)

“According to Ockham, a pope cannot create new articles of faith. The head of the Church has the power to proclaim the faith and to settle disputes, but he must arrive at his views by ordinary theological reasoning, and he must get it right. [...] If speaking as pope, and purporting to impose orthodoxy on others, he tries to impose something that is in fact not part of the faith, then he is ipso facto a heretic and no longer pope. [...] This was Ockham’s accusation against John XXII, that he was trying to impose his errors on the Church.” (John Kilcullen, William of Ockham and Early Christianity)

Again, it is clear that the sedevacantist thesis was very well known at that time and never was it condemned by the Church even though it would have suited the claimants of the time. The most obvious reason for this is that it is correct.

Savonarola

The Dominican Fra Girolamo Savonarola (1452-1498) was a sedevacantist regarding Alexander VI. Numerous popes and saints have been devoted to Savonarola. St. Philip Neri attributed miracles to his intercession. Savonarola wrote as follows.

“The Lord, moved to anger by this intolerable corruption, has, for some time past, allowed the Church to be without a pastor. For I bear witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way pope and cannot be. For quite apart from the execrable crime of simony, by which he got possession of the [papal] tiara through a sacrilegious bargaining, and by which every day he puts up to auction and knocks down to the highest bidder ecclesiastical benefices, and quite apart from his other vices - well known to all - which I will pass over in silence, this I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitude, that the man is not a Christian, he does not believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety.” (Letter to the Emperor)

Julius II

Pope Julius II (1503-1513) and the V Lateran Council decreed that papal elections are invalid if obtained through simony. As in Cum Ex Apostolatus of Paul IV, it was recognized that someone could be invalidly elected to the papacy by the unanimous consent of all the cardinals and that he would not be pope even if he were enthroned, acted as pope and was recognized as pope by all of the cardinals for any length of time. His appointments and his acts would all be entirely void.

“Julius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. From a consideration that the detestable crime of simony is forbidden by both divine and human law, particularly in spiritual matters, and that it is especially heinous and destructive for the whole church in the election of the Roman Pontiff, the vicar of our lord Jesus Christ, we therefore, placed by God in charge of the government of the same universal church, despite being of little merit, desire, so far as we are able with God’s help, to take effective measures for the future with regard to the aforesaid things, as we are bound to, in accordance with the necessity of such an important matter and the greatness of the danger. With the advice and unanimous consent of our brothers, cardinals of the holy Roman church, by means of this our constitution which will have permanent validity, we establish, ordain, decree and define, by apostolic authority and the fulness of our power, that if it happens (which may God avert in his mercy and goodness towards all), after God has released us or our successors from the government of the universal church, that by the efforts of the enemy of the human race and following the urge of ambition or greed, the election of the Roman Pontiff is made or effected by the person who is elected, or by one or several members of the college of cardinals, giving their votes in a manner that in any way involves simony being committed by the gift, promise or receipt of money, goods of any sort, castles, offices, benefices, promises or obligations by the person elected or by one or several other persons, in any manner or form whatsoever, even if the election resulted in a majority of two thirds or in the unanimous choice of all the cardinals, or even in a spontaneous agreement on the part of all, without a scrutiny being made, then not only is this election or choice itself null, and does not bestow on the person elected or chosen in this fashion any right of either spiritual or temporal administration, but also there can be alleged and presented, against the person elected or chosen in this manner, by any one of the cardinals who has taken part in the election, the charge of simony, as a true and unquestionable heresy, so that the one elected is not regarded by anyone as the Roman Pontiff. A further consequence is that the person elected in this manner is automatically deprived, without the need of any other declaration, of his cardinal’s rank and of all other honours whatsoever as well as of cathedral churches, even metropolitan and patriarchical ones, monasteries, dignities and all other benefices and pensions of whatever kind which he was then holding by title or in commendam or otherwise; and that the elected person is to be regarded as, and is in fact, not a follower of the apostles but an apostate and, like Simon, a magician and a heresiarch, and perpetually debarred from each and all of the above-mentioned things. A simoniacal election of this kind is never at any time to be made valid by a subsequent enthronement or the passage of time, or even by the act of adoration or obedience of all the cardinals. It shall be lawful for each and all of the cardinals, even those who consented to the simoniacal election or promotion, even after the enthronement and adoration or obedience, as well as for all the clergy and the Roman people, together with those serving as prefects, castellans, captains and other officials at the Castel Sant’ Angelo in Rome and any other strongholds of the Roman church, notwithstanding any submission or oath or pledge given, to withdraw without penalty and at any time from obedience and loyalty to the person so elected even if he has been enthroned (while they themselves, notwithstanding this, remain fully committed to the faith of the Roman church and to obedience towards a future Roman pontiff entering office in accordance with the canons) and to avoid him as a magician, a heathen, a publican and a heresiarch. To discomfort him still further, if he uses the pretext of the election to interfere in the government of the universal church, the cardinals who wish to oppose the aforesaid election can ask for the help of the secular arm against him. Those who break off obedience to him are not to be subject to any penalties and censures for the said separation, as though they were tearing the Lord’s garment. However, the cardinals who elected him by simoniacal means are to be dealt with without further declaration as deprived of their orders as well as of their titles and honour as cardinals and of any patriarchal, archiepiscopal, episcopal or other prelacies, dignities and benefices which at that time they held by title or in commendam, or in which or to which they now have some claim, unless they totally and effectively abandon him and unite themselves without pretence or trickery to the other cardinals who did not consent to this simony, within eight days after they receive the request from the other cardinals, in person if this shall be possible or otherwise by a public announcement. Then, if they have joined themselves in full union with the said other cardinals, they shall immediately stand reintegrated, restored, rehabilitated and re-established in their former state, honours and dignities, even of the cardinalate, and in the churches and benefices which they had charge of or held, and shall stand absolved from the stain of simony and from any ecclesiastical censures and penalties. Intermediaries, brokers and bankers, whether clerical or lay, of whatever rank, quality or order they may have been, even patriarchal or archiepiscopal or episcopal, or enjoying other secular, worldly or ecclesiastical status, including spokesmen or envoys of any kings and princes, who had part in this simoniacal election, are by that very fact deprived of all their churches, benefices, prelacies and fiefs, and any other honours and possessions. They are debarred from anything of that kind and from making or benefiting from a will, and their property, like that of those condemned for treason, is immediately confiscated and allotted to the treasury of the apostolic see. If the aforesaid criminals are ecclesiastics or otherwise subjects of the Roman church. If they are not subjects of the Roman church, their goods and fiefs in regions under secular control are immediately allotted to the treasury of the secular ruler in whose territory the property is located; in such a way, however, that if within three months from the day on which it was known that they had committed simony, or had part in it, the rulers have not in fact allotted the said goods to their own treasury, then the goods are from that date considered as allotted to the treasury of the Roman church, and are immediately so considered without the need for any further pronouncement to the same effect. Also not binding and invalid, and ineffectual for taking action, are promises and pledges or solemn engagements made at any time for that purpose, even if prior to the election in question and even if made in any way through persons other than the cardinals, with some strange solemnity and form, including those made under oath or conditionally or dependent upon the outcome, or in the form of agreed bonds under whatever inducement, whether it be a deposit, loan, exchange, acknowledged receipt, gift, pledge, sale, exchange or any other kind of contract, even in the fuller form of the apostolic camera. Nobody can be bound or under pressure by the strength of these in a court of justice or elsewhere, and all may lawfully withdraw from them without penalty or any fear or stigma of perjury. Moreover, cardinals who have been involved in such a simoniacal election, and have abandoned the person thus elected, may join with the other cardinals, even those who consented to the simoniacal election but later joined with the cardinals who did not commit the said simony, if the latter are willing to join with them. If these cardinals are not willing, they may freely and canonically proceed without them in another place to the election of another pope without waiting for another formal declaration to the effect that the election was simoniacal, though there always remains in force our same current constitution. They may announce and call together a general council in a suitable place as they shall judge expedient, notwithstanding constitutions and apostolic orders, especially that of pope Alexander III, of happy memory, which begins Licet de evitanda discordia, and those of other Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, including those issued in general councils, and any other things to the contrary that impose restraint. Finally, each and every one of the cardinals of the holy Roman church in office at the time, and their sacred college, are under pain of immediate excommunication, which they automatically incur and from which they cannot be absolved except by the canonically elected Roman pontiff, except when in immediate danger of death, not to dare, during a vacancy in the apostolic see, to contravene the aforesaid, or to legislate, dispose or ordain or to act or attempt anything in any way, under whatever alleged pretext or excuse, contrary to the aforesaid things or to any one of them. From this moment we decree it to be invalid and worthless if there should happen to be, by anyone knowingly or unknowingly, even by us, an attack on these or any one of the foregoing regulations. So that the meaning of this our present constitution, decree, statute, regulation and limitation may be brought to the notice of everyone, it is our will that our present letter be affixed to the doors of the basilica of the prince of the apostles and of the chancellery and in a corner of the Campo dei Fiori, and that no other formality for the publication of this letter be required or expected, but the aforesaid public display suffices for its solemn publication and perpetual force. Let nobody therefore… If anyone however… Given at Rome at St Peter’s on 14 January 1505/6, in the third year of our pontificate.”

II. The vacancy today

The application of Cum Ex Apostolatus

We have seen that it was recognized in the bull Cum Ex Apostolatus of Paul IV that someone who had fallen into some heresy would be invalidly elected to the papacy, even if he had the unanimous consent of all the cardinals and that he would not be pope even if he were enthroned, acted as pope and was recognized as pope by all of the Church and for any length of time – his appointments and his acts would, nevertheless, all be entirely void.

“(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

“(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

Moreover, this bull indicated that even if someone who had fallen into heresy before his election was recognized as pope by all the Church, anyone, including specifically the “laity”, could “withdraw obedience” from him “at any time” and “avoid” him as a “heresiarch”, that is, without any prior sentence from the Church that he is a heretic or an antipope. The faithful would only have to see that he had fallen into heresy before his election and then they would refuse him as a heresiarch, an antipope. Indeed it would be enough to see that he had “provoked” or encouraged heresy, such as through the use of ambiguous language.

“Finally, any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:

“(i) the clergy, secular and religious;

“(ii) the laity;

“(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;

“(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security;

“All these shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).” (Cum Ex Apostolatus)

This bull was confirmed by Pius V and was cited in the 1917 Code of Canon Law to indicate how the law regarding the loss of offices is to be understood.

If Ratzinger was a heretic before his election, then the faithful are to withdraw obedience from him and avoid him as a heresiarch. No prior declaration by the Church of his heresy is needed. Even if he is accepted by all of the Church, he is no pope.

Ratzinger was a heretic before his election

Tradition In Action has stated that Ratzinger “denies the dogma” of no salvation outside the Church, citing as proof a text from 1968. This amounts to admitting that he was a heretic before his election to the papacy.

Ratzinger wrote as follows. He repeatedly indicated that he is knowingly and wilfully teaching a “new” doctrine on the dogma, so he cannot be excused through ignorance. He confided that his new doctrine is that those who do not believe in Jesus can be saved without becoming Christians. Ratzinger rests his heresy on the central error of the Jesuits, that God gives everyone “sufficient grace” to be saved.

“Regarding the future, it seems likely that, in global terms, the influence of the Church over the world will constantly diminish. The numeric triumph of Catholicism over other religions, which today can still be admitted, probably will not continue. […]

“In this state of things, one should no longer be concerned with the salvation of ‘the others,’ who for some time now have become ‘our brothers.’ Above all, the central question is to have an intuition of the Church’s position and mission in History under a positive new point-of-view. This new point-of-view should allow one to believe in the universal offer of the grace of salvation as well as the essential part that the Church plays in this. Therefore, in this sense the problem changed.

“What concerns us is no longer how ‘the others’ will be saved. Certainly we know, by our faith in divine mercy, that they can be saved. How this happens, we leave to God. The point that does concern us is principally this: Why, despite the wider possibility of salvation, is the Church still necessary? Why should faith and life still continue to come through her? In other words, the present day Christians no longer question if their non-believer brothers can reach salvation. Overall, they desire to know what is the meaning of their union with the universal embrace of Christ and their union with the Church” (Joseph Ratzinger, “Necessita della missione della Chiesa nel mondo,” in La Fine della Chiesa come Societa Perfetta, Verona: Mondatori, 1968, pp 69-70).

Ratzinger has continued to deny this dogma. In 1996 Ratzinger indicated that the infidel can be saved through their own religion.

“Q. But could we not also accept that someone can be saved through a faith other than the Catholic? A. That’s a different question altogether. It is definitely possible for someone to receive from his religion directives that help him become a pure person, which also, if we want to use the word, help him please God and reach salvation. This is not at all excluded by what I said; on the contrary, this undoubtedly happens on a large scale.” (Salt of the Earth, 1996, p. 24)

In 2000, he confided that Jews and believers of other religions do “not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments”.

“Referring to a believing Jew, Cardinal Ratzinger clarified that ‘we are in agreement that a Jew, and this is true for believers of other religions, does not need to know or acknowledge Christ as the Son of God in order to be saved, if there are insurmountable impediments, of which he is not blameworthy, to preclude it.’” (Are Believers of Other Religions Saved? Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Responds, Zenit, September 5, 2000)

This prompted the brothers at Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire to observe that “his views echo the Liberal/ Modernist concept of salvation outside the Church”. In other words, Ratzinger is admitted to have fallen into heresy.

We find that Ratzinger fell into heresy before his election. Note again, according to Cum Ex Apostolatus, it would be enough to find that he had “provoked” or encouraged heresy, such as through the use of ambiguous language. Instead we find that he openly taught heresy, admitting that it is a new teaching, for all to see.

Therefore Ratzinger is no pope but an antipope. The faithful are to “withdraw obedience” from him and to “avoid” him as a “heresiarch”. The Church has told us this. No declaration is needed from the Church of his heresy.

“If ever at any time it shall appear that ... even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy ... the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless ... All these shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs.” (Cum Ex Apostolatus)

He was never pope. Ab initio!

His heresy regarding no salvation outside the Church is one that he has shared with several of his predecessors, from Pius IX onward. John Paul II wrote as follows.

“Normally it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.” (General Audience of 9, 9, 1998)

Even the brothers at Saint Benedict Center in New Hampshire have denounced this statement as heretical, writing “This is sheer, undeniable heresy” (From The Housetops 58, Loyal Catholic Resistance).

John Paul II was also a heretic before his election, signing the documents of Vatican II. He too was an antipope and all of his acts, including his sacrilegious Canon Law, are null and void.

Phyllis Schabow retells a story that well illustrates how Ratzinger is able to laugh in the faces of those Feeneyites and others who insist that he has not taught heresy. No doubt Honorius would have laughed in their faces too.

“I have heard that Brother Francis encountered Cardinal Ratzinger in the square at St. Peter's Basilica one fine day a few years ago. Brother had been trying for an audience with the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Cardinal Ratzinger is said to have stated: ‘What do you want? We do not deny the dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’ Bro. Francis’ reply was, ‘No, but it is not enough to not deny it. It must be professed!’”

For further resources, see the Heresies of Benedict XVI File complied by the brothers at Most Holy Family Monastery, which catalogues Ratzinger’s heresies before and after his election. The brothers have compiled this material into a powerful video, which all should see.

Download Windows Media Version

Download Real Player Version

Also see the articles on Benedict XVI Heresies and Errors by Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn and others.

Is New Church the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?

We shall mention another consideration that has import regarding the status of the new Church of Vatican II and its popes.

We may evaluate the reality of New Church by considering whether it possesses the four marks that the approved theologians told us the true Church necessarily possesses of its nature. Is New Church the one true Church that we profess to believe in the Creed or is it a bogus imitation?

In ontological terms, anything that is ‘one’ thing must have the following attributes: it must be singular; integral; self-identical through time and space; and it must continue to have the same origin. If New Church does not have these aspects in the sense of the four marks, then it is not the one Church but a vain imagination. Otherwise the true Church would have defected, which the approved theologians told us is impossible.

New Church does not even claim to be the ‘one’ true Church with the ‘one’ true Faith and mission from God. It says that God started various religions to save people in and that other heretical and schismatic churches are true churches with a mission. It is professedly not singular in truth and mission but is pluralistic. It preaches and practices a false ecumenical religion. It is not the one Church but is bogus and without divine mission.

New Church is not ‘holy’, it makes a mockery of true religion. It preaches and enforces a heretical pluralistic religion, its sacraments are invalid and its mass is a sacrilege. Very many of its “priests” are habitual child rapists and its hierarchy enforces discipline that much worsens the problem, silencing victims under pain of excommunication and passing abusive priests around from parish to parish if anyone speaks out. Its law also permits and encourages that Protestants be given communion and its congregations have ruled the Nestorian mass of the Assyrians to be valid though it has no consecration. New Church lacks integrity in those things in which the holy Church necessarily cannot: faith, sacrament, rite and discipline. It is unholy, a fatal danger to untold souls.

The doctrine of New Church is not ‘Catholic’, that is, universal: it differs from that of the historic Catholic Church. Nor does New Church have the potential for universal jurisdiction and sanctification possessed by the true Church because it is heretical, its sacraments are invalid and its law is sacrilegious. It is not self-identical with the historic Church, which necessarily has an unchanging, orthodox doctrine and the potential to universal jurisdiction and sanctification not possessed by New Church. It is un-Catholic, even novel and aberrant in doctrine, rite, sacrament and law.

Its doctrine is not ‘apostolic’, coming not from the apostles but from Vatican II and various heretical clerics. Nor does it possess apostolic succession, its sacraments of order being invalid. Nor therefore can it have the authority and jurisdiction that bishops of the true Church derive from being properly ordained successors of the apostles, orthodox and in subjection to Rome and receiving a mission from her. Nor does it have the apostolic mission of the Church to teach all nations, it abjures that as disdained “proselytism”. It does not have the same origin that the true Church continues to have from the apostles and the features that it necessarily derives from them. It is un-apostolic, an apostasy cut off from the Church.

Hence, New Church is neither one, holy, Catholic nor apostolic. It is ecumenical, unholy, novel and cut off. It is bogus, even heretical and invalid. It lacks the four marks of the Church and therefore it is not the Church.

Moreover, its “pope” is not a real pope. A false church can obviously not have a true pope, be they Baptists, Methodists, Greeks or New Church. A true Pope is necessarily a Catholic, of orthodox faith and a member of the orthodox Catholic Church, not a heretic. He teaches, governs and sanctifies; new “pope” does not.

Objections answered

We shall address some of the more common objections that are offered to the fact of the current interregnum, namely those concerning the perpetuity of the papacy, the length of the current interregnum, the nearly universal acceptance of Ratzinger, the possibility of the next election.

The perpetuity of the papacy

The perpetuity of the papacy is no objection to the fact of the current interregnum: we have seen many Doctors, saints, theologians, canonists and even papal bulls allow for the possibility of an invalid papal election or for the loss of the papal office through heresy.

David John Sharrock, C.SS.R, S.T.L.: “He [i.e. St. Alphonsus] treats the general question of succession to the See of Rome by showing that in the case of an illegitimately elected Pope, or of a doubtfully elected Pope, the basic concept of succession to the power of St. Peter has not been destroyed. For perpetual succession to the Chair of Peter does not demand that the Chair of Peter be always occupied. This is not necessary to the concept of continuous or unbroken succession. For each time the Pope dies, the Chair of Peter is empty. Necessary to the concept of perpetual succession is this that the Pope elected be chosen as the successor of Saint Peter with the very same authority and powers that Peter had as Vicar of Christ.” (The Theological Defense of Papal Power By St. Alphonsus de Liguori, 1961)

The length of the current interregnum

The length of the current interregnum is no objection to its factuality.

We have seen Paul IV foresee, in Cum Ex Apostolatus, “the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation” of a sede vacante that is due to the invalid election of an antipope.

Fr. James Edmund O’Reilly wrote regarding the Great Western Schism (1378-1417), that it is not impossible that there should have been an interregnum throughout the entire period, of around forty years. At this time, all of the cardinals went over to an antipope, an antipope ruled from Rome, most theologians recognized an antipope and the true pope was the weakest of three concurrent claimants. The “schism” of competing claimants continued through the pontificates of four successive popes.

“If we inquire how ecclesiastical jurisdiction has been continued, the answer is that it in part came and comes immediately from God on the fulfilment of certain conditions regarding the persons. Priests having jurisdiction derive it from bishops or the pope. The pope has it immediately from God, on his legitimate election. The legitimacy of his election depends on the observance of the rules established by previous popes regarding such election. [...]

“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum. [...]

“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical (absurd). They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises. We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself by his promises. We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.” (The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, 1882)

A. Dorsch: “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.” (Institutions Theologiae Fundamentalis, 1928)

Nearly universal acceptance of Ratzinger

Nor is it any objection to the fact of the current interregnum that Ratzinger is accepted as pope by nearly all of the Church. As we have seen, Paul IV decreed in Cum Ex Apostolatus that someone who had fallen into some heresy would not be pope, even if all of the cardinals and all of the Church accepted him.

“(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

The possibility of the next election

It is no objection to the fact of the current interregnum that the Church cannot fulfil the conditions for the election of the next pope that are specified in the law of the Church. These conditions are of ecclesiastical origin and do not bind in circumstances of necessity.

Tommaso Cardinal de Vio Gaetani Cajetan (1468-1534): “By exception and by suppletory manner this power [of electing a pope] corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by the inexistence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happens at the time of a schism.” (De Comparatione Autoritatis Papae et Concilii)

Francisco de Vitoria (1480-1546): “If by any calamity, war or plague, all Cardinals would be lacking, we cannot doubt that the Church could provide for herself a Holy Father. Hence such an election should be carried by all the Church and not by any particular Church. And this is because that power is common and it concerns the whole Church. So it must be the duty of the whole Church.” (De Potestate Ecclesiae)

Saint Robert Bellarmine: “If there were no papal constitution on the election of the Supreme Pontiff; or if by some chance all the electors designated by law, that is, all the Cardinals, perished simultaneously, the right of election would pertain to the neighboring bishops and the Roman clergy, but with some dependence on a general council of bishops. In this proposition, there does not appear to be universal agreement. Some think that, exclusive of positive law, the right of election would devolve on a Council of Bishops, as Cajetan, tract. De Potestate Papae & Concilii, cap. 13 & 21 & Francis Victoria, relect. 2. quest. 2. De potestate Ecclesiae. Others, as Sylvester relates s.v. Excommunicatio, 9. sec. 3, teach that in that case the right of election pertains to the Roman clergy. But these two opinions can be reconciled. Without a doubt, the primary authority of election in that case pertains to a Council of Bishops; since, when the Pontiff dies, there is no higher authority in the Church than that of a general Council: and if the Pontiff were not the Bishop of Rome, or any other particular place, but only the general Pastor of the whole Church, it would pertain to the Bishops either to elect his successor, or to designate the electors: nevertheless, after the Pontificate of the world was joined to the bishopric of the City, the immediate authority of electing in that case would have to be permitted by the bishops of the whole world to the neighboring bishops, and to the clerics of the Roman Church, which is proved in two ways. First, because the right of election was transferred from all the neighboring bishops and the Roman clergy to the Cardinals, who are a certain part of the bishops and clergy of the Roman Church; therefore, when the Cardinals are lacking, the right of election ought to return to all the bishops and clergy of the Roman Church. Second, because this is a most ancient custom (as we showed above from Cyprian), that the neighboring bishops, in the presence of the clergy, should elect both the Bishop of Rome and others also. And it is unheard of that the Bishops or Archbishops of the whole world should meet for the election of the Supreme Pontiff, except in a case where it is doubtful who should be the legitimate electors. For this doubt ought to be resolved by a general Council, as was done in the Council of Constance.” (Controversies, De clericis, bk. I, ch. 10)

Cardinal Billot (1846-1931): “When it would be necessary to proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a General Council. [...] Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a Superior is passed to the immediate inferior, because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need.” (De Ecclesia Christi)

Charles Journet (1891-1975): “During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election. However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power ‘of applying the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.” (The Church of the Incarnate Word)

Addenda

Has Rome become the seat of the Antichrist?

Our Lady of La Salette reportedly said in 1846 that, “Rome will lose the faith and will become the seat of the Antichrist.” Both Pius IX and Leo XIII approved this apparition.

Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) wrote as follows in his motu proprio of September 25, 1888, in his full invocation to St. Michael.

“These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”

Fulton J. Sheen (1895-1979): “He [Satan] will set up a counterchurch which will be the ape of the Church, because he, the Devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the Antichrist that will in all externals resemble the mystical body of Christ. […] But the twentieth century will join the counterchurch because it claims to be infallible when its visible head speaks ex cathedra.” (Communism and the Conscience of the West, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1948, pp. 24-25)

Father E. Sylvester Berry in 1921, while commenting upon the 12th and 13th chapters of the Apocalypse of St. John, foretold that the true pope will be martyred and during the vacancy, the prophet of the Antichrist will set himself up in Rome as anti-pope.

“In the forgoing chapter [12] St. John outlines the history of the Church from the coming of Antichrist until the end of the world [...] In this chapter he shows us the true nature of the conflict. It shall be a war unto death between the Church and the powers of darkness in a final effort to destroy the Church and thus prevent the universal reign of Christ on earth.

“Satan will first attempt to destroy the power of the Papacy and bring about the downfall of the Church through heresies, schisms and persecutions that must surely follow [...] he will raise up Antichrist and his prophet to lead the faithful into error and destroy those who remain steadfast [...] The Church, the faithful spouse of Jesus Christ, is represented as a woman clothed in the glory of divine grace [...]

“ [...] In this passage there is an evident allusion to some particular son of the Church whose power and influence shall be such that Satan will seek his destruction at any cost. This person can be none other than the Pope to be elected in those days. The Papacy will be attacked by all the powers of hell. In consequence the Church will suffer great trials and afflictions in securing a successor upon the throne of Peter.

“The words of St. Paul to the Thessalonians may be a reference to the Papacy as the obstacle to the coming of Antichrist: ‘You know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed.’

“ [...] St. John [...] sees in heaven a red dragon with seven heads and ten horns [...] The dragon is Satan red with the blood of martyrs, which he will cause to flow. The meaning of the seven heads and ten horns must be sought in the description of the beast that represents Antichrist where they symbolize kings or worldly powers. (II Thessalonians 2:6-7) [...] Satan’s attacks against the Church will be organized and carried out by the governments and ruling powers of those days.

“With the beast of Antichrist only the horns have diadems as symbols of royalty or governing power. The heads are branded with names of blasphemy. (Apocalypse, 13:1) Hence they symbolize the sins and errors that will afflict the Church [...] in this final struggle to prevent the universal reign of Christ all forms of sin and error will be marshaled against the Church [...] all errors which have afflicted the Church may be summed up in these seven: Judaism, paganism, Arianism, Mohammedanism, Protestantism, rationalism, and atheism.

“The dragon is seen in heaven which is here a symbol of the Church, the kingdom of heaven on earth. This indicates that the first troubles of those days will be inaugurated within the Church by apostate bishops, priests, and peoples, – the stars dragged down by the tail of the dragon.

“ [...] The dragon stands before the woman, ready to devour the child that is brought forth. In other words, the powers of hell seek by all means to destroy the Pope elected in those days.

“ [...] It is now the hour for the powers of darkness. The new-born Son of the Church is taken ‘to God and to his throne.’ Scarcely has the newly elected Pope been enthroned when he is snatched away by martyrdom. The ‘mystery of iniquity’ gradually developing through the centuries, cannot be fully consummated while the power of the Papacy endures, but now he that ‘withholdeth is taken out of the way.’ During the interregnum ‘that wicked one shall be revealed’ in his fury against the Church.

“It is a matter of history that the most disastrous periods for the Church were times when the Papal throne was vacant, or when anti-popes contended with the legitimate head of the Church. Thus also shall it be in those evil days to come.

“The Church deprived of her chief pastor must seek sanctuary in solitude there to be guided by God Himself during those trying days [...] In those days the Church shall [...] find refuge and consolation in faithful souls, especially in the seclusion of the religious life.

“ [...] Our Divine Savior has a representative on earth in the person of the Pope upon whom He has conferred full powers to teach and govern. Likewise, Antichrist will have his representative in the false prophet who will be endowed with the plenitude of satanic powers to deceive the nations.

“ [...] As indicated by the resemblance to a lamb, the prophet will probably set himself up in Rome as a sort of antipope during the vacancy of the papal throne [...]

“ [...] The ‘abomination of desolation’ has been wrought in many Catholic churches by heretics and apostates who have broken altars, scattered relics of martyrs and desecrated the Blessed Sacrament. At the time of the French Revolution a lewd woman was seated upon the altar of the cathedral in Paris and worshipped as the goddess of reason. Such things but faintly foreshadow the abominations that will desecrate churches in those sorrowful days when Antichrist will seat himself at the altar to be adored as God.

“ [...] Antichrist and his prophet will introduce ceremonies to imitate the Sacraments of the Church. In fact there will be a complete organization - a church of Satan set up in opposition to the Church of Christ. Satan will assume the part of God the Father; Antichrist will be honored as Savior, and his prophet will usurp the role of Pope. Their ceremonies will counterfeit the Sacraments [...]” (The Apocalypse of St. John, 1921, The Catholic Church Supply House, Columbus, Ohio, pp. 120-138)

Sedevacantists are not schismatic even if mistaken

Canonists have told us that sedevacantists are not schismatic if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason.

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicum, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter’] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)

We note that some saints have been famous sedevacantists. As well as Sts. Hippolytus (August 13) and Felix (July 29), there is Savonarola, to whom numerous popes and saints have been devoted.

Archbishop Lefebvre inclined toward sedevacantism

Archbishop Lefebvre declared in 1976 that it was uncertain that Paul VI was the pope.

“On the other hand, it seems to us much more certain that the faith taught by the Church for twenty centuries can contain no errors than it is absolutely certain that the pope is truly pope. Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of his election are all causes from which it may sometimes result that a Pope has never been or is now no longer Pope. In this case, a very exceptional one of course, the Church would be in the situation she experiences after the death of a soveriegn Pontiff. For a grave problem does, after all, confront the conscience and faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate. How can a pope, true successor to St. Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, preside over the destruction of the Church, the deepest and most excessive in Her history, in so short a space of time, what no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? All those enter into schism who cooperate in this realization of this upheaval and adhere to this new Conciliar Church, as His Excellency Bishop Benelli designated it in the letter he addressed to me in the Holy Father’s name last June 25th.” (Declaration of August 2, 1976)

In 1986, with the approach of the first Assisi interfaith prayer meeting, Lefebvre announced that he thought the time may have come to say that John Paul II was no pope but an antipope.

“Ever since the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, society has revolted more and more against God. The apostasy is growing year by year, and slowly, slowly, all society has been coming under the influence of the freemasonic principles of liberty and independence from God - no more law, no more authority, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion. At the beginning of the 20th century, Pius X warned that these errors were penetrating inside the Church, into the clergy. At Vatican II we saw a conspiracy between churchmen and freemasons, and now the Pope, Cardinals and nearly all Bishops accept man’s independence of conscience, the principle of religious liberty and its consequence, the ecumenism whereby all religions are good. This is absolutely against Jesus Christ Who taught us He is the door of heaven, and there is no other way to get into heaven.

“For twenty years since the Council, we have waited for the Vatican to realize the error of its ways. The Society has waited for the Pope to realize that the result of these false principles is the self-destruction of the Church. However, we are bound to recognize that the situation is only getting worse, that the false ecumenism is escalating, that since last year’s Synod in particular the crisis is merely advancing faster and faster towards the total destruction of the Church.

“Since the Council we have been seeing the situation get graver and graver, year by year, but the Synod was gravest of all because there they said, “We are continuing! Despite all difficulties, the Council was the work of the Holy Ghost, a second Pentecost. We must continue in the spirit of the Council. There will be no restrictions, no reprimands, no return to Tradition.” So now we see them saying, ‘Let’s go even faster!’ Naturally, since there were no objections at the Synod to the spirit of the Council put into practice over 20 years, and since all agreed with the changes in the Church, then there is no reason not to continue even faster, and we are arriving at the total destruction of the Church!

“The escalation of this Church-destroying ecumenism is taking place in broad daylight. In Morocco last year the Pope told a crowd of Mohammedans that they pray to the same God as Catholics do. But it is not true. Mohammedans teach that to kill a Christian is good because he is an idolater, worshipping the man Jesus Christ as God. Also last year, in Togo, the Pope poured out on the ground a pagan sacrifice to the god of the animists or African spirit-worshippers. Early this year, in India, he let some Hindu “priestess” mark him on the forehead with the sign of her sect!

“Incredible! ‘All gods of the pagans are devils,’ says Scripture (Ps.95,5). How can the Pope receive the sign of the devil? Whatever god is not Jesus Christ is not the one and only true God. And most recently, the Pope has been into the synagogue of the Jews in Rome. How can the Pope pray with the enemies of Jesus Christ? These Jews know and say and believe that they are the successors of the Jews that killed Jesus Christ, and they continue to fight against Jesus Christ everywhere in the world. At the end of the Pope’s visit, the Jews sang a ‘hymn’ that included the line ‘I believe with all my heart in the coming of the Messiah,’ meaning they refuse Jesus as the Messiah, and the Pope had given permission for this denial of Christ to be sung in his presence, and he listened, with head bowed! And the Holy See announces that in the near future he will visit Taize to pray with the Protestants, and he himself said in public at St. Paul Outside of the Walls that later this year he will hold a ceremony gathering all religions of the world together to pray for peace at Assisi in Italy, on the occasion of the Feast of Peace proclaimed by the United Nations due to take place on October 24.

“Now all these facts are public, you have seen them in the newspapers and the media. What are we to think? What is the reaction of our Catholic Faith? That is what matters. It is not our personal feelings, a sort of impression or admission of some kind. It is a question of knowing what our Faith tells us, faced with these facts. Let me quote a few words - not my words - from Canon Naz’s Dictionary of Canon Law, a wholly official and approved commentary on what has been the Catholic Church’s body of law for nineteen centuries. On the subject of sharing in the worship of non-Catholics (after all, this is what we now see Pope and bishops doing), the Church says, in Canon 1258-1: ‘It is absolutely forbidden for Catholics to attend or take any active part in the worship of non-Catholics in any way whatsoever.’ On this Canon the quasi-official Naz Commentary says, and I quote, ‘A Catholic takes active part when he joins in heterodox; i.e., non-Catholic worship with the intention of honouring God by this means in the way non-Catholics do. It is forbidden to pray, to sing or to play the organ in a heretical or schismatic temple, in association with the people worshipping there, even if the words of the hymn or the song or the prayer are orthodox.’ The reason for this prohibition is that any participation in non-Catholic worship implies profession of a false religion and hence denial of the Catholic Faith. By such participation Catholics are presumed to be adhering to the beliefs of the non- Catholics, and that is why Canon 2316 declares them ‘suspect of heresy, and if they persevere, they are to be treated as being in reality heretics.’

“Now these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with Protestants, animists and Jews, are they not an active participation in non-Catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258-1? In which case, I cannot see how it is possible to say that the Pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.

“Now I don’t know if the time has come to say that the Pope is a heretic; I don’t know if it is the time to say that. You know, for some time many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying ‘there is no more Pope,’ but I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident, it was very difficult to say that the Pope is a heretic, the Pope is apostate. But I recognize that slowly, very slowly, by the deeds and acts of the Pope himself we begin to be very anxious. I am not inventing this situation; I do not want it. I would gladly give my life to bring it to an end, but this is the situation we face, unfolding before our eyes like a film in the cinema. I don’t think it has ever happened in the history of the Church, the man seated in the chair of Peter partaking in the worship of false gods.

“What conclusion must we draw in a few months if we are confronted by these repeated acts of partaking in false worship? I don’t know. I wonder. But I think the Pope can do nothing worse than call together a meeting of all religions, when we know there is only one true religion and all other religions belong to the devil. So perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the Pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a Pope to be publicly and formally heretical. Our Lord has promised to be with him, to keep his faith, to keep him in the Faith - how can he at the same time be a public heretic and virtually apostatise? So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this Pope is not Pope.

“For twenty years, Msgr. de Castro-Mayer and I preferred to wait; we said it was more prudent and more in conformity with Providence to wait because it is so important, so tragic, when it is not just a bishop, archbishop or cardinal, but the man in the chair of Peter. It is so important, so grave, so sad, that we prefer to wait until Providence gives us such evidence, that it is no longer possible to refuse to say that the Pope is a heretic. So, to say that I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it! Maybe war will break out, and here I take the opportunity to congratulate America and its President on their resolute action in Libya against an enemy of all civilization. In Europe they are all afraid, afraid, afraid of the Communists. Why? Until the Communists occupy all Europe. But President Reagan’s action may have delayed war by making the Communists afraid; we don’t know, because they are fanatics and could start war any time just to take power.

“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the Pope is a heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church, it is the Pope. He is the centre of the Church and has a great influence on all Catholics by his attitudes, his words and his acts. All men read in the newspapers the Pope’s words and on television they see his travels. And so, slowly, slowly, many Catholics are losing the Catholic Faith by the scandal of the Pope’s partaking in false religions. This ecumenism is a scandal in the true sense of the word, an encouragement to sin. Catholics are losing faith in the Catholic Church. They think all religions are good because the Pope in this way befriends men of all religions. When the scandal comes from so high in the Church, from the man in the chair of Peter and from almost all the bishops, then poor Catholics who are thrown back on their own resources and who do not know their Faith well enough to keep it despite all, or who do not have priests by their side to help them to keep the Faith, these Catholics are completely at a loss what to do. They are no longer practicing their Faith, or they give up praying, or they are losing the Faith altogether and are joining some sect or other. I ask, what people are keeping the Faith? Where are they? Where are they? And I ask even the Traditionalists!

“For I think that many Traditional Catholics enjoy the traditions; they like the old Mass, they like the old sacraments, they like the old teaching of the Church, but they do not really believe in Jesus Christ as the one and only Saviour, God and Creator. That is the bad influence of all the modern errors coming through television and the media - they are so bad, so pagan, so opposed to Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith that few people remain true Catholics wholly faithful to Jesus Christ. That is why we can’t be indifferent to these scandalous events in Rome, we must judge them in the light of our Faith and help Catholics, traditional Catholics, to see that this bad example of the Pope is a great scandal, very dangerous for their souls.

“It is very sad. Never in my life did I think I could be saying, the scandal of the Pope, but it is true. What can I do about it? I think we must pray, and pray, morning, noon and night and study our Catholic doctrine very deeply to stay true Catholics and keep the Faith.

“Someone may say, I am on the way to saying the Pope is not Pope, in order to consecrate a bishop. That is not true. They are two different problems. Ever since the Council, year after year, I have been praying to God that Providence by the facts and the unfolding of events should show us what we must do. I pray for it to be clear beyond doubt, wholly evident. and I think that now we are in this time, I think that it is the answer of God. I would much prefer Providence to be showing us the Vatican returning to Tradition, but instead we see the Vatican plunging into darkness and error. And so it is sure that now it is not as difficult to see as it was one or two years ago, it is more clear and evident that they are no longer truly Catholic. No persecution or revolution in as these years since the Council, because today the Faith is being destroyed by men of the Church, by the Pope himself, by Cardinals, by bishops, priests and nuns. It is the wholesale, worldwide and radical destruction of the Faith.

“Yet it is a great grace for us to live in this time. From before the destruction, we were chosen by God to continue the Catholic Church. Even if we are condemned by Rome, even if we are persecuted by the bishops, that is not important. What is important is to stay Catholic, to keep the grace we received at baptism, to save our souls. Nobody can say we are heretics or schismatics for believing as the Popes, Saints and Church of old believed for twenty centuries. It is a great grace of God to have been chosen to continue the Faith and the Church, but it is a great responsibility ,and we must pray and remain very humble in order to be faithful to the grace that we receive.

“You seminarians especially, future priests, must study the true Faith to become true missionaries of Our Lord, even if you have to shed your blood, as the martyrs did in olden times. Then young girls would suffer heroic deaths rather than make one sacrifice or breathe one prayer to the pagan gods of ancient Rome, but now, no problem! You want me to say a prayer to your god? Sure! And so they are abandoning Jesus Christ and the true Faith in order to be friends with the enemies of the Church!

“We refuse. Instead we resolve to follow the non-ecumenical martyrs, the Saints. Tomorrow at Ridgefield the Church will have three more priests. That is very important. It is not a question of numbers, it is a question of quality, it is a question of true priests. Jesus Christ began with twelve apostles so we need not feel bad that we are so few. Our work is really nothing compared with the world’s needs. But that is not our problem, it is God’s problem. He asked us to work and to believe in Him and to have confidence in Jesus Christ and in the grace of Jesus Christ. Success lies in God’s hands. You know we have much to suffer, many, many sufferings, even in the Society. But we must carry the Cross of Jesus Christ and with the courage and resolution He gives us, we must have a great hope that one day the kingdom of Jesus Christ will return to this world.” (Address to Seminarians, March 30 and April 18, 1986)

Pope Paul IV