February 1983 Print

 

Michael Davies

In this incisive and exceedingly useful article, Michael Davies explains the Sedevacantists. The recent illicit consecration of several bishops has highlighted this group. An outline of its origins and activities is called for. Michael Davies gives both. Acknowledgements to Christian Order.

I HAVE WARNED from time to time of an increasingly schismatic mentality within some traditionalist groups, both in the U.S.A. and Europe. It is no longer adequate to talk about a schismatic mentality—we must use the word schism. Formal schism is now among us.

Many readers will have read of Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo-Dinh-Thuc, formerly Archbishop of Hanoi. He gained notoriety for giving episcopal consecration to Clemente, the self-styled seer of Palmar de Troya in Spain, who has since proclaimed himself "pope." Clemente has consecrated dozens of "bishops," who have consecrated others in their turn. The number of Palmar de Troya bishops may now run into hundreds, and I have been informed that some are now operating in the U.S.A. Archbishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc was quite properly excommunicated for this outrage, but I understand, repented, and was reconciled to the Church. Well, he is at it again. He has conferred episcopal consecration upon three "traditionalist" priests: a Frenchman, Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., and two Mexicans, Fr. Moises Carmona and Fr. Adolfo Zamora. These illicit consecrations took place in Toulon, France, in the case of Fr. de Lauriers on May 7, 1981, and of the two Mexican priests on October 17, 1981. I have no intention whatsoever of pronouncing upon the subjective dispositions of any of the clerics involved. I have little doubt that they are men with a deep love of the Faith, who, outraged by the proliferating and unrestrained scandals within the Conciliar Church, feel that they are acting as they have done to ensure the continuation of the Catholic Church. If this is their honest belief, if they have searched their hearts and sincerely believe that, like Luther, they cannot act otherwise, ("Ich kann nicht anders"), then God will forgive them. But, objectively, there is no problem whatever in judging their action: they are schismatics, they have put themselves outside the Church.

What is a Schismatic?

It would be useful to make it clear what a schismatic is. An explanation was given by Fr. Donald Sanborn, of the Society of St. Pius X. In an "Open Letter to Priests," published in 1978, Father wrote:

Schism in Canon Law is defined thus: "If, finally, anyone denies that he is subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or if he refuses communion with those members of the Church who are subject to him, he is schismatic." That is a literal translation of Canon 1325, par. 2. I invite all and everyone to check my reference and to check my translation. Canon Law, therefore, states that a person is guilty of schism if he denies that he is subject to the Roman Pontiff, or if he refuses to have communion, that is, if he refuses to recognize as members of the Church those who do recognize the Supreme Pontiff as head of the Church. These are the only two ways according to the official law of the Church that a person can become a schismatic. Now, let it be understood that I myself and all the priests of the Society of St. Pius X profess and uphold the total and supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff over the entire Church, and we maintain complete and total communion with all those members of the Church who likewise profess the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff. We publicly declare and profess that we are, like all Roman Catholics, subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ on earth, and in order to belong to the Roman Catholic Church,it is necessary to be subject to him.

 

Sedevacantists

The Vietnamese Archbishop and the priests he has consecrated would probably claim that they wholeheartedly accept the teaching expounded by Fr. Sanborn, but they would claim nevertheless that they are not schismatic, as the Holy See is vacant at present and that, therefore, as there is no Sovereign Pontiff, they cannot be accused of refusing communion with him. Archbishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc has, in fact, issued a public statement proclaiming that the Holy See is vacant. There are indications that illicitly consecrated bishops may meet and elect one of their number as "Pope." Those who claim that the Holy See is vacant are known as "sedevacantists" (from the Latin sede vacante, "vacant see"). Archbishop Lefebvre has always repudiated this theory. I met him in Texas early in May, 1982, and was pleased to hear him do so again. Here is a translation of his exact words, which I have on tape, in French:

I have always refused to say that there is no Pope, and that, since Pope Pius XII, the Church has had no Pope. I have even asked some of my priests to leave us rather than profess that opinion. For I do not wish that the Fraternity, our Society, would lead the faithful into an impasse, which, besides, is what is happening at this moment to those people who claim that there is no longer a Pope. They will soon be disposed to choose a "pope" from among themselves, which demonstrates that logically this position leads to schism.

 

Sedevacantists and Schismatics

Sadly, it was one of the priests who has left the Society of St. Pius X who, reportedly, attempted to assassinate the Pope at Fatima. I am sure that no one was more distressed at this outrage than the Archbishop himself. The enemies of the Society will no doubt capitalize on the fact that the priest concerned had been a member of the Society, implying that the Archbishop has some sympathy for the Sedevacantist theory—which is ironic when he is coming under so much fire for refuting it. Thus, in the April 30 [1982] issue of "Catholics for Tradition," journal of the Orthodox Roman Catholic Movement, Inc., the announcement of the illicit consecrations by Archbishop Pierre Martin is welcomed as a positive step; they are described as "orthodox bishops—that is to say, thoroughly Catholic bishops," while Archbishop Lefebvre is criticized for his willingness to "co-exist with the Vatican establishment." The truth is that these men are not Catholic bishops at all—one does not become a Catholic bishop simply by receiving valid episcopal orders. There are hundreds of men belonging to the multiplicity of Old Roman Catholic sects who have valid orders, but they are not Catholic bishops. Francis Schuckardt may have valid episcopal orders, but he is not a Catholic bishop. A Catholic bishop must be in communion with the Pope, and be recognized as such by him. Archbishop Lefebvre enjoys such recognition as can be discovered by anyone who cares to consult the Vatican Year Book, or read any of the correspondence addressed to him from the Vatican, which gives him the respect due to a Catholic bishop.

The ORCM newsletter accepts that:

It is to be expected that at least some of the faithful in the Catholic remnant will take scandal at these latest unauthorized consecrations and will see in these four bishops (they include Archbishop Pierre Martin) the beginning of a schismatic church separated from the true Church in Rome under Pope John Paul II. It poses the question: But is there in fact schism here? Are those bishops and their supporters really "breaking" with the Church? Can we ourselves as traditionalists condone all this and possibly support it....Our answer is that although priests of the ORCM have preferred to say as little about the Vatican II popes as possible and to give them the benefit of the doubt as regards their election and legitimacy, we have not denied that there are grounds for doubt and that those who deny their legitimacy have the authority of weighty theologians on their side. It may be that John Paul II and his three predecessors (or two) lost the papacy as these new bishops believe, by falling into heresy.

 

Can a Heretical Pope Forfeit Office?

The questions raised here are serious, and deserve serious consideration, as the answers given to them could mean the difference between salvation and damnation. The first question raised by the sedevacantist theory is as to whether a pope could forfeit his office through heresy. The Church has never made a definitive pronouncement upon this subject, and so we must take the consensus of theological opinion as our guide. I have provided a very detailed treatment of this subject in Appendix II to my book Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, (see in particular pages 415-417). The answer is that a Pope who pertinaciously embraced formal heresy would by the very fact be deprived of his office, as it is impossible to be a Catholic and a heretic at the same time, and the Pope must be a Catholic. But the Church would need to know of this. The Pope could hardly be said to have lost his office simply because one layman, one priest, one bishop, or even one Cardinal, declared that he had lost his office. Archbishop Pierre Martin has made just such a declaration on February 25, 1982, and states that the Holy See is vacant. Nor would the case be helped if a group of Catholics, even numbering in the thousands, declared the Holy See vacant with, perhaps, many priests and bishops upholding the claim. If other bishops stated that the Pope was not a heretic and not deposed, how could we judge between the two parties except by making our own private judgment the ultimate criterion of who is and who is not the Vicar of Christ? The theological consensus is that there is one certain way by which we could know that a pope has been deposed: a General Council of the Church would have to declare that this was the case. Please note carefully—and this is a rather complex point—the General Council would not be deposing him. It has no such authority and we are forbidden by Vatican I to appeal from the authority of a pope to a General Council. The sentence of the Council would not be judicial but declaratory, simply informing the faithful that the man occupying the See of Peter had ceased to be pope due to obdurate heresy. But no such sentence has been passed upon any Pope subsequent to Pope Pius XII, and we have no right to regard them as anything but validly elected Popes who reigned lawfully or are reigning lawfully. Whether they were good, wise, prudent, or effective popes is quite another matter; but the fact is that, however much we might disapprove of them, they were and are legitimate popes.

Let us now examine some of the practical consequences of the sedevacantist theory. These are enormous, and Archbishop Lefebvre has rightly drawn attention to their serious nature on several occasions.

It is to be noted from the quotation which I took from the ORCM newsletter that the sedevacantists themselves disagree as to exactly how many popes have either lost their office or never been popes at all. Some include Pope John XXIII amongst those deposed, others do not. I understand that there are now some who reject Pope Pius XII. But they all seem to be agreed that Pope Paul VI was not a true pope. Some claim that his election was invalid and others that he lost his office through heresy. Clearly, if Pope Paul VI and his two successors were not popes, then the Cardinals they created are not cardinals, and no real cardinals have been created since the pontificate of Pope Pius XII (presuming that he was a true pope).

Some readers might not be clear as to exactly how a pope is elected, and so I had better say a word on this. St. Peter was appointed by Our Lord to be the visible head of the Church on earth. He subsequently became Bishop of Rome, where he was martyred, and since that time the Bishop of Rome has been the Vicar of Christ, visible head of the Church on earth. The Bishop of Rome is elected by the clergy of Rome, and for this reason whenever a man is made a cardinal he is also appointed as pastor of a Roman parish, and his coat of arms is normally placed above the door. A parish priest in the Diocese of Rome can, of course, only be appointed by the Bishop of Rome. Now, if there have been no true cardinals appointed since the pontificate of Pope Pius XII (or Pope John XXIII), then the only men who can lawfully elect a true Bishop of Rome, and hence a true pope, would be the cardinals appointed by Pope Pius XII, who are now a declining minority within the College of Cardinals. There is also no doubt at all that these cardinals all recognize the legitimacy of the last Pontiffs and have no intention whatsoever of electing a "true pope" in opposition to Pope John Paul II. Therefore, when these cardinals die, it means that there will be no one to elect a pope, and the papacy will have come to an end—which would mean, in fact, that the divine promises of Our Lord had failed, which would mean that He could not have been divine, and there never would have been a Catholic Church. Archbishop Lefebvre has indeed been wise to point out the grave consequences of the sedevacantist theory.

An argument which could be brought against what I have written is that, although the papacy is of divine institution, the manner of electing a pope is not. Strictly speaking, a pope would have the legal authority to make changes in the manner of electing his successor. What, it might be asked, would happen if, per impossibile, the Pope and all the cardinals were killed simultaneously? I presume that, in such a case, the bishops of the world, as the successors of the Apostles, would meet to choose a new pope. I understand that this is the "solution" which some, at least, of the sedevacantists are taking to the present situation. They claim that the situation is just as if the Pope and all the cardinals were dead (overlooking those appointed by Pope Pius XII), and I presume, would say that all the bishops of the world had forfeited their sees through heresy except for their own sedevacantist bishops, and that as these are now the only true Catholic bishops in the world, they are entitled to come together and elect a pope. But there is by no means complete harmony among the sedevacantists, and it is far from impossible that we shall eventually see several rival sedevacantist "popes" anathematizing each other from different parts of the world, in addition to the "pope" of Palmar de Troya, and another "pope" reigning, I understand, in Canada. Could any true Catholic, anyone with a sense of what it means to be a Catholic, give any consideration, let alone serious consideration, to such madness? I have no doubt that at present Satan is concentrating his efforts upon the traditionalist movement with very great success. Reports and literature which I receive from several countries indicate a depressing picture of fragmentation, internal bickering, and virulent animosity which betrays a totally unchristian spirit. In her truly superb book, The Gates of Hell, Anne Roche urged that we should not let the post-conciliar bishops and clergy drive us out of the Church (she described them by a somewhat more forceful term which I had better not repeat). Let us now pray that the sedevacantist "bishops" and priests will not succeed in enticing members of the Catholic remnant out of the Church. Faced by this danger to our faith, I maintain that there is only one viable position open to a Catholic: we should shun those clerics absolutely. If any cleric claims to be a bishop, while not recognized as such by a Pope, we should not assist at his Masses or have any form of contact with him—and we should behave in the same way towards priests who accept such a man as a bishop. Furthermore, we should not assist at the Masses of any priest who claims that Pope John Paul II is not a true Pope, or even suggests that there is a possibility that he might not be. It is totally irrelevant as to whether these men are pious, sincere, preach much sound doctrine, evince a great love for Our Lord and say only the Tridentine Mass—does not Satan send us tempters disguised as angels of light?