November 3, 2001
Bl. Martin de Porres
Editor
CATHOLIC
Golgotha Monastery-Island
Papa Stronsay, KW172AR
Orkney Isles
Scotland , Great Britain

Dear Editor:

In response to the publication of the article, “A Little Catechism on Sede Vacantism” by the pseudonym “Dominicus”, there are several things that must be set in context in order to begin a basis for an understanding of the Sede vacantist’s position. Yes, you may choose extremities as an “ad hominem” attack upon those who hold this position, but yours is not a logical argument, it is an argument based upon emotions.

First, the Vatican Council (1870), to oppose the position of those who hold the pope is not infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost to insure the Church is on the straight path to salvation”, proclaimed:

[T]he Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when, acting in the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are therefore irreformable because of their nature, but not because of the agreement of the Church (D1839).

There is no qualification or allowance for your statement that the pope can teach heresy to the faithful in his capacity as “shepherd and teacher of all Christians.” The explanation the Council provides for understanding this definition is:

Now this charism of truth and of never-failing faith was conferred upon St. Peter and his successors in this Chair, in order that they might perform their supreme office for the salvation of all; that by them the whole flock of Christ might be kept away from the poison of error and be nourished by the food of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism might be removed, the whole Church preserved as one, and, secure in its foundation, stand firm against the gates of hell (D1837).

The command to give consent even to the “ordinary teachings” of a pope was reiterated by Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical, “Humani generis”:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” (Luke x.16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic Doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

This has its foundation in the Vatican Council (1870):

And because, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the whole Church, We also teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful; and that one can have recourse to his judgment (cf. Second Council of Lyons, 1274; D. 466) in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. We declare that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is unsurpassed, is not subject to review by anyone; nor is anyone allowed to pass judgment on its decision. Therefore, those who say that it is permitted to appeal to an ecumenical council from the decisions of the Roman Pontiff (as to authority superior to the Roman Pontiff) are far from the straight path of truth (D1830).

Which forbids anyone, including a Council, to oppose a Pope in his decision. This was conceded by the Fathers of the Council:

The reason for this is that the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by His revelation, but rather, that with His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the revelation or deposit of faith that was handed down through the apostles. Indeed, it was this apostolic doctrine that all the Fathers held and the holy orthodox Doctors reverenced and followed. For they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of His disciples, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren” (Luke xxii. 32; D1836)

With this interpretation of Infallibility by the Vatican Council (1870) and Pope Plus XII along with the constant teaching of the church Doctors and Popes, all Catholics would and must accept everything the Pope teaches concerning faith and morals to the Universal (Catholic) Church. In the present situation, if Paul VI and John Paul II were legitimate successors of St. Peter, this would include of necessity all the Vatican II and Catholic Encyclicals these two have promulgated. Therefore, you would be absolutely wrong to oppose anything from Vatican Council II and Paul VI and John Paul II if you accepted them as legitimate, or you oppose the Vatican Council, the Doctors of the Church, and the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. If they are not legitimate, what are they? If they are legitimate, how do you reject their voice? “He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me” (Luke x.16). The Conciliar Church imposes its present teachings upon the members of its Church as “necessary” to salvation, since acceptance of these teachings is necessary to be a member to their Church, to “remain in union with Rome.”

There is no rejection, I am sure, of the premise that Paul VI and John Paul II defected from Church teaching from Sacred Scripture to Sacraments to Salvation and Morality. Therefore, even though John Paul II may still be a bishop, he is head of a Church which has ceased to be Catholic in all things but its name. This is just as when the Sanhedrin remained Head of the dead Visible Church of the Hebrew faith.

Not only will the Conciliar heretical bishops never judge the status of these Vatican II popes since it is condemning themselves, but also Paul VI ushered in the Great Apostasy, which last until the return of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The position of claiming the chair of Peter vacant (sede vacante) and those who logically follow this to legitimately retain their Catholicity (Sedevacantists) corresponds to Sacred Scriptures which teach the apostasy ushers in the prelude of Christ’s Second Coming. Sacred Scripture clearly indicates during this period the “Church” will be taken over by Modernists, the faithful forced to go underground (“wilderness”) until Christ returns. This excludes the possibility of a timely judgment that the Society of Saint Pius X completely ignores.

When you claim “no saint in Church history” was ever a sedevacantist, you fail in your knowledge of history since the first sedevacantists were the Twelve Apostles, who declared the Chair of Moses to be VACANT. This vacancy resulted through the acts of the Sanhedrin who accomplished the crucifixion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Conciliar Church has crucified the Mystical Body of Christ through their Council (1962-1965).

Grace be with you through Mary our Hope,

Joseph Saraceno