The Easy Way Out
Avoiding the Trap of Sedevacantism
By Brian McCall
people, Catholic and non-
Many
■ Whenever a pope’s statement contains novelties, it is a sure sign that he speaks outside of the august powers, faculties and gifts of the papal office. Such speculative and discursive statements can be harmfully erroneous, are amendable, and are not demanding of adherence by Catholics.
Catholic, are struggling to understand Pope Francis. He has been on the throne of St. Peter (or, as he prefers, the Bishop of Rome) for nearly three-quarters of a year now. In that short time he has managed to produce a flood of disconcerting statements in the form of written and oral communications in a wide variety of media. In the face of a dizzying array of novel acts and utterances, some have been tempted to the easy solution of sedevacantism.
Believing that a real pope could not be doing such things these folks try to conclude that he is not a true pope. Unfortunately, the historically unprecedented resignation of Benedict XVI in the shadow of intrigue and corruption in the Vatican has added fuel to this fire.
Father Brian Harrison has already written a refutation of the sedevacantist solution in these pages. Although Father and I have disagreed on certain points in the past (e.g., the legitimacy of the New Mass), I wholeheartedly agree with his conclusion that we must not be tempted to answer the riddle of Pope Francis with a sedevacantist solution. Taking Father Harrison’s lead I wish to examine in more detail the reasons why Catholic doctrine does not lead to the conclusion that the chair of Peter is vacant.
The sedevacantist error emanates from a flawed major premise: a pope cannot say and do things that are against the Faith. To this major premise the sedevacantists attach a list that grows
~ See Sedevacantism/ Page 8
The Easy Way Out
Avoiding the Trap of Sedevacantism
B. McCall/ Continued from Page 1
ever longer of the things Pope Francis is saying and doing that are against the Faith. He disparages the Church’s Tradition and liturgy while he seems to belittle those who are overly concerned with critical moral issues such as abortion, contraception and same sex marriage. He tells atheists they do not need to convert and in fact ridicules attempts to win the conversion of souls as ‘solemn nonsense’. He speculates that atheists need not convert and can simply follow the good as they conceive of it.
We could go on but we already concede that the sedevacantists have proven this minor premise. Pope Francis has said and done things that appear impossible to reconcile with what the Church has always and everywhere professed. Yet, a valid minor premise coupled with an inaccurate major premise produces a flawed conclusion. Contrary to their argument, it is possible for a pope to say and do erroneous and harmful things outside of the specific acts protected by his guaranty of infallibility. He can so act and yet still remain the pope.
Vatican I defined the narrow set of papal actions that are guaranteed infallibility and which are unalterable (cannot be changed by any future pope):
[W]hen the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable
When these conditions (which for convenience can be referred to as ex cathedra) are met, two consequences follow: (1) what is defined is free from error and (2) what is defined can never be changed by a future pope. The First Vatican Council explained the purpose of this divine guaranty which purpose acts as an internal restraint upon the great power of teaching infallibly.
For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
The pope will always be prevented from using his ex-cathedra power to promulgate new doctrines and can only use it to religiously guard the ancient truths. This qualification, along with the other conditions for speaking ex cathedra, can assist us in distinguishing acts of the Holy Father which are protected by infallibility and which are not. An utterance which proposes a new doctrine, or contradicts an established doctrine cannot be ex cathedra.
Yet, the definition of Vatican I tells us very little about teaching which is not ex cathedra. All Vatican I says by implication is that such teaching is fallible (capable of being wrong) and is alterable by future popes. Yet, due to the invasion of Rome, the First Vatican Council was cut short and thus prevented from restating the traditional teaching regarding the non ex cathedra teaching of the popes.
In his article Father Harrison refers in particular to Lumen Gentium no. 25 for a summary of the traditional teaching on the teaching authority given to the officials of the Church. Now some traditionalists’ eyebrows might be raised at the reference to a document of Vatican II. In fact some of the so-called Resistance crowd unfairly criticized Bishop Fellay for mentioning LG 25 in his doctrinal response to the Vatican. Yet, such objections demonstrate a lack of knowledge with Catholic doctrine, LC 25, and the position of Archbishop Lefebvre. We should begin with a consideration of these issues.
Archbishop Lefebvre
Archbishop Lefebvre, although highly and justifiably critical of the documents of Vatican II, never maintained that every passage of every document was flawed, erroneous, or ambiguous. In fact, he always maintained that one could find passages that were perfectly sound restatements of prior teaching. In fact, such passages had often been added by the Archbishop or other members of the Group of International Council Fathers that he led in opposition to the progressives. The legitimate criticism of the documents is that they breed and harbor error and heresy by combining such orthodox statements with novel innovations. The error of the documents consists in the whole and not in every part. The error lies in the admixture and not in the specific passages which are orthodox.
Archbishop Lefebvre voted against the document on Religious Liberty not because every word of it was false but because as a whole, the potential good of the restatement of correct truths which it contained in part was overwhelmingly outweighed by the confusion and error it encouraged by the novelties and ambiguities included. This is why the position of Archbishop Lefebvre and his successor, Bishop Fellay, are often misunderstood. When they would admit that some passages of the documents were orthodox in isolation that did not mean that they accepted the documents as whole documents. It is not inconsistent to maintain that the documents contain some correct statements of Catholic doctrine but are also dangerous to the Faith or erroneous.
Lumen Gentium
Consistent with this distinction, when the Vatican insisted that Archbishop Lefebvre affirm his acceptance of the single passage in LG25 his reaction was that he could certainly affirm this paragraph as in fact this language condemned the innovation of the presently reigning authorities and not his faithfulness to Tradition.
What then does LG 25 say and how does it help with the refutation of the major premise of sedevacantism? Vatican Council I’s definition of papal infallibility had already definitively defined the circumstances under which the pope can exercise his extra-ordinary Magisterium and issue an unalterable and infallible dogmatic statement. LG 25 explained, as had prior traditional teaching, that the pope possesses the supreme jurisdiction on earth and thus he possesses the highest authority against which there is no earthly appeal, even when outside of an ex cathedra statement. As a result, Catholics must show a "religious submission of mind and will" to "the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff." (LG 25).
First, the required religious submission only relates to the "authentic magisterium" of the pope. Everything that follows relates not only to acts of official public teaching (magisterium) but to teaching which is authentic. This excludes from the discussion all speculations, interviews, prudential decisions, messages, academic writing, political or diplomatic speeches and addresses or other speech or acts not involving authentic teaching.
Not only are these utterances not covered by infallibility of ex cathedra definitions, they are not the subject of required religious submission. If such utterances are fallible, alterable and not even required to be the subject of religious submission, clearly they can be wrong or even harmful.
Thus, in this vast area of utterances outside of authentic teaching the pope can err. Error is always against the Faith and harmful to the Faithful. Thus, in this sphere of activity the pope is capable of such errors and harm to the Church. What about the middle category of authentic teaching, which is however not ex cathedra?
As with the prior category it is still fallible and alterable by future popes or the uttering pope himself. Thus even such "authentic magisterium" can be wrong. The teaching pope or a later pope can correct such erroneous statements.
Thus, Pope John XXII corrected his earlier erroneous teaching that souls do not undergo judgment until the end of the world. His teaching regarding the particular judgment was erroneous and was later corrected by himself. As to this teaching, the obligations of Catholics are not the same as with respect to ex cathedra definitions which must be accepted wholly without any reservation or qualification since it is known for certain to be true and unalterable.
As to this middle category, Catholics must show a "religious submission of mind and will." What does this phrase require? The passage explains "it must be shown in such a way that [1] his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, [2] the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking." (LG 25) Religious submission requires first that the fact of the pope’s supreme and plenary authority on earth be acknowledged. Thus, one must never deny the principle of the plenary authority of the pope on earth. One must reverently hold in mind and will that Christ gave the supreme authority to the pope alone, a fact the proponents of the novelty of collegiality should remember. Yet, as the second condition indicates, that does not mean that the pope uses that supreme authority in every instance. He may act in a variety of capacities, using a variety of levels of definitiveness.
What the first condition requires is that if one fails to adhere to a statement of the pope it must not be on the basis of a principle that the pope does not have the power to teach with supreme authority on earth if he chooses to do so. The fact of the capacity to teach with supreme authority must always be accepted. The level of adherence to the various statements of the pope can and does vary depending, as LG 25 states, on the character of the particular utterances.
The character requiring adherence of mind and will is that of authentic magisterial judgments. The last word
Continued Next Page