A BRIEF FOR SEDEVACANTISM
Rama P. Coomaraswamy, MD
“To adhere to a
false Bishop of Rome is to be out of communion with the Church.”
St. Cyprian.
In the discussion that follows there is no intention of binding
anyone’s conscience. Nor is it claimed that there are no other ways of
explaining the current chaos that has its roots in Rome. However, what is
attempted is to show that the sedevacantist position is both logical and based
on sound Catholic principles.
The sedevacantist position makes no attempt to define the nature of the
post-conciliar popes - be they “usurpers” or “anti-popes.” What it states is
that the Chair of Peter is at this point in time empty - the Chair however
continues to exist as it always will - but that the commands of those who are
supposedly sitting in this Chair are without authority. To those who are
horrified by the idea of sedevacantism, and who proclaim their conviction in
the legitimacy of the present hierarchy, one can with sadness only say, “if he
(and the bishops in union with him) are true popes, then obey them.” It makes
no sense for those who loudly proclaim JP II is a true pope, to complain about
the New Mass or some teaching of Vatican II. Such is simply not Catholic.
Rather, they must embrace with love all his teachings and actions and extend
every effort to fulfill his expectations.
What is important above all, is the need for one to remain Catholic,
for on this rests the hope of our salvation.
Catholics know or should know that they owe obedience and
subjection to the Pope when he is
functioning as Pope. As Gueranger said, He is the “universal pastor whom none
can disobey without disobeying God himself.” (Liturgical Year, Nov. 23.)
Similarly Pius IX tells us “we must obey the Apostolic See, “not only with
respect to faith, but even with respect to discipline. Anyone who denies this
is a heretic. Anyone who recognizes this and doggedly refuses to obey him is
worthy of anathema.” (Apostolic Letter Quae in patriarhatu) .One could
provide other authoritative quotes, such as Denzinger 1608, but the principle
is so well accepted that such would be redundant.
The reason for this is easy to understand. Once a Pope has been elected
and has accepted this function, he is
“one hierarchical person with our Lord.” That is to say, he becomes Christ’s
representative or Vicar on earth. Of him it can be said, “He who hears you
hears me.”.Since he is speaking or functioning in unity with Christ, it is
clear that the charism of infallibility resides with him (and by extension with
those in unity with him). This has always been the case, though because it was
disputed - especially after Pius IX promulgated his Syllabus of Errors- it had
to be made explicit at Vatican I. It
should be clear that this infallibility does not reside in a pope’s every
statement or action, but only with those within his function as Pope. Hence the importance of clearly delineating
these functions.
There are two ways of doing this. One is to follow the rulings of
Vatican I which affirmed the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium and
declared that when the pope speaks on matters of faith and morals in such a way
that it is clear that he intends to instruct the Catholic faithful, he is infallible.
The other is to look at the function of the Pope in terms of his Triple
authority, namely Teaching, Governing and Sanctifying. We will discuss each of
these in turn.
With regard to his teaching function, this is usually expressed as the
Magisterium (from the Latin Magister or teacher). Now there is currently
considerable confusion about what constitutes the Magisterium and one or two
doctrinal points have to be clear. 1) There is only one Magisterium, though it
may be given expression as “Ordinary” or as “Extraordinary.” Both are equally
true. Both are protected by the same charism of infallibility. It is not
necessary that the Church or anyone at all agree with the Pope for this charism
to apply. (This principle was changed at Vatican II under the name of
“collegiality” which teaches that the bishops must agree with the pope.)
Normally, the agreement of the hierarchy with the Pope extends his
infallibility to them, but should they teach differently than the pope, they
are on their own. This is the meaning of the phrase, “The Pope and those in
union with him.” 2) There are those who like Michael Davies hold that the
Ordinary Magisterium can contain error. This is an heretical position, and
clearly if such were the case, then we would have no assurance that the
Magisterium was a source of infallible truth.[1] 3) The idea that a reigning Pope can change
what a previous Pope has established. This is of course true of disciplines
such as rules for fasting, but it could never be true of Doctrine for the simple
reason that Truth cannot change and the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself.
Thus St. Paul tells us that even if an
angel from heaven were to teach us some other doctrine than what he taught, it
would not be true.
With regard to the pope’s teaching function: . When the Pope teaches on
matters of Faith and Morals in such a way that it is clear that he intends to
instruct the Catholic faithful, he is infallible. This may be through the
Ordinary or the Extraordinary Magisterium. How do we know that he intends to
instruct the faithful? By the manner of expression, such as Encyclical letters,
by approval of Conciliar documents, by
pronouncements to the world at large (urbs et orbe - to the city of Rome
and the world), or in any other manner that makes this clear..
Let us examine some of the teachings which Catholics “faithful to the
present Pope” implicitly accept. Both Paul VI and J-P II have told us that the
documents of Vatican II are the “supreme form of the ordinary Magisterium,” and
that we owe them our intellectual assent. When Archbishop Lefebvre wished to be
free to “interpret” them”in accordance with tradition,” Paul VI told him that
he was usurping his papal function, and if any interpretation was necessary, he
would do it. And so it is that those who recognize the authority of the
post-Conciliar popes must give their intellectual assent to all these documents
contain. Now quite apart from their terrible ambiguity, these documents contain
a host of theological errors. (One must not be deluded by such phrases as
“theological error.” In the context of doctrine, this means they contain lies,
and their promulgation with supposed magisterial authority is spitting in the
face of Christ for Christ is the Truth - the phrase may seem harsh, but this is
what happened during His passion.) Those who wish to “pick and choose” what
they will give their assent to, are in fact playing the Protestant game. But
that is not all. They must also accept the socialist ideation and evolutionary
thinking that pervades the post-Conciliar Church which has its delineation both
in these documents and in the various Encyclical and other statements made by
JP-II. What is more, they must agree with his opinion that the United Nations
is the “hope of the world,” and above all with his Apokostastic views that all
men are saved - indeed, saved from the moment of their conception.
Some will argue that they know nothing of all these heresies Without
judging anyone’s individual culpability, it should be remembered that none of
us know every aspect of the Magisterium. However, our attitude is one of
accepting all the Magisterium contains,
whether or not we know some matter
which may not impact on our life. There is certainly enough evidence that
something is wrong for people who take their religious seriously, to
investigate and study the contents of
the documents of Vatican II. Moreover, the Pope’s Encyclicals are not
promulgated without the intent that they should be read and studied. Those who
are capable and who refuse to study what is being taught in the name of Christ
are simply indifferent, or deliberately hiding their head in the sand. One
wonders how indifferent they will be at the Final Judgement.
Governance is often combined with Sanctification as both depend upon
what is called the power of Jurisdiction. Both are closely tied to what is
called the “Apostolic Succession.” Without a valid Apostolic Succession the
authority for governance and the power of confecting the Sacraments is absent.
With regard to governance, it is often forgotten that at one time the popes
were heads of state (and still are since the Vatican City is an independent
state).. The purpose of governance is the salvation of souls and the obligation
that falls upon the Pope (and those in union with him) is the fostering a
social order that has the true goods of mankind in mind. The former is well
explained by Boniface VIII put it:
“We are taught by evangelical words that in
this power of his are two swords, namely spiritual and temporal... Therefore
each is in the power of the Church, that is, a spiritual and a material sword.
But the latter, indeed, must be exercised for the Church, the former by the
Church. The former (by the hand) of the priest, the latter by the hand of kings
and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.” (Denzinger 469)
Formerly the Church owned large tracts of land in Italy and was fully
responsible for its administration. These of course have long since been taken
away from her. But the principle that the Church had the right to direct the
civil power has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history, though the
civil powers have for several hundred years refused to acknowledge such.
Following upon Vatican II Paul VI told those few countries such as Spain and
Argentina who still had in their constitution the statement that they were
“Catholic,” that such was no longer acceptable. He insisted that they remove
such phraseology from their constitutions. He made it clear that the new Church
was no longer going to interfere in the political sphere of nations in a
Catholic manner.. Again, we have the bland acceptance of Socialist ideas,
despite the fact that Leo XIII and Pius IX clearly taught that it is impossible
for a Catholic to be a socialist. This of course is part of the program aimed
at bringing the Church into the modern world as a participant, and hence it is
not surprising that JP II should tell the United Nations that “you are the hope
of the world.” And this in a speech in which he didn’t even mention the name of
Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Sanctification is also tied to the power of Jurisdiction, and covers
every aspect of religion, above all the Sacraments. Now, everyone who is not
blind or deaf knows that all the Sacraments have been changed. Many arguments
are raised as the validity of the new Sacraments, but without going into these
in detail, no one questions but that they are “doubtful.” Without a valid
Apostolic Succession, there can be no valid priesthood, and hence however
correctly Mass or the other Sacraments are administered, they are invalid.
Anyone can say the words, but without the power conveyed by Ordination and or
Consecration, nothing is effected. Now for all practical purposes the
post-Conciliar Church has rendered the Apostolic Succession invalid. Pius XII
in a de fide statement specified what was required in the form and
matter for the passing on of this power. (Such had not previously been
necessary as no one questioned it). The new rites for consecrating bishops have
only one word in common with what Pius XII specified as essential, namely “et”
meaning and. This makes all the bishops and in turn their ordinands (priests)
at least dubious - and it is a principle of sacramental theology that a dubious
sacrament is no sacrament at all, and indeed Catholics are forbidden to partake
of doubtful Sacraments. A Tridentine Mass properly said by a priest improperly
ordained effects nothing. And beyond this, even the most beautifully performed
Novus Ordo Mass remains at least doubtful for three simple reasons (apart from
the doubtful ordination of the priest-president).: 1) the words of Christ have
been changed[2]; and 2) the Novus Ordo is tied to the
definition in paragraph 7 of the General Instruction which provides the rubrics
and understanding for saying it; and 3) there is no true sacrifice. (Those who
doubt all this should read the General Instruction which accompanies this
rite). It should be stressed however that the invalidating of the consecration
of bishops is in many ways more serious than the issue of the Mass, for a
properly ordained priest can always go back to the true Mass, but a priest
without valid orders is in a much more difficult position.
Many will claim that they know nothing of all this, and so they
continue to accept all the changes - be they doctrinal or ritual without
question. But once again, it is almost impossible for people not to know that
something has drastically changed in their religion. One has only to enter a
post-Conciliar Church to become aware that the tabernacle has been moved and
the altar turned into a table. Anyone who sees priest-presidents saying funeral
masses in white and shaking hands with relatives of the deceased without
ablution - i.e., when his hands have presumably just touched the body of our
Lord - should wonder what is going on. If religion is of any importance in our
lives - and it should be the most important thing in our lives, surely it
behooves us to investigate what is happening.. Our failure to do so, especially
when they have been pointed out to us, is culpable..
There is of course a mystery in all this. Christ could have stopped His
Crucifixion, but within the divine economy, it was necessary that he suffer on
the Cross. In a sense His Church is also being Crucified. He could stop it if
He wished. But the Crucifixion of His Church is also within the providence of
God. One must remember that the Catholic Faith is not dependant on the
structure of the Church as it exists today. An entirely different structure
existed during the first three hundred years of its existence. Yes there was a
pope and there were bishops and priests. But it was an underground Church.
During the English Reformation the Church again became an underground
organization, at least in England. It is clear that the post-Conciliar Church
is in the process of self-destruction. Such may well be what will once again
happen.
In stating that one is a
sedevacantist, much more than the status of the post-Conciliar popes is
involved. The pope is not alone in all this, and truly it is the Pope “and the
bishops (if such they are) in union with him.” The reality is that the present
Church organization is simply not Catholic and hence is to be rejected - its
pseudo Sacraments and its false
doctrines.
One must be careful of how things are worded. To say that the Church as
we know it is dead is not to say that the Church is dead. The Church which is
the body of Christ, the presence of Christ in this world, can never die. The Truth can be obscured, but never
destroyed. Christ will not leave us orphans. We have legitimate bishops and
priests - not many, but in sufficient numbers. It is incumbent on us to seek
them out and support them in any way we can.
In all that is going on, there is nothing that stops us from being
Catholic, but to be Catholic demands a great deal of work and effort on our
part. And Perhaps - here I would ask that my presumption be forgiven - this is
what our Lord really wants - namely that we put forth this very effort. The
salvation of our souls may well depend upon it.
ãR. Coomaraswamy, 2001
[1] Davies argues that only what was once
determined can be relied on. This implies that the Magisterium is dead and that
no true pope can explain or determine issues that may not have previously
required explication.
[2] Not necessarily in the Latin, though even in
Latin the context is altered - and how often is it said in Latin.