In his Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, Bishop Rudolf Graber quoted St. Athanasius’s letter circulated to all the bishops in the year 340:
“Today the whole Church is seen dismembered. The messengers are seen who are sent to you and others to relate what insolence and injustice they have suffered. Let ourselves be scandalized, I implore you . . . as if all of you had suffered injustice. Each of you should offer his aid as if he himself were the victim of it. Otherwise the order and Faith of the Church may shortly go to ruin. For both are threatened if God does not quickly repair the crimes through your agencies and expiate the injury inflicted on the Church.” (pp. 20-21)
Bishop Graber found it appropriate to cite these words from St. Athanasius in his 1974 book because he saw that the Catholic Church was again undergoing a crisis of astounding proportions. If anything, the crisis has deepened today, even though the foundational problems remain the same as they were in 1974.
For the most part, the options we have to combat the crisis in the Church are the same options that Christians have had for the past two thousand years.
St. Athanasius called the bishops to action, encouraging them to cooperate with God’s grace to repair the crimes committed by the Church’s enemies. Today the crimes committed against the Church are arguably far worse, and only God can truly repair the harms. And yet, just as in the time of St. Athanasius, faithful Catholics can cooperate with God’s grace to mitigate the ongoing damage and make some reparation.
For the most part, the options we have to combat the crisis are the same options that Christians have had for the past two thousand years. With two exceptions, each option considered below is essentially the same that we would face even if the Church was being led by men of perfect orthodoxy and sanctity. We can weigh the profitability of each option by the same criteria that saints throughout history likely would have thought about similar options: what is most pleasing to God and most likely to lead souls to Heaven?
Attending the Traditional Latin Mass. For good reason, the Traditional Latin Mass has been at the center of the crisis in the Catholic Church for the past sixty years. The problems with the changes in the liturgy were apparent from the beginning, as we can see from the following words from Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani’s 1969 letter to Paul VI accompanying a theological study of the Novus Ordo:
“”The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith. Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonizing crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come to our notice daily.”
Paul VI and the bishops supporting the Novus Ordo Missae might have disagreed with these words in 1969 simply because they had not yet had enough time to witness the impact of changing the Mass, but today the results of the liturgical experiment are too unmistakable to miss. Although there can be great saints who attend the Novus Ordo and great sinners who attend the Traditional Latin Mass, it is indisputable that the Traditional Latin Mass fosters unity and holiness whereas the Novus Ordo generally leads to signs of “restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith” that Cardinal Ottaviani described. As such, those who truly want to combat the crisis can probably take no more effective step than to do all they can to frequent the Traditional Latin Mass.
The question of what to do with a problematic pope has been debated at various times throughout the centuries without leaving us with a definitive answer that resolves the questions that serious Catholics have today. All we know for certain is that we should resist all error and pray for God to provide the remedy.
Saying the Rosary. For those who know little of the Rosary, it might be confusing to see the Rosary listed among the most profitable options for Catholics to address the crisis. However, we have the testimonies of the saints, as well as the personal experience of so many Catholics today, to confirm the truth of Leo XIII’s words from 1895:
“It is specially deserving of notice, and it gives Us the greatest pleasure to recall, that of all the forms of devotion to the Blessed Virgin, that most excellent method of prayer, Mary’s Rosary, is establishing itself most widely in popular esteem and practice. This, We repeat, is a source of great joy to Us. If We have spent so large a share of our activities, in promoting the Rosary devotion, We can easily see with what benevolence the Queen of Heaven has come to Our aid when We prayed to her; and We express the confident conviction that she will continue to stand at Our side to lighten the burdens and the afflictions which the days to come will bring.”
Those who disagree with these words have almost certainly never made a real effort to develop the virtuous (and essential) practice of devoutly saying the Rosary on a daily basis. And those who have, by the grace of God, developed the practice almost certainly know that Leo XIII’s words are more true than ever today.
Providing Proper Catholic Education. Proper Catholic education is always essential but its need is particularly pronounced today, when error and perversion have become far more prevalent than truth, goodness, and beauty. Those with an ability to help promote good Catholic education — whether it be Catholic homeschooling or, less common, schools run by Traditional Catholic communities — can have a profound impact on forming the saints that we need to combat the crisis in the Church. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the education decision for each child today can be distilled into the question of whether we want (a) good Catholics educating souls to serve God, or (b) the Church’s enemies educating souls to serve the godless world.
Supporting Traditional Catholic Communities. With few exceptions, Traditional Catholic communities — especially priestly and religious orders — are often in need of generous material support in order to carry out their work. Seventy years ago, it was probably the case that most Catholics were not attending Sunday Mass alongside the men and women who had made great personal sacrifices to have the church built. Today that is often not the case: whether the church has been built (or renovated for Catholic use) in the past decades or has been set up in a borrowed space hours before the Mass, we often attend the Traditional Latin Mass with people whose sacrifices have been vital in allowing that Mass to happen. It is a real blessing to be able to support the Church in this way, and God cannot be outdone in generosity.
Pursuing Sanctity. Throughout salvation history, God has made the greatest use of His saints in addressing the evils afflicting the world. One reason among others for this is the reality that those who truly seek to become saints are the most docile to God’s will and therefore the most capable of being holy instruments of His Providence. Moreover, because the crisis in the Church involves a level of spiritual combat rarely seen in salvation history, we ought to heed the words of St. Paul:
“Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of justice, And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace: In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. And take unto you the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God). By all prayer and supplication praying at all times in the spirit; and in the same watching with all instance and supplication for all the saints . . .” (Ephesians 6:11-18)
Those who say they want to combat the crisis but have no interest in pursuing sanctity are like a solider who would want to win the war but has no interest in doing anything necessary to overcome the enemy.
Theologians have disagreed on whether or not an imperfect council (composed of cardinals or possibly bishops) was necessary to address the question of Pope Francis, so there was something profoundly off-putting, to put it mildly, in sedevacantists badgering simple Catholics into making personal declarations that Francis was not the pope.
Resisting Errors. As discussed below, the sedevacantists often criticize Traditional Catholics for resisting the errors that we see from Rome. Their complaint is not the fact that Traditional Catholics resist the errors — which they do as well — but that we do not join them in insisting that there is no valid pope. However, as we can see from the three quotations below (from Fr. Matthias Gaudron’s Catechism of the Crisis in the Church), theologians have told us that we should resist any pope who would try to harm the Church:
- “It is necessary to stand up to a pope who would rend the Church….Otherwise, why should it be said that authority was given to build up and not to destroy (II Cor. 13:10)? Against a bad usage of authority, one will employ the appropriate means: by refusing obedience in what is evil, by not seeking to please, by not keeping silent, by rebuking, by inviting the authorities to make the necessary reproaches following the example of St. Paul and in accordance with his precept.” (Thomas Cajetan, O.P. De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii)
- “Should the pope prescribe something against good morals, he should not be obeyed. Should he undertake something that is obviously against justice or the common good, it is licit to resist him.” ( Suarez, S.J., Opera Omnia (Paris, 1856), X, 321 (Tractatus de Fide Dogmatica, disp. 10, sect. 6, n. 16))
- “Just as it is licit to resist a pope who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him if he attacks souls or disturbs the civil order or, above all, if he tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will.” ( Robert Bellarmine, S.J., De Romano Pontifice, II, 29)
Sedevacantists will generally respond that these quotations only apply to situations in which the putative pope is trying to harm the Church other than through teaching error. If the pope was teaching error, they would tell us, we would need to not only resist such errors but also declare that the apparent pope was not the pope.
One interesting counterpoint to that argument comes from another quotation from St. Robert Bellarmine, on whom the sedevacantists rely extensively (as discussed below). St. Robert Bellarmine’s defense of the Church against Protestants who argued that Catholics had no recourse against a pope who would try to destroy the Church tells us that we can resist a pope whom we cannot depose:
“I respond: No wonder, if the Church remains without an efficacious human remedy, seeing that its safety does not rest principally upon human industry, but divine protection, since God is its king. Therefore, even if the Church could not depose a Pope, still, it may and must beg the Lord that He would apply the remedy, and it is certain that God has care for its safety, that He would either convert the Pope or abolish him from their midst before he destroys the Church. Nevertheless, it does not follow from here that it is not lawful to resist a Pope destroying the Church; for it is lawful to admonish him while preserving all reverence, and to modestly correct him, even to oppose him with force and arms if he means to destroy the Church.” (De Controversiis, On the Church: On Councils, On the Church Militant, On the Marks of the Church, p. 220)
The entire logic of this paragraph hinges on St. Robert Bellarmine’s assumption that the Church would want to depose the pope to be resisted. On what ground, though, would the Church seek to depose a pope other than heresy? Perhaps the sedevacantists have a ready answer for this question, but the fact remains that this question of what to do with a problematic pope has been debated at various times throughout the centuries without leaving us with a definitive answer that resolves the questions that serious Catholics have today. All we know for certain is that we should resist all error and pray for God to provide the remedy.
The idea is that the formal heresy of the claimant to the papacy would need to be known to the entire Church, which means the see would not be vacant so long as universal acceptance of the pope persisted. Although Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira’s assessment is obviously not infallible, his position is based on the views of reputable theologians.
Directly Addressing Problems with the Ostensible Hierarchy. It is at least conceivable that there may come a time in which God wills that Catholics take direct steps to address problems with the hierarchy, such as declaring that a particular claimant to the papacy has lost the papacy (or never had it) through manifest formal heresy, and proceeding to elect a true pope. Here too, though, we can see the great need for sanctity. We know that St. Catherine of Siena helped resolve a crisis in the papacy, but she was a saint! As such, she was able to set aside her pride and listen attentively to God — she had no interest in doing anything other than God’s will, and surely those whom she needed to influence could see that. If she had instead adopted the vicious spirit so prevalent in debates over the papacy today, God presumably would have had little use for her. This should be a matter of common sense for serious Catholics.
At least five other factors presently render the sedevacantist position difficult for many Traditional Catholics to accept.
First, with Francis we agreed that it was likely that the man had fallen into formal heresy, but who had the authority to make the necessary declaration that he had lost the papacy? Theologians have disagreed on whether or not an imperfect council (composed of cardinals or possibly bishops) was necessary to address the question, so there was something profoundly off-putting, to put it mildly, in sedevacantists badgering simple Catholics into making personal declarations that Francis was not the pope.
Second, who was the last pope? The most vocal sedevacantists insist that there have been no popes since Pius XII, with all of the dire ecclesiological questions that involves. This group stands shoulder-to-shoulder (in denouncing the “semi-trads” who are not sedevacantist) with those who think that Benedict XVI was among the greatest popes ever. It is possible for both positions to be wrong, but they obviously cannot both be right. Stepping back, though, it is not altogether clear why those who cannot agree on the basic question of who the last pope was have the theological credibility to demand that Traditional Catholics personally declare that there is no pope.
Third, one of the most articulate sedevacantists today, Bishop Donald Sanborn, is also one of the most persuasive opponents of the most prevalent sedevacantist theory. He defends his thesis by comparing it to those of both Traditional Catholics who believe there is a pope and his fellow sedevacantists. After dismissing the views of the former Ecclesia Dei communities (such as the Fraternity of St. Peter) and the Society of St. Pius X, Bishop Sanborn turns to the two sedevacantist theories:
* “3. The ‘Vatican II popes’ do not have the authority of Christ, they are not true popes, and are already juridically deposed. This is the position of totalism, or complete sedevacantism.”
* “4. The ‘Vatican II popes’ do not have the authority of Christ, they are not true popes, but this real fact has not yet been juridically established and recognized in the universal Church. This is the solution proposed by the Thesis, sometimes referred to as material-formal sedevacantism or sedeprivationism.”
From there, he describes how the complete sedevacantism position is untenable:
“Is the third position (‘complete sedevacantism’ or ‘totalism’) a viable solution? On the one hand, this third position is absolutely correct in denying authority to the ‘Vatican II popes,’ thus preserving the infallibility of the Church by not attributing to her authority the abominations of Vatican II. This position is therefore correct in its essential part. On the other hand, it fails to make the proper distinction between the real order and the juridical order. For example, one is indeed a murderer by the very fact of killing an innocent person, but this crime must still be established in a court of law in order that its legal consequences and juridical penalties be applied. . . . The ‘totalist’ position is also unable to provide a satisfying answer to the problem of the perpetual Apostolic succession of the Roman See, which is demanded by the Church’s indefectibility and taught by the Vatican Council (1870) in the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus: ‘That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the Blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world.’”
Thus, one of the most articulate defenders of sedevacantism argues that “complete sedevacantism” cannot be correct (even though he suggests that its fallacy relates only to a non-essential aspect). Again, if the sedevacantists cannot agree among themselves after decades of debating these points, how can they credibly demand that all Traditional Catholics follow them?
Sedevacantists cannot agree amongst themselves on the fundamental tenets of their theories. Regardless, it is much harder to try to practice the Faith as saints — and patiently petition God to provide the remedy to the problem of the papacy — but that seems like the path better suited to pleasing God and saving souls.
Fourth, it is worth considering Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira’s analysis in his Two Timely Issues: The New Mass and the Possibility of a Heretical Pope, in which he endorsed the so-called fifth opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, which essentially states that a pope falling into manifest heresy would ipso facto lose the papacy. While his commentary is by no means infallible, it is worth noting the way in which he rejects sedevacantism.
“Could the [failure of a heretical pope to vacate the papacy] lead to sedevacantism? We answer: In no way whatsoever. In the panorama that we imagine, the manifestation of the pope’s formal heresy and the dogmatic-canonical principles governing the matter would have been brought to the knowledge of tota Ecclesia. The procedures envisaged by Saint Paul, Saint Robert Bellarmine, and Ballerini would all have been effectuated. If the universal acceptance of the pope persisted, as Saint Alphonsus says, the see would not be vacant. One of the characteristics of sedevacantism is that ten, a hundred, or a thousand Catholics meet and proclaim the vacancy of the Apostolic See, disregarding the principle that in the Church, a visible and perfect society, leadership acquisition or loss and all other fundamental facts of its life must be known to the social body. For this reason, already decisive as such, one sees that there is no risk that the fifth opinion of Saint Robert, such as we propose it, based mainly on Ballerini’s explanations, could result in sedevacantism.” (p. 230)
The idea is that the formal heresy of the claimant to the papacy would need to be known to the entire Church, which means the see would not be vacant so long as universal acceptance of the pope persisted. Although Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira’s assessment is obviously not infallible, his position is based on the views of reputable theologians and further highlights the reality that the sedevacantist position is far less compelling than they would have us believe.
Fifth, the entire premise that individual Catholics must address the ongoing crisis in the Church by making personal determinations that there is no pope is so repugnant to everything we know about our Faith that we can and must reject it outright. Good Catholics can conclude that Francis was not the pope, but elevating such a conclusion to the status of a theological certainty that requires one to separate from those who disagree is an outrage against God and His Church.
By all means, Catholics of good will can discuss the potential for a pope to lose his office through manifest formal heresy, but at present this seems like a less profitable exercise than each of the other options mentioned above for addressing the crisis in the Church. This is particularly the case when the sedevacantists cannot agree amongst themselves on the fundamental tenets of their theories. It is much harder to try to practice the Faith as saints — and patiently petition God to provide the remedy to the problem of the papacy — but that seems like the path better suited to pleasing God and saving souls. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
