Anatomy of a Crisis: From Sede Vacante to St. Thomas

Part III: Remedy and Resolution

After witnessing the crisis occurring in sedevacantism (described in Part I of this series) and making a metaphysical diagnosis based on Thomistic analysis (detailed in Part II), I realized that in allying myself with a sedevacantist chapel, I had made a grave mistake. 

I had attempted to fight Modernism using non-Catholic remedies: radical autonomy and belief in Calvinistic total depravity. I had applied Protestant private interpretation to Catholic tradition, with sola traditio in place of sola scriptura. Just as the Pharisees of old nullified the Word of God for the sake of private “tradition,” so does sedevacantism. And, as the Sadducees denied Christ’s divinity and even the possibility of a divine Messiah—an error repeated in Modernism—the sola traditio of sedevancantism is likewise a denial of the supernatural, and thus of Christ himself. The Pharisaical denial is more dangerous because it is more deceptive. 

As John Salza has said, Modernism “wearing a cassock and facing east” is not tradition. His True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors provides an exhaustive refutation of the sedevacantist position. By abandoning sola traditio and hearing the Church, it is possible to escape this trap of Modernism wearing the mask of tradition. This final essay remedies sedevacantist sola traditio by replacing it with true Tradition—the living voice of the Church. “By their fruits you shall know them” (Mt 7:16). 

Of course, sedevacantist chapels do not bear the marks of the Church as infallibly defined in Catholic dogma, marks that make the identification of the Church objective rather than subjective and allow even the uneducated to identify it easily: Oneness, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity. Only one question is really necessary. Is this Church the same visible institution that Christ founded? 

Oneness requires unity under one structure and one government. Sedevacantist chapels do not have a common governing structure. Even within a single chapel, authority is weak and parishioners often “shop” for a different viewpoint if they disagree with local clergy. 

Oneness in faith means that official dogmas have not changed. By asserting that theirs is the Church—though lacking essential marks—sedevacantists deny the dogmatic divine constitution of the Church.

Apostolicity requires both material and formal apostolic succession. Material apostolicity requires valid orders, and formal apostolicity requires ordinary jurisdiction. Sedevacantist bishops have valid episcopal consecrations, but they are not formally apostolic since they were not appointed by a pope and lack a canonical mission to teach, rule, and sanctify the Church. 

This lack of jurisdiction has serious consequences. The sacraments of Penance and Holy Matrimony require ordinary or supplied jurisdiction from the visible Church hierarchy for validity. Because sedevacantist clergy operate outside this visible structure, they cannot claim supplied jurisdiction, and the absolutions given in their confessionals are invalid except for a penitent in danger of death.

Without question, sedevacantist chapels cannot be the Church. Sedevacantists use the principle of epikeia—suspension of a human law for a higher principle of justice—to argue that formal apostolicity can be bypassed due to the nature of the current crisis; but epikeia can never nullify dogma, including the divine constitution of the Church. The Church cannot metamorphosize into a demonic counter-Church. Yes, she is infected with Modernism and is undergoing a passion, as Christ underwent His. And just as Christ did not cease to be God while on the cross, the Church today does not cease to be His mystical body during her own passion.

Canon 10 of the 4th Council of Constantinople (869–870 AD) clarifies that Catholics should neither separate themselves from their patriarchs nor remove the names of those patriarchs from the canon of the Mass unless the Church has removed them from office. Many sedevacantists, by contrast, compel private judgment of a pope for heresy. As a result, they spurn him and any Mass that mentions his name (the “una cum” Mass), on pain, they believe, of mortal sin. 

This is an invention. Even in the Arian crisis, no parishioner was penalized for remaining in communion with an Arian bishop as long as that bishop remained in office in communion with Rome. This principle lies behind Canon 2261 §2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and is discerned in St. Jerome’s Dialogue against the Luciferians. A cleric who is excommunicated latae sententiae for heresy retains his office and validity until formally declared and removed by Rome. 

Sedevacantists also leverage the martyrdom of St. Hermenegild out of context. St. Hermenegild was martyred for refusing communion from the hand of an Arian bishop. But in Spain at this time in history, the Arian bishops had separated themselves from communion with the Catholic hierarchy—forming a heretical sect. Since the Arian bishop in St. Hermenegild’s case was not in communion with Rome, he was to be avoided. 

This principle appears in Canon 188, 4° of the 1917 code, which says that a cleric who has “publicly defected from the Catholic faith” loses his office “ipso facto,” i.e. by the fact itself. Authorized commentators on canon law define this public defection as objectively leaving the Church—for instance, joining a Protestant sect. It does not mean making a questionable statement while still claiming to be Catholic—but this is the exact justification sedevacantists give when making their own private judgements about clerics losing their offices.

Sedevacantists also engage the principle of sola traditio in their understanding of how a heretical pope loses his office. Catholic tradition supports two possible views, but both deny the sedevacantist opinion that a pope loses his office for the sin of heresy, and not for the canonical crime of heresy. The pope remains in office until the Church establishes the crime. This requires proving pertinacity—that he is knowingly rejecting dogma after being officially warned. Private individuals can only suspect a sin; they cannot establish a crime.

In St. Robert Bellarmine’s view, a pope, because he cannot be deposed by an inferior, is directly deposed by Christ for the crime of manifest heresy. However, this crime must be established by the Church through a formal process of two warnings and a demonstration of pertinacity. Once the crime of manifest heresy is established, Christ Himself deposes the pope ipso facto (by the fact of the established crime). The Church then commands the faithful to avoid him. Bellarmine’s position is misinterpreted by sedevacantists to mean that private judgment of heresy leads to an automatic loss of office. This is a recipe for chaos. If people cannot agree on whether a pope is a heretic, who decides? 

John of St. Thomas’s view is the majority position: the Church establishes the crime of manifest heresy but then issues an official declaration of deposition and command of avoidance. This differs from Bellarmine in that the Church herself deposes the pope, rather than Christ directly deposing him.

The irony is that the sedevacantists’ interpretation of Bellarmine is irrelevant. Even if one were to grant them their novel view, Bellarmine’s theory is not the Common Opinion of the Church. 

According to Catholic moral theology, it is a serious matter to take a less common theological opinion and attempt to bind it upon the faithful. By declaring that Catholics must believe the See of Rome is vacant based on a marginal interpretation of a minority opinion, some sedevacantist clergy are acting lawlessly and binding heavy burdens upon their flocks. 

No respected Catholic theologian in history has taught that private interpretation can establish a cleric’s loss of office. Some sedevacantist groups agree with this conclusion, yet their actions contradict it. Consider the internal divide within sedevacantism: The Society of St. Pius V (SSPV), a group that separated from the SSPX in 1983, holds that they do not possess the authority to formally establish that the See of Rome is vacant. If that is true, why do they claim the authority to withdraw communion? If sedevacantism remains a private opinion for them, where in Catholic theology does a private opinion grant the right to schism?

Some sedevacantists attempt to deal with the requirement for a legal declaration by arguing that a heretical pope remains materially in office until deposed, but he formally lacks the power and authority of that office by private judgment of heresy (the material/formal thesis or “Cassiciacum Thesis”). While this attempt acknowledges the need for an official declaration, it introduces a non-Catholic concept: a cleric who holds an office can simultaneously lack its power. Under this scheme, a layman could never know whether a cleric possesses the power to govern, teach, and sanctify. It turns the Church into a legally visible entity with invisible potency.

Faced with the Church’s teaching on loss of office, some sedevacantists pivot to declaring that the post-conciliar popes never ascended to the papacy in the first place. Problem solved! But just as private judgment cannot establish loss of office, it also cannot establish the illegality of a papal election. 

Another tactic has been declaring the rites of ordination and episcopal consecration invalid, which also fails and would surprise Cardinal Ottaviani.

Sola traditio is applied by sedevacantists to their understanding of infallibility as well. 

The First Vatican Council delineated the boundaries of the Church’s infallibility in chapter 3 of Dei Filius and chapter 4 of Pastor Aeternus, defining that the Church speaks infallibly through ex cathedra papal pronouncements, solemn definitions of an ecumenical council, and the ordinary and universal magisterium. According to Pastor Aeternus, the pope defines a doctrine ex cathedra when he speaks in his capacity as Supreme Pastor to declare a doctrine on faith or morals as being contained in the deposit of faith and commands that it be held universally by the Church. He must possess a clear intent. Dei Filius also declares that the Church speaks infallibly when she uses solemn language to declare a doctrine on faith or morals. This may happen in an ecumenical council or through the ordinary and universal magisterium, yet not every sentence in a council document is considered infallible.

The ordinary and universal magisterium is invoked when the college of bishops, in union with the pope, agrees on a judgment regarding faith or morals that must be definitively held by the faithful as being contained in the deposit of faith. This teaching rests on two conditions: synchronicity and diachronicity. Synchronicity requires spatial universality, meaning the bishops scattered across the globe are in teaching alignment. Diachronicity requires temporal universality, meaning the teaching maintains continuity across successive centuries. Because the daily, ordinary magisterium of a pope meets neither condition on its own, it is not infallible on its own merits.

Sedevacantists tend to conflate the ordinary magisterium with the ordinary and universal magisterium. The ordinary magisterium includes all the teachings of the pope and the bishops spread across the world. The ordinary magisterium requires religious submission of intellect and will (obsequium religiosum), but this submission can be provisionally withdrawn by an individual who believes after consultation with experts that it contradicts Catholic dogma. 

The infallible ordinary and universal magisterium requires a different kind of assent: the assent of faith (assensus fidei). Sedevacantists highlight the teachings of the ordinary magisterium of post-conciliar popes that appear to contradict dogma, citing them as evidence that these popes are not true popes.

They also believe that Vatican II infallibly bound the Church to Modernist interpretations of its documents. But Vatican II did not bind any new dogmas because in his General Audience address on January 12, 1966, Paul VI said he did not intend to define anything new. No standard solemn language is used within any document body to indicate a dogmatic definition. The standard language and the signature of Paul VI located on every page outside the document body is not considered by the Church to be a mark of infallibility. The Council does require religious submission, but ambiguity must be interpreted in line with Catholic dogma—a principle taught by the post-conciliar Church.

When pressed regarding Vatican I’s definitions, some sedevacantists will admit that a pope is not infallible in his ordinary magisterium, but they often invent a new standard: a pope cannot harm the church by his teaching on faith and morals or by his universal disciplinary laws. But this statement is not dogma and is demonstrably false as seen from historical counterexamples.

In the fourteenth century, for instance, Pope John XXII caused a scandal when he taught that the faithful do not receive the Beatific Vision until after the general judgment. Many theologians opposed this teaching and were pressured and persecuted by the pope. While some say he only held the position as a “private theologian,” many—including historian Warren H. Carroll in The Glories of Christendom—reject this label due to the public nature of his teaching and his forceful impositions.

Pope Honorius I harmed the Church by appearing to support the monothelite heresy. He was formally condemned as a heretic after his death by an ecumenical council, yet the Church never considered him to have been an antipope.

This new “harm” criterion operates as an unfalsifiable proposition: “I believe that a pope’s teaching has harmed the Church. Therefore, he is not the pope.” Even if such a criterion were true Catholic teaching, how much harm counts as harm? Can there be private judgment of harm? 

Ultimately, to follow true tradition, one must interpret tradition as the Church does. This is the principle that the Church herself proposes for understanding Catholic teaching: anti-sola traditio principles. Where there is uncertainty, the living Magisterium decides—the final arbiter that sedevacantism lacks. 

Speaking of harm, many have been traumatized by the crisis in the Church, the crippling disease of sedevacantism, and other forms of dysfunctional traditionalism as well as the seductive echo chambers of the internet which spread the infection. I wrote this series after intense struggle and the humiliation of falling prey to a deception, and I empathize with all who have been afflicted.

The faithful do not have to shoulder the crushing burden of radical autonomy and sola traditio, which reap the whirlwind. Christ’s yoke is truly easy, and His burden is light, because He promised that His providence would superintend His visible Church—even when she is undergoing Her passion, marred by various strains of Modernist contagion.

Leaving sedevacantism does not mean compromising with Modernism. We can only fight for true Catholic tradition—the transcendent, virtuous Scholastic middle of St. Thomas Aquinas—in the heart of the Church. We can replace paralyzing scrupulosity with true spiritual growth only by embracing the visible Mystical Body.

On an optimistic note, the future looks dim for Modernism. It has already signed its own death sentence: it is sterile, producing few children and even fewer vocations. The thriving parishes in the Church are the ones anchored to Tradition. So let us not re-invigorate Modernism via dysfunctional traditionalism. Defeating the toxic Pharisee-Sadducee symbiosis via true Thomistic revival, hearing the Church, St. Therese’s Little Way: here lies the perfect remedy to the current crisis.