In recent days, there’s been a nasty dustup between several prominent Catholic bloggers. The argument was ostensibly about “tone,” and it quickly devolved into a lot of bruised egos, and personal attacks on other Catholics for making personal attacks. It was an ugly spectacle, and I’ve stayed well clear of it.
 |
| Pope Francis |
But while I’m not interested in wading through uncharitable personal attacks, I am interested in the ideas underlying much of the dispute. Underneath all the bruised egos there’s a real dispute over how much respect to pay to Pope Francis. Near the heart of this is the fact that Steve Skojec and others have advanced a view that maybe the pope isn’t really the pope:
I have never said that Vatican II is invalid, but have said that I believe it is possible that the Church could declare it so.
I have never said Pope Francis is an antipope, but I believe it possible that the Church could declare him so.
On his own blog, he spells out his reason for entertaining the possibility:
Juridically speaking, it is certainly possible. We have had both interregnums and antipopes – 30 of the latter, according to the Catholic encyclopedia.
The question is how it affects the man who is the visible head of the office. Since only the Church (most specifically in the person of the pope, who is her supreme legislator) has the authority to say that a pope is a heretic, and thus, in fact, an antipope, a pope would have to in a fit of conscience accuse himself, or a successor of his would have to accuse him posthumously.
A good treatise on this (and why the sedevacantists are wrong for arrogating to themselves the authority to make such judgments, but not wrong in recognizing that such a situation could exist) can be found here.
To his credit, Skojec rightly rejects the standard sedevacantist position that an individual Catholic may declare the pope a heretic and an antipope. But publicly musing that Pope Francis might be a heretic and an antipope is only a little better, and serves only to undermine the faith.
Usually, these debates devolve into one side arguing why the Pope is a heretic, and one side arguing why he’s not. But I’m not going to go that route. Rather, my point is that even if radical Traditionalists were right about Pope Francis being a heretic, he wouldn’t cease to be pope. That’s because built into Skojec’s reasoning are a set of errors that it’s important to unpack.
 |
| As this map shows, 14th century Europe was divided as to the identity of the true pope. |
As Skojec notes, there had been several antipopes throughout history. An antipope is someone who claims to be pope, but isn’t validly the office-holder. Perhaps the most famous antipopes in Catholic history are those from the time known as the Great Western Schism, in which there was great confusion over who the true pope was. Here’s how that began:
- In 1378, Pope Gregory XI died, shortly after returning the papacy to Rome, ending the so-called Babylonian Captivity, in which popes governed the Church from French-controlled Avignon, rather than Rome. When the Cardinals met to elect Gregory’s successor, the Roman mobs rioted, demanding that the next pope be Roman (to prevent any risk that the pope would again flee Rome and take up in another city).
- The Cardinals were unable to agree upon a Roman well-suited for the papacy, but they ended up electing an Italian: Bartolomeo Prignano, the Archbishop of Bari, in southeastern Italy. Prignano took the name Pope Urban VI.
- Urban, who had been a mild-mannered administrator of the papal chancery in Avignon, turned out to be an aggressive reformer pope after his election. In response, the French Cardinals claimed that Urban’s election was invalid, citing the coercion of the mobs. They quickly elected Robert of Geneva as Antipope Clement VII. Clement promptly moved to Avignon.
This created a true crisis within the Church. Nations, theologians, and even Saints were divided between the two claimants to the papacy:
Clement VII was related to or allied with the principal royal families of Europe; he was influential, intellectual, and skilful in politics. Christendom was quickly divided into two almost equal parties. Everywhere the faithful faced the anxious problem: where is the true pope? The saints themselves were divided: St Catherine of Siena, St. Catherine of Sweden, Bl. Peter of Aragon, Bl. Ursulina of Parma, Philippe d’Alencon, and Gerard de Groote were in the camp of Urban; St. Vincent Ferrer, Bl. Peter of Luxemburg, and St. Colette belonged to the party of Clement. The century’s most famous doctors of law were consulted and most of them decided for Rome. Theologians were divided.
Ultimately, it became clear that the Roman line of popes was the true line, despite the less-than-ideal circumstances in which Urban VI was elected. But while “Clement VII” and his successors were thus shown to be antipopes, nobody (to the best of my knowledge) claims that they were heretics, and even some Saints initially supported the Avignon line. So being an Antipope isn’t the same as being a heretic pope.
The common thread in all of these cases is that it turns on whether a particular man was validly elected to the Chair of Peter. A man isn’t declared an antipope simply because you think he’s wrong, or that he’s doing a bad job. Even the supporters of the Avignon antipopes recognized this: their argument wasn’t that Urban VI was a bad pope, but that his election was invalid due to the coercive threat of Roman mobs in the street. And they were wrong: even that radically-imperfect papal election was valid, and thus, Urban VI and his successors were the true popes.
 |
| Mosaic depicting Pope Honorius I, St. Agnes Outside the Walls, Rome |
When Skojec suggests that the Church has the authority to declare “a pope is a heretic, and thus, in fact, an antipope,” he appears to be assuming that a heretical pope ceases to be pope for that reason. While there are some Saints who have speculated that this might be the case (St. Robert Bellarmine being the most famous), the Magisterium has never said this. And for good reason: we have at least two instances which suggest that this isn’t the case.
The first is Pope John XXII (1316-1334), who had a series of sermons in which he denied that Saints enjoy the Beatific Vision prior the Final Judgment. At the time, this was not formal heresy, inasmuch as the doctrine was dogmatically defined only by John’s successor, Benedict XII, in 1336. Theologians corrected the pope’s error, and John had the humility to retract his views. Being wrong on this doctrinal issue didn’t mean that John ceased to be pope. He was just a pope in error. (When sedevacantists refer to “Saint Thomas Aquinas,” they unwittingly concede this, for it was Pope John XXII who canonized Aquinas; if John wasn’t pope, Aquinas isn’t canonized).
The second is Pope Honorius (625-638), who has the ignoble distinction of being the only pope that’s anathematized. As pope, Honorius permitted the spread of the Monothelite heresy. For this, he was condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople, a condemnation affirmed by Pope St. Leo II in these words:
Likewise we anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is Theodore bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, ambushers of the Church of Constantinople more than prelates, and also Honorius, who did not enlighten this apostolic church with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but allowed the immaculate faith to be defiled by profane treachery, and all who died in their error.
This is a perfect case to test Skojec’s theory, because it’s a pope who is a condemned heretic (not for teaching heresy, but for letting it flourish). And guess what? Honorius didn’t cease to be pope. Leo didn’t declare his predecessor an antipope, or nullify all of his papal decrees on the grounds that they weren’t issued by the real pope, etc.
So just as being an antipope doesn’t automatically make someone a heretic, neither being a heretic automatically make him an antipope.
 |
| The Second Vatican Council; photograph by Lothar Wolleh |
Let’s return to one specific aspect of Skojec’s theory. He says:
Since only the Church (most specifically in the person of the pope, who is her supreme legislator) has the authority to say that a pope is a heretic, and thus, in fact, an antipope, a pope would have to in a fit of conscience accuse himself, or a successor of his would have to accuse him posthumously.
This presents a Catch-22. The “fit of conscience” that Skojec envisions couldn’t occur. Why? Because if Pope Francis is a heretical antipope, then he’s not pope. If he’s not pope, then he’s not the supreme legislator of the Church, and doesn’t have the authority to declare anyone an antipope.
But couldn’t a later pope declare Pope Francis an antipope and Vatican II a false Council? No.
As then-Cardinal Ratzinger explained in the Doctrinal Commentary on The Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei, the legitimacy of a particular pope or of a particular Council is infallible (despite not being divinely revealed):
With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations …
This is necessarily the case. Papal infallibility would be meaningless if it were impossible to know who (if anyone) was pope. According to Skojec’s view, the Church could conceivably declare tomorrow that there were no valid popes or Councils after the death of St. Peter. But such a declaration would obviously end Catholicism. We would no longer be able to trust anything – every infallible dogmatic definition would have to be thrown out, since they were all made by antipopes or robber Councils. So the Church must be able to know, infallibly, whether a particular Council or pope is legitimate or not.
Here’s why that matters: if Vatican II is a false Council (as Skojec thinks it might be, and the sedevacantists thinks it is), then it means that the Church from the time of Paul VI onwards has been a false Church. But if that’s the case, Catholicism is over. Every Cardinal elector on earth was appointed by Pope St. John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, or Pope Francis. In this vision of history, none of these men were really popes, and had no more authority to appoint Cardinals than do you or me. So if Skojec was right, we would not only be left without a pope, but without any way of ever having a pope. In that case, there’s no possible future pope or future College of Cardinals capable of declaring Vatican II a false Council, because there’s no possibility of a future pope or College of Cardinals at all. There’s simply no more Church.
The Fifteenth Session of the Ecumenical Council of Constance condemned the following propositions of Jan Hus as heretical back in 1415:
Jan Hus 11. It is not necessary to believe that any particular Roman pontiff is the head of any particular holy church, unless God has predestined him to salvation.
20. If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it.
22. The pope or a prelate who is wicked and foreknown to damnation is a pastor only in an equivocal sense, and truly is a thief and a robber.
24. If a pope lives contrary to Christ, even if he has risen through a right and legitimate election according to the established human constitution, he would have risen by a way other than through Christ, even granted that he entered upon office by an election that had been made principally by God. For, Judas Iscariot was rightly and legitimately elected to be an apostle by Jesus Christ who is God, yet he climbed into the sheepfold by another way.
29. The apostles and faithful priests of the Lord strenuously governed the church in matters necessary for salvation before the office of pope was introduced, and they would continue to do this until the day of judgment if—which is very possible—there is no pope.
So the notion that a wicked pope ceases to be pope is a condemned heresy. So is the idea that we can stay in a perpetual state of sedevacantism.
What Constance was affirming is what needs to be reaffirmed today: the pope is the pope by virtue of his election to the Papal See, not by virtue of his personal merit. Some men are better popes than others, but none of them merit being pope. Conversely, none of them cease to be pope because of their sinfulness. Judas didn’t cease to be an Apostle when he betrayed Christ. Likewise, even the worst pope doesn’t cease to be pope, even if he betrays Jesus Christ through his bad actions. To claim otherwise is heretical.
Consider the alternative. The positions put forward by Skojec and by the sedevacantists would mean that a validly-elected pope could, at any moment, teach heresy and secretly cease to be pope. He, and the Church, would no longer be protected by the charism of papal infallibility. But the people of God would have no way of knowing for certain that the man wasn’t pope, and would be bound to obey his possibly-heretical teachings.
Alternatively, they could resist, on the grounds that he might be a heretic for teaching something that they think is wrong. But this alternative is hardly any better: if the pope and Councils are binding unless they disagree with you, then you’re the final authority. This is exactly the maneuver that Martin Luther attempted in the early days of the Reformation: he acknowledged the authority of popes and Councils unless they contradicted Scripture (which is to say, unless they contradicted Brother Luther’s interpretation of Scripture). One need look no further than the last five hundred years of Protestant history to see how well this chaotic approach works.
We live in an era in which we want to declare marriages null because we don’t like the way our spouses act, and in which we want to declare popes antipopes because we don’t like the way they act. But God’s the final authority, not us. If He united a couple in Holy Matrimony, they’re united (like or not). If He didn’t, they’re not united (again, like it or not: you may want to be married to your already-married coworker, but no dice). If He raised a particular man to the Chair of Peter, that man is the pope, whether or not he’s a good pope, and whether or not you happen to like or respect him. To hold otherwise is to envision an impossible Church, and to fall headlong into the realm of heresy.
Sedevacantism is simply accepting the past teachings of the church and rejecting modernism. There is no rejection of the papacy…this is a key thing that people miss. Just because they say Francis is not a true Pope, they’re not trying to say the the Papacy is to be rejected in general. That is schism. They don’t consider the Vatican II Popes to having true or legitimate authority over the church as they promote error and teachings that potentially harm salvation.
what’s the difference between the Orthodox, protestants and sedevacantists?
Sedevacantism is a schism. Schismatics are those who separate from the legitimate Catholic Authority. The Church always taught it (see Quartus Supra n.12). Thus, sedevacantists are schismatics because they separate from the whole Church Teaching, which had recognized John XXIII and his successors as legitimate Popes, and Vatican II as legitimate Council.
They also became heretics because they think that the whole hierarchy could recognize an antipope as legitimate, and falling into heresy, and that the Faith could be obscursed for 20 years, which is heretical (see Auctorem Fidei, prop. I., and Etsi Multa Luctuosa, n. 23).
To accept Vatican II and the reigning “popes” thereafter is to accept that the church, despite its teaching against such a fact, has defected, as it has moved away, and taught contrary to the Dogmas of the Faith. One need only look at the teachings that followed the second Vatican council and compare them to that of the first council (or any other council prior) to see the contradictions therein. I urge all readers on this site to look into the decrees of the second Vatican counsel and compare it to the dogmas of the church prior to 1965. To believe that Vatican II is valid and the heretical “popes” that preach its gospel is to deny the validity and infallibility of all the councils prior. It’s important to note that all of the “popes” from John XXIII, to Francis were heretical apostates prior to there election. The church has always taught that those outside the church cannot rule within. And if you know anything about church teachings on heresy, it’s that belief in heresy ipso facto removes you from the Catholic Church. Don’t allow the lies and heresies of Vatican II and the “popes” that followed muddy the waters of Christs teachings. Look to the Holy Fathers of the past and you’ll come to the conclusion that Vatican II is not the Catholic Church, but a counter fit church. The church still lives on in the dwindling number of true traditional Catholics that still believe in Our Holy Mother, The Church. “No one who merely disbelieves
in all these (heresies) can for
that reason regard himself as a
Catholic or call himself one.
For there may be or arise some
other heresies, which are not set
out in this work of ours, and if
anyone holds to a single one of
these he is not a Catholic.
-Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9),
If you believe something contrary to what the church has always taught, you are not Catholic. A non-Catholic cannot be pope of religion he does not belong to.
A few of the many problems for those who (understandably) reject Francis as their pope (besides being in schism according to the “living magisterium”) is that in principle, they are operating like Bible Christians in that they decide what is valid church teaching based upon their judgment of what ancient authoritative church teaching is and means. However, for us that source is Scripture in which we do not find distinctive Catholic teachings manifest.
Moreover, historical teaching to which body they appeal does not allow their dissent, such as their “pick and choose” from V2, since it results in disunity, for in Catholicism the laity are not to engage in deciding what is valid church teaching based upon their judgment, but are to rely on the living magisterium, and thus they are told,
‘the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors,” “to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff,” “of submitting with docility to their judgment,” with “no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed… not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;” and ‘not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, ” for “obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces,” and not set up “some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them,” “Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent.” (Sources: https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2019/10/required-catholic-submission.html)
And this dissent has indeed resulted in divisions, for rather than the unity Catholics tell us we need their magisterium for, as one poster wryly stated,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on “areas of legitimate disagreement,” the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn’t handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan.
Another poster sums up the situation as,
1. Church Militant who chastise the Bishops but not the Pope
2. The Wanderer supporters
3. The Remnant led by the brother of the publisher of The Wanderer who now disowns The Wanderer
4. The SSPX
5. Those that believe the SSPX is a valid Catholic organization but aren’t members.
6. Those who believe the SSPX is in apostasy
7. Those former members of the SSPX that believe Fellay is too deferential to the Pope
8. Sedevacantists who believe Francis is the first anti-Pope or non-Pope
9. Sedevacantists who believe John XXIII was the first anti-pope or non-Pope and that the Second Vatican Council is invalid
10. Those that believe in various conspiracy theories that the Church is now completely controlled by: The Vatican Bank, Gays, Masons, Space Aliens, the Illuminati or some combination of the above
11. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who either quietly or on record disagree with the Pope but are unwilling to go all the way and call him a heretic
12. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who are willing to call the Pope a heretic but are also willing to wait for the process of replacement to unfold in an orderly manner -who_would_fardels_bear: https://freerepublic.com/perl/posts?page=6#6
Yikes. Html detected. Where is the edit feature? Replace with
A few of the many problems for those who (understandably) reject Francis as their pope (besides being in schism according to the “living magisterium”) is that in principle, they are operating like Bible Christians in that they decide what is valid church teaching based upon their judgment of what ancient authoritative church teaching is and means. However, for us that source is Scripture in which we do not find distinctive Catholic teachings manifest.
Moreover, historical teaching to which body they appeal does not allow their dissent, such as their “pick and choose” from V2, since it results in disunity, for in Catholicism the laity are not to engage in deciding what is valid church teaching based upon their judgment, but are to rely on the living magisterium, and thus they are told,
‘the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors,” “to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff,” “of submitting with docility to their judgment,” with “no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed… not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;” and ‘not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, ” for “obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces,” and not set up “some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them,” “Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent.” (Sources: https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2019/10/required-catholic-submission.html)
And this dissent has indeed resulted in divisions, for rather than the unity Catholics tell us we need their magisterium for, as one poster wryly stated,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on “areas of legitimate disagreement,” the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn’t handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan.
Another poster sums up the situation as,
1. Church Militant who chastise the Bishops but not the Pope
2. The Wanderer supporters
3. The Remnant led by the brother of the publisher of The Wanderer who now disowns The Wanderer
4. The SSPX
5. Those that believe the SSPX is a valid Catholic organization but aren’t members.
6. Those who believe the SSPX is in apostasy
7. Those former members of the SSPX that believe Fellay is too deferential to the Pope
8. Sedevacantists who believe Francis is the first anti-Pope or non-Pope
9. Sedevacantists who believe John XXIII was the first anti-pope or non-Pope and that the Second Vatican Council is invalid
10. Those that believe in various conspiracy theories that the Church is now completely controlled by: The Vatican Bank, Gays, Masons, Space Aliens, the Illuminati or some combination of the above
11. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who either quietly or on record disagree with the Pope but are unwilling to go all the way and call him a heretic
12. Various groups of reasonable Catholics who are willing to call the Pope a heretic but are also willing to wait for the process of replacement to unfold in an orderly manner -who_would_fardels_bear: https://freerepublic.com/perl/posts?page=6#6
Never heard of the expression that “a doubtful pope pope”? That statement would make no sense if we were always certain who the pope was, and it would make no sense given the historical existence of antipopes where there was doubt because there was more than one potential pope.
I like much of what shamelesspopery has done about Protestants but this article doesn’t actually accurately refute people who believe we don’t have a Pope actually believe. You confound several concepts and teachings that will easily be picked up on. For example, the Church declared against donatism that sin doesn’t put one outside the Church, but the Church repeatedly has taught that heresy does. Another example is that you correctly affirmed that John xxii, honorius and no pre-Vatican ii Pope has taught formal heresy. However, the people who you are trying to refuse also believe this. Saying that these people implicitly believe John xxii was a real Pope is a mute point when they explicitly teach this.
Furthermore, according to your reasoning, how such doctrinal giants in the Church (such as St Robert Bellarmine, St Alphonsus, etc) say this may be possible if you, with no more revealed teaching than them say it is possible. Your impossible conclusion also seems strange also considering the 1917 Catholic encyclopedia article on Infallibility concluded the opposite of what you have:
“A similar exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e., were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clearly opposed to what has been defined as de fide catholic. But in this case many theologians hold that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope. This, however, is a hypothetical case which has never actually occurred; even the case of Honorius, were it proved that he taught the Monothelite heresy, would not be a case in point.”
Can you please research this topic better so that you can rewrite this article and accurately refute it?