Is Anti-Sedevacantism Curable?


A response to "Is Sedevacantism Catholic?" by Richard L. Cure, published in the March, 1998, Angelus, and on the www.sspx.org Web site.


“For when the pilot is drowned, and the candle is put out, and the general is taken prisoner; what sort of hope will there be, after that, for those that are under command?”
St. John Chrystostom, Homily XX on St. Matthew.



Mr. Cure vs. Archbishop Lefebvre

To the great discredit of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, the Webmaster of its American site, “sspx.org,” has published an article which can only be described as complete rubbish. And this, not just because the present writer disagrees with the conclusions of the article, but rather because of the disgraceful nature of the work. It is disgraceful, employing that term in its precise meaning, because it drips with malice and because it is utterly lacking in even the rudiments of scholarship. Thus it does violence to both truth and charity, and its presence on an SSPX Web site can only discredit that organisation in the eyes of reasonable and charitable men.

Mr. Richard Cure has decided that “sedevacantism” is actually the heresy of Gallicanism. Unsurprisingly, he doesn't attempt to prove this grave charge, but merely assumes its truth and then employs it as a hammer with which to beat mercilessly those of us who reject the claims of Karol Wojtyla.

Mr. Cure was not always so bitter and unreasonable, apparently. He tells us that he began as a man who considered "sedevacantists" to be fellow Catholics. However, subsequently he was influenced to "research" the matter by an SSPX priest whom he describes as taking "a very negative position towards sedevacantism." Apparently it hasn't occurred to Mr. Cure that Archbishop Lefebvre did not take "a very negative position towards sedevacantism." Nor, apparently, does Mr. Cure care that in this matter he is a disciple of a misguided SSPX priest and not therefore a disciple of the Archbishop.


The Cure for Straw Men

The quality of this attack on the “sedevacantist” position is probably best indicated by the fact that the author, a Mr. Richard Cure, cannot distinguish between the Gallican heresy and the constant tradition of Holy Church on the question of heretics commanding in the Church. Non-Catholics cannot possess legitimate authority in the Catholic Church. As Pope Leo XIII teaches, in Satis Cognitum, "it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church." The straightforward assertion of this truth, which is upheld by almost all theologians and canonists with respect to the papacy, and which is enshrined in the Code of Canon Law¹ respecting all ecclesiastical offices, seems to bring out the worst in traditional Catholics who remain dazzled by the spell of Karol Wojtyla. Any argument will do, it appears, in the quest to prove that heretics can have authority over Catholics.

The fact is, however, that more and more Catholics are waking up to this great truth, informed by their Catholic sense, if not by the standard works of theology and law which explain it perfectly clearly, that it is utterly impossible for Catholics to be really subject to heretics. One can pretend to be subject to heretics. One can defend the thesis whilst acting in contradiction to it. But it remains true that subjection to heretics, if true subjection, is only possible for other heretics. Catholics (i.e. those who keep the faith) simply cannot obey non-Catholics in religious matters. One only has to look around to see this truth emblazoned on every diverse attempt made by Catholics to react to this terrible crisis. Those who have tried to be practically subject to the heretics in Rome have found out the hard way that along with that subjection comes heresy. The Fraternity of St. Peter are currently in turmoil over the imposition upon them, by Rome, of the Novus Ordo "Missae."

Another, less insane, attempt to remain in communion with the heretics is that of the Society of St. Pius X. Their model is to profess communion and subjection, whilst ignoring the commands of the heretical "hierarchy." By this they prove the same truth - subjection is impossible. For they know that if they do really submit, their resistance to heresy, and their Catholic faith with it, is gone.

Mr. Cure's article is only one of many such efforts published over the years by the SSPX in what has become a doleful campaign against the truth. But what should be cheering to those who understand these matters is that the fact that the SSPX feels the need to continue to attack “sedevacantism” is proof that there is a growing number of traditional Catholics who have realised its truth. In other words, this constant stream of “anti-sedevacantist” articles is merely finger-in-the-dyke stuff. The flood will not be long in coming.

The other cheering aspect of this is the woeful inadequacy of the material presented in favour of Karol Wojtyla's ridiculous claim. Readers can decide for themselves, shortly, how accurate that particular comment is in relation to Mr. Cure's effort.


The Method of Cure

As a general guide to Mr. Cure's procedure it should be noted that he almost nowhere makes use of a primary source. Some examples of the sources in which he "researched" this question: an abridged history book intended for high school students (i.e. Laux), a history book published by "conservative" defenders of V2 (i.e. Christendom College, Warren H. Carroll), a notoriously Modernist encyclopaedia responsible in part for the disaster of Vatican II (Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism).

So much for history and commentary. For his doctrine, Mr. Cure has consulted such exalted sources as The Catholic Encyclopedia, the articles of which are not only very often liberal, but also suffer the fatal affliction of being attempts to describe the history of dogma as much as its substance. Consequently an incautious reader is left totally confused, if not infected with heterodox ideas. Other sources of doctrine consulted were handbooks of apologetics, and a high school religion course. The only real theological text our opponent managed to consult was in fact the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Credit could also be extended for using The Church Teaches, but only as a bibliography for real theology texts, which is not how Mr. Cure used it.

A typical example of where this allergy to theology got our friend is his definition of "schism," taken from the Concise Catholic Dictionary. Unfortunately his reference is too obscure to enable us to identify with any surety the actual work consulted, but we don't need to do so to know that the work is useless for serious study. The definition it provides of schism is as follows:

Schism: Formal separation from the unity of the Church, a separation from communion with the Church; separation from the head of the Church or from the jurisdiction of the supreme pontiff. The movement of any person or group of persons of the Church who refuse to recognize the central authority of the Church; and denial of the authority of the pope of Rome.

The true definition of schism is implied by the Code of Canon Law, in Canon 1325, §2. It states:

"if he rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic."

Suffice to note that the "Concise" Catholic Dictionary is too concise, curiously by being too lengthy. It omits any mention of the second way by which one may commit the crime of schism, viz. by refusing communion with those who are subject to the Roman Pontiff. Which, of course, makes the "definition" entirely false. A half-truth is a falsehood.

One wonders if there is an unconscious affinity for this "concise" definition in the mind of this SSPX follower, given the persistent and public refusal by the SSPX of practical communion with the entire hierarchy of that church which professes subjection to their recognised Roman Pontiff, along with their refusal of practical communion with most of the members of that Church. It bears thinking about, but it is outside the scope of this article.

A further insight into our opponent's approach is provided by his comments that research "wasn't easy since there was nowhere in Catholic writing that I could find the term 'sedevacantism' even mentioned, other than in writings since Vatican II. It seemed a little unusual for a so-called traditionalist to be taking a position, in favor of traditionalism, when that position titled 'sedevacantism' couldn't even be found."

These statements are interesting from a couple of perspectives. Firstly, he states further on that he has re-read "many articles in support of the sedevacantist position." How he has managed to do this without coming across the term "sede vacante" for example, one must simply wonder. For that is the term “sedevacantists” employ to describe the current situation in the Church. That is, the See (of Peter) is Vacant. And this term gives numerous leads upon which research may successfully be prosecuted, and with some ease.

The term "sede vacante" is found several times in the index volume of that fount of Catholic truth which Mr. Cure has such a love for, The Catholic Encyclopedia, and in fact the Apostolic Constitution of Pope St. Pius X, which governed papal elections until Pope Pius XII superseded it, is entitled Vacante Sede Apostolica. Pope Pius XII's Apostolic Constitution is entitled Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. Far from research being difficult, research into this subject is very easy, for all of the better canonists deal explicitly with the problem of invalid claimants to the Holy See. Even The Catholic Encyclopedia presents this simple issue perfectly clearly.

But we tarry unnecessarily, for people very like Mr. Cure, that is, our opponents, applied the term "sedevacantism" to our position. In this we stand as the early Christians did, and as the Jesuits did, in relation to the term by which we have become known. Our opponents have labelled us; we have grown used to the label. So that it seems rather queer to be accused of being known by a term of novel origin, by one of the party who concocted the term in the first place. Very queer indeed.

Before leaving this particular curiosity shop, however, there is one more thing to be noticed about our friend's use of terms, and the principle he appears to lay down regarding antiquity. He has commented ironically that it "seemed a little unusual for a so-called traditionalist to be taking a position, in favor of traditionalism, when that position titled 'sedevacantism' couldn't even be found." No doubt Mr. Cure has consulted his Catholic Encyclopedia for information about the term "traditionalism," which he claims as his own position, to ensure it possesses sufficient antiquity for his taste. "Traditionalism" is a condemned error involving a depreciation of the value of reason for arriving at truth, and The Catholic Encyclopedia itself contains this fact.

Unlike Mr. Cure, “sedevacantists” do not maintain a "position in favour of traditionalism," but rather we take a position in favour of tradition. However, given the manifold errors of logic and the general attitude of contempt for scholarly methods displayed by our detractor, it does not seem at all inappropriate that he labels himself with a term which indicates a denunciation of the value of reason.

Pursuing further the question of Mr. Cure's methods, it is interesting to observe his penchant for mis-definition. An important example occurs relatively early in the article, where for the first time he tells his readers what it is that he is purporting to expose. He does this, in typical scholarly style, in a parenthesis. "The position of sedevacantism (that of believing that the chair of Peter is vacant even though the Church Militant doesn't know it) could be found as an example in history just before and during the Great Western Schism, which illustrates the fruit of sedevacantism."

The Church Militant is a group of living men. That is, it is the living members of the Church, rightly ordered to each other and to their Head, Christ Our Lord. Pope Pius XII, in his masterful encyclical on the Church, Mystici Corporis Christi, defined who these members of the Church Militant are, as follows:

"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."


Mgr. G. Van Noort, STD, explains this doctrine in the following words:

"Scholion 1. Who are not members of the Church?

[Van Noort gives some preliminary comments on membership, then the following]

"a. Those who have not received baptism of water are not members of the Church...

"b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors - baptism, profession of the same faith, unity with the hierarchy - pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238) [This citation refers to the relevant section of Mystici Corporis Christi, which section has been quoted above, in this article also]. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. 'For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy' (MCC 30; Italics ours)." ["MCC" refers to Mystici Corporis Christi. Bolding added. Italics are Van Noort's.]

"By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example, Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or wilfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from Church membership."²

Further on, in proving that occult heretics remain members of the Church, Van Noort quotes Lercher as follows (note that the square-bracketed "i.e. innocent" is Van Noort's).

"Finally there does not appear any reason why occult heretics more than other sinners should be excluded from the body of the Church. Heresy is not the gravest of all mortal sins : hatred of God is greater. Therefore if other very grave sins do not exclude from the body of the Church, neither does occult heresy. Public heretics are excluded not because of the gravity of their fault, seeing that even material heretics [i.e. innocent] are outside the Church. The reason for their exclusion is the nature of the Church as a society which demands a unity in the profession of the same Faith. - Lercher, op. cit., p. 239, e." Emphasis added. The work of Lercher that is cited is "Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae".³

Let's now take another look at Mr. Cure's definition of sedevacantism, as "The position of … believing that the chair of Peter is vacant even though the Church Militant doesn't know it."

Who are the members of the Church Militant? Those who are baptised, profess the true faith, and remain subject to the (true) Roman Pontiff, when there is one, and in communion with the other members of the Church. It is true that many members of the Church Militant have not recognised the fact of the Holy See's vacancy, but it is simply not true to say that "the Church Militant doesn't know it." Many, if not most, of those who currently claim the title "Catholic" are nothing of the sort, so that it is true to say that a very substantial proportion of Christ's Church is very much aware of the vacancy of the Roman See.

Of course, Mr. Cure still has a problem making his case, even if none of these truths concerning membership in the Church are accepted, for he is in flat contradiction with the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul IV, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which defines that:

"…if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

"the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
"it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;…"

Evidently Pope Paul IV thought it utterly irrelevant that "obedience [be] accorded to such by all." In any case one cares to imagine a heretic simply cannot be pope. Nothing can make a non-Catholic the visible head of the Church, of which he is not even a member.

One final comment on Mr. Cure's method - his use of coloured terms and phrases to poison the reader against his targets. An example has been passed over already, in which he referred to the Great Western Schism as illustrating "the fruit of sedevacantism." We'll come back to that idea. Suffice to say at this point that the writer fails to establish this assertion, and in fact succeeds only in arguing that “sedevacantism” is equivalent to "judging the pope," which is notoriously false, as will be seen.

Another use of coloured terms is the writer's essential equation of Gallicanism and “sedevacantism.” Both, he asserts, "can only survive in an atmosphere of disrespect for the pope and the papacy." Whether that is true remains to be seen, and the writer does not show the causal connection he presumes. Gallicanism creates disrespect for the papacy, by definition, but the converse is not necessarily the case. One may have complete contempt for the papacy, without ever adopting the Gallican errors. Thus, whether Gallicanism is a cause or an effect in any given circumstance is perfectly debateable. But what is simply disgusting is to equate the condemned heresy, Gallicanism, with the application of the constant tradition of Holy Church to the claim of Karol Wojtyla to the papacy. Gallicanism is the heresy that national Churches (e.g. the Church of France) are essentially independent of the Roman jurisdiction. It has nothing whatsoever in common with “sedevacantism,” which is simply the rejection of the claim of a particular public heretic to the office of pope.

Is it really possible that Mr. Cure cannot see the difference between these two entirely disparate ideas?


A Case for Cure

Leaving there the analysis of Mr. Cure's prejudicial, cumbrous, and extremely shoddy methods, let's consider the substance, such as it is, of his case.

Effectively his procedure has been to outline what he thinks is the history of the great struggle of Church and State in the Middle Ages, the Avignon exile of the popes and the Great Western Schism, interspersed with tasty little comments which purport to tie the evil of "sedevacantism" into those great struggles and tragedies, as both cause and effect.

Then he pretends to explain infallibility, arguing that the case against Karol Wojtyla is built upon an exaggerated view of infallibility, which it isn't. From there he details what he thinks is the true doctrine of infallibility, which appears to consist of the assertion that Rome is, and has always been, the pillar and ground of error, except when the pope speaks ex cathedra, so that the poor faithful must ensure that they have a copy of Denzinger handy at all times, by which they can check all papal pronouncements for relative antiquity. If sufficiently aged (and the requisite age is left undefined), the poor pope's doctrine may be imbibed freely, nay, must be accepted as infallible. But if a tad "young," then it must be avoided with horror, or at best left on the shelf to mature for a bit longer. (How long is long enough, we ask?)

From there he attempts to prove that “sedevacantists” believe in an invisible Church, whilst maintaining that it doesn't matter what the Church looks like, or what marks she possesses, as long as she can be "seen." If she can't be "seen" (by which he means, if she doesn't have a visible head for any lengthy period) then she has defected.

Finally, Mr. Cure deals with the crime of schism, suggesting artfully that “sedevacantists” are schismatics, whilst carefully avoiding any direct assertion of that charge, followed by a convoluted and impenetrable "proof" that one may disobey the pope to one's heart's content without becoming a schismatic. This may take the reader of Mr. Cure's article by surprise, especially since there is no new sub-heading to indicate the change of direction. But the reason becomes apparent soon enough. All those texts about schism have made Mr. Cure a tad nervous, and he is merely rushing to prove that unlike those poisonous sedevacantists, he is not a schismatic. Oh no, these are, after all, confusing times.

The last time I checked a book of Catholic spirituality, the message appeared to be that one ought to make excuses for others, where realistically possible, and make none for oneself. “One must have the heart of a child towards God, of a mother towards one's neighbour, and of a judge towards oneself.” Fr. Andre Durand, S.J.

Mr. Cure, with all due respect to him, appears to have gotten this the wrong way around. It's not the only thing.



A Cure for History

Rather than attempt to correct all of Mr. Cure's historical blunders, I will merely point out a few of the worst, from a doctrinal point of view, and refer the reader to Mr. William Morgan's excellent article on the last of the three periods Mr. Cure deals with, "The Great Schism of the West and the Catholic Church Today." It may be viewed at http://www.stthomasaquinas.net/schism.html

On the other two periods of Church history I can only recommend that readers do their own research. Warren H. Carroll is not, I suggest, a reliable guide.

An outstanding example of Mr. Cure's ability to miss the point by failing to understand the doctrinal issues at play beneath historical events is demonstrated by his treatment of the conflict of Church and State in the Middle Ages. He asserts sweetly that in response to the invasive claims of the civil power, "Boniface [VIII] countered with the idea that the pope had the right to rule the states because the kings had come to the pope to be crowned." And he makes the same assertion regarding John XXII. But neither Pope held any such thing. They merely re-emphasised the great truth that popes have the right to interfere in civil affairs insofar as those matters involve the eternal destiny of souls, and the clear superiority of the spiritual power over the temporal is illustrated by the fact that kings receive their crowns from the pope. Boniface VIII's famous Bull, Unam Sanctam teaches, "For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good." This is a far cry from asserting that the pope has "the right to rule states." No, he has the right and responsibility, as necessary, of ensuring that states are ruled, by temporal rulers, in accordance with God's law.

The government licenses automobiles. Without a license one cannot, legally, take a car on the road. But if a bureaucrat tried to maintain that this entitles government officials to drive any car they like, without permission, and on that basis commandeered Mr. Cure's own car, I suspect his wits might sharpen up a bit. No pope has ever claimed "the right to rule the states," not even the United States, although it is granted that the case for that particular application of Mr. Cure's principle is a strong one.

Mr. Cure's presentation of the controversy initiated by Pope John XXII when he preached a heretical doctrine concerning the Beatific Vision and the Particular Judgement likewise demonstrates complete confusion over the principles involved. He writes:

"Here we have an example from history of a pope taking positions contrary to the traditions of the Church, but history shows that the man was still Catholic and indeed the Pope. We all err, but to be obstinate in our errors after being shown our error or after being obstinate after being shown by the Church that one is in error is when one rejects the Church's teaching."

Mr. Cure here outlines quite correctly (in abominable English) the facts of Pope John's error (except that it was singular, not plural), but manages to infer a completely false conclusion from it. Far from demonstrating that a pope may preach heresy with impunity, this historical episode reveals the extreme reaction of good men to all breaches of orthodoxy, and furthermore that the only reason that Pope John XXII was not considered a true heretic was his willingness to retract should he be shown to be in error. Any attempt to draw a parallel between this episode and the behaviour of Paul VI (Montini), or John Paul II (Wojtyla) can only succeed in proving that these men are real heretics, not mistaken Catholics. For they have ignored or persecuted all those who have challenged them, and in fact Wojtyla not only defends the Vatican II revolution, but he calls its aftermath a "New Advent" and speaks positively of its great fruits.

Furthermore, unlike Pope John XXII, who knew that novelty was evil, Karol Wojtyla has admitted, in his public and "official" teaching, that his new doctrines are not the traditions of the Church, quite explicitly.

Redemptor Hominis, "Entrusting myself fully to the Spirit of truth, therefore, I am entering into the rich inheritance of the recent pontificates. This inheritance has struck deep roots in the awareness of the Church in an utterly new way, quite unknown previously, thanks to the Second Vatican Council..." (Emphasis added.)
Ecclesia Dei, "Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church." (Emphasis added.)
Even though he insists in Ecclesia Dei that the Council has "continuity with Tradition," he has admitted that the "points of doctrine" which traditional Catholics complain about are in fact "new." And in Redemptor Hominis he clearly teaches that the Church's understanding of doctrine has changed, which is quite incompatible with the true teaching of the Catholic Church, which of course is that her understanding of doctrine cannot and does not change at all.

"For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed is not proposed, like a philosophical discovery, for perfection by human intelligence, but as a Divine deposit entrusted by Christ to His Bride, to be faithfully preserved and infallibly declared. Hence also that same meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be retained which Holy Mother Church has once declared, nor is that sense ever to be departed from on the pretext of some higher understanding."⁴

"If anyone says that it is possible for dogmas proposed by the Church sometimes to receive a new understanding in accordance with the advancement of knowledge, different from that which the Church has understood and does understand, let him be anathema."⁵

Pope John XXII did not think that his doctrine was novel, but when this fact was proved to him he retracted his error. Karol Wojtyla cheerfully admits that his doctrine and "awareness" of doctrine is entirely new, that it was quite unknown previously, so that there is no more to be said. He is not a Catholic. He doesn't even know how to don wool so as to appear like one.

Concerning the Great Western Schism, Mr. Cure has penned a particularly confusing passage, as follows:

"During the Great Western Schism there were many times when the different factions believed the pope to be a heretic who should be deposed, but, in every case, history has proven that those judging the pope were not only wrong in their conclusion but were also wrong in their belief that they had a right to judge the pope as the turn of events proved; for by judging the pope, they only caused confusion and schism with as many as three claimants to the papacy at one time. These churchmen had other than the Church's interest at heart; instead, it was usually their own personal gain or nationalism."

Now within this passage there are a number of errors. Firstly, "history" hasn't finally settled who the real popes were, and it is perfect evidence of the lack of research conducted by Mr. Cure that he does not know this. It is true that The Catholic Encyclopedia generally treats the matter as settled. It is simply not true to say that historians have reached a perfect consensus, and neither have the theologians. It is true to say that among the historians and theologians there is now a common opinion (and, by definition, an opposing, less common opinion), and perhaps that is what has confused Mr. Cure. In his benighted state he has assumed that everybody takes Warren Carroll's view of things. That Warren Carroll has a public agenda of defending Karol Wojtyla and the Vatican II revolution seems to have escaped Mr. Cure's notice.

Secondly, one of those who judged a "pope" to be a non-Catholic was the Dominican Master of Sacred Doctrine and worker of spectacular miracles, St. Vincent Ferrer. A little background might be useful in assessing the life and role of this amazing man of God.

St. Vincent Ferrer worked more public and truly astonishing miracles than just about any other saint who ever lived. His canonisation decree listed 873 which were proved beyond doubt. He himself claimed (or, more correctly, admitted to) three thousand miracles at one point in his meteoric career. When one considers his utter humility this number becomes even more amazing. One miracle that illustrates his virtue as well as his charism was a favourite story of the Curé of Ars. St. Vincent saw a workman fall from some scaffolding; but he had previously promised his superior in religion not to employ his gift of miracles without permission; so he called out to the falling workman, "Wait! I'll run and ask the Prior!" And the workman did - he waited right there, in mid-air, while the saint disappeared to gain the required assent.

But why all these prodigies? The reason is that St. Vincent was appointed by Heaven to reform the Church, and he not only explicitly claimed this divine commission, but actually called himself "The Angel of the Judgement," a reference to the book of the Apocalypse. In support of this title the Saint raised a woman from the dead to testify to the truth of it.

Now St. Vincent was not one to assume that just because God had directly called him, in an unmistakeable way, to a particular mission, that he could therefore ignore ecclesiastical authority and get on with the job. No, he approached the man he believed was pope, Benedict XIII, and received his appointment as legate a latere Christi, which gave him virtually apostolic powers for his missionary work.

Thus St. Vincent Ferrer began a twenty-year career of prodigious preaching, converting at least 25,000 Jews, thousands of Moors, and countless lapsed or lukewarm Christians, authorised by God and by Benedict XIII. Benedict XIII, however, is considered by The Catholic Encyclopedia and by Mr. Cure to have been an antipope. Henri Ghéon, in his biography of St. Vincent, refers to the controversy in much more balanced language, as follows: "But if he was wrong [about Benedict] - which to this day no one has any right to affirm - it was in absolute good faith; half of Christendom made the same choice."⁶ That statement was penned in the 1930s, and certainly the question has not been clarified since, Warren H. Carroll notwithstanding.

St. Vincent Ferrer wrote a masterful treatise on the Schism, in which he proved that Benedict's claim was sound, and that the Roman claimant was a usurper. Mr. Cure, of course, has said contemptuously that "…in every case, history has proven that those judging the pope were not only wrong in their conclusion but were also wrong in their belief that they had a right to judge the pope as the turn of events proved; for by judging the pope, they only caused confusion and schism…" I wonder, would he be prepared to make that statement in St. Vincent Ferrer's presence?

Mr. Cure would have made an interesting figure in the fourteenth century. Alone among those who claimed the name "Catholic," he would have condemned all those who sought to judge to which of the claimants they must be subject, and insisted that all good Catholics must simply accept all possible claimants, under pain of causing "confusion and schism." Mr. Cure, no doubt, would have had up to three true popes at the same time. After all, he wouldn't have done any of that "judging" business, or so he asserts.

Instead, maybe Mr. Cure's conviction is that unlike the error-prone "Gallican" heretic,⁷ St. Vincent Ferrer, he would have known for certain what Henri Ghéon tells us no man can be sure of even today - that Benedict was an antipope - and that Urban's line was the true one.

Or, as a third possibility, Mr. Cure may simply be saying that even though the outstandingly holy and learned Br. Vincent Ferrer, who was teaching philosophy at the age of twenty (he graduated in the subject at the age of fourteen), and who wrote a lengthy treatise analysing the dispute so as to judge prudently to whom he ought to be subject, Mr. Cure would have known by divine inspiration or some other extraordinary means, thus absolving him from the necessity of "judging."

A final possibility is that Mr. Cure is only attacking the actions of the cardinals who produced the papal claimants, and is merely asserting that they should never have arrogated to themselves the right to provide the Church with a certain pope. After all, they were mere men, and who were they to concern themselves with such exalted questions? No, even Mr. Cure must see that the very reason that Holy Church has cardinals is to ensure that she has men clearly designated to produce certain popes.

Whichever of these possibilities is really the case, one thing is certain – Mr. Cure has no business speaking in public about serious matters.

Mr. Cure has ensured that in gullible readers' minds, whether the cardinals or the other prominent members of Holy Church are thought to be in his sights, that neither group has any credibility remaining, for he has issued the grossest, most sweeping rash judgement one could imagine. "These churchmen had other than the Church's interest at heart; instead, it was usually their own personal gain or nationalism." Which is grossly unjust and historically false, while remaining frustratingly ambiguous. Quite an achievement.

The trouble, of course, is that Mr. Cure's confusion is so thorough that his words are impatient of any intelligible meaning whatsoever. He has written that "During the Great Western Schism there were many times when the different factions believed the pope to be a heretic who should be deposed…" Consequently, it does not seem that he can be attacking the cardinals whose actions (with those of Urban) created the Schism in the first place, for their actions were not based on accusations of heresy, and obviously they did not cause the Schism during the Schism.

But then he has written, in the same paragraph, that "by judging the pope, they only caused confusion and schism with as many as three claimants to the papacy at one time…" - which would appear to be an accusation against those who caused the Schism in the first place, and could only, therefore, be a reference to the cardinals or to Urban himself.

Whatever the case, he has confounded two entirely distinct principles, and in doing so has made his task, and that of his readers, impossible.

What are these principles? They are,

1. The divine law that no man may judge a pope, and
   
2. The right and responsibility that every Catholic has of submitting to the true pope, and of avoiding usurpers.
   

Now, if one words these principles sufficiently badly, it is possible to make them appear indistinct, and thus effectively to deny the second of them.

Taking one principle at a time, let's examine their meaning. It just so happens, and it is no coincidence, that the Bull Unam Sanctam is one of the sources of this doctrine.

"…if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]."⁸

The truth asserted in this passage, and all which are like it, is that the power given to the pope is given by God, and there is no higher power on earth, so that there can be no authority on earth competent to pass judgement on it. "If it err, it can be judged only by God." Note well that the application of this principle rests firmly on the fact that a given man is truly pope. If a usurper were to assume the papacy, as many have over the centuries, then this principle would not apply, for rejecting a usurper is not judging a pope, by definition.

The second principle enunciated above is also a divine injunction. Our Blessed Redeemer has taught us,

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Matt., 7:15.

Therefore denying this principle is tantamount to heresy. Dr. Haydock, in his universally lauded edition of the Douai-Rheims, gives the following commentary.

"Beware of false prophets, or heretics. They are far more dangerous than the Jews, who being rejected by the apostles, are also avoided by Christians, but these have the appearance of Christianity, having churches, sacraments, &c., deceive many. These are the rapacious wolves, of whom S. Paul speaks, Acts xx. Chry. Hom. 19. Origen styles them the gates of death, and the path to hell. Com. in Job, lib. i. Tom. ii."

St. John Chrysostom comments on this passage as follows:

"Behold together with the dogs and swine another kind of ambush and conspiracy, far more grievous than that. For those are acknowledged and open, but these shaded over. For which cause also, while from those He commanded to hold off, these He charged men to watch with exact care, as though it were not possible to see them at the first approach. Wherefore He also said, 'beware'; making us more exact to discern them."⁹

Evidently the question of whether a given individual actually possesses the supreme apostolic authority is an entirely different matter from that which is governed by the principle, the pope is judged by no man.

A child may not judge his father. God himself has placed the father over the child, as his ruler. But what if the mother invited some stranger to live in the home, and take on the role of "father," thus usurping that authority? Would it be reasonable or right to forbid that the child reject the usurper? Obviously not. And nor would the child even comprehend if in such a circumstance he were told solemnly that he may not judge his father. For the principle has no relevance whatsoever, other than to emphasise the importance of ensuring that the man claiming authority truly has it.

Of course, one of the favourite tactics of defenders of heretics is to assert that no man may accuse another of heresy, for we have been taught not to judge. The texts quoted above already dismiss this canard, for in them the saints are telling us that in certain circumstances we must judge. What then, of the oft-quoted text from the beginning of Chapter 7 of St. Matthew's Gospel?

"Judge not, and ye shall be not judged" Matt. 7:1.

The authority of St. Jerome, quoted by Dr. Haydock, provides the following clear explanation:

"Judge not,* or condemn not others rashly, that you may not be judged or condemned. St. Jerom observes, Christ does not altogether forbid judging, but directs us how to judge. Where the thing does not regard us, we should not undertake to judge. Where it will bear a favourable interpretation, we should not condemn. Magistrates and superiors, whose office and duty require them to judge faults, and for their prevention to condemn and punish them, must be guided by evidence, and always lean towards the side of mercy, where there are mitigating circumstances. Barefaced vice and notorious sinners should be condemned and reprobated by all." [Emphasis added.]

And St. John Chrysostom, answering those who take this text to be a prohibition of all judgements whatsoever, explains:
"…if this [false interpretation] were to obtain, all would be lost alike, whether in churches, or in states, or in houses. For except the master judge the servant, and the mistress the maid, and the father the son, and friends one another, there will be an increase of all wickedness. And why say I, friends? unless we judge our enemies, we shall never be able to put an end to our enmity, but all things will be turned upside down.
"What then can the saying be? Let us carefully attend, lest the medicines of salvation, and the laws of peace, be accounted by any man laws of overthrow and confusion."¹⁰

Indeed those who employ such methods to keep Christ's little ones at the mercy of the ravening wolves who seek to devour them have twisted God's laws into laws of overthrow and confusion. For they have told us that we may not judge our enemies and, to our horror, most men today have been taken in by this lie, so that unless it is exposed and rooted out, we shall never be able to put an end to our enmity, but all things will be turned upside down. Or, rather, all things will remain upside down, for that is where they are right now.

Mr. Cure, along with the vast majority of latter-day commentators, would completely invert the principle that we must avoid wolves in the clothing of sheep. For Mr. Cure, it is not so much a matter of avoiding wolves dressed deceptively in wool, but rather in his Little Red Riding Hood fantasyland he would have us take care not to mistake for a wolf, a shepherd who happens to have large, sharp fangs, huge, pointed ears, and thick, black hair!

For if one were to point out the fangs, the ears, and the hair, one would be guilty of "judging the pope." One wonders what Mr. Cure's new denouement to the story of Little Red Riding Hood would be, since he has wrecked the basis for the traditional one. Would he have the Woodsman leap through the door at the moment when the poor girl has pointed out "Grandma's" huge fangs, as in the traditional tale? No doubt. But would our hero then hack the wolf to death, in defence of Miss Riding Hood? Oh, no! Rather, the "Cured" version would see the Woodsman lopping Miss Riding Hood's pretty head off, in defence of "Grandma," on the principle that "nobody has the right to judge Grandma."

Enough of Mr. Cure's fairy tales. Instead, let's take a look at the locus classicus on this question of how one must reconcile the two principles enunciated above. I refer to the work of St. Robert Bellarmine¹¹, Doctor (i.e. "teacher") of the Universal Church, whose status on these matters is the highest possible. He is considered the Doctor of the Papacy par excellence, in much the same way as St. Thomas Aquinas is regarded as the Doctor of the Holy Eucharist. In the divine office for the feast of St. Robert, his unparalleled role in the defence of the See of Rome is especially highlighted. At the Council of Trent, two books were placed on the altar - the Holy Scriptures, and Summa Theologica of St. Thomas. At the Vatican Council (the First and only), two holy Doctors guided the deliberations of the fathers, along with the Bible. They were St. Thomas, of course, and St. Robert Bellarmine. It was the doctrine of St. Robert Bellarmine on the papacy that was actually defined. Döllinger, the German scholar who refused to accept the definition of papal infallibility, and thus disappeared into heretical depravity and out of the Church, declared that, "the Vatican Council did nothing but define the views of Cardinal Bellarmine." And he spoke the truth. What he failed to see was that Bellarmine's "views" were formed on the testimony of the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Doctors, the popes, and the Councils. They were not his "views" at all - they were truths of the faith.

Mr. Cure could have discovered the relevant section of St. Robert's masterpiece, De Romano Pontifice, relatively easily, for it has been translated into English and published in many places in recent years, including on a number of Web sites. And if he had done so, he could have read the very work quoted by the theologians in the schema on the papacy, prepared for the Vatican Council.

St. Robert Bellarmine begins his treatment of the famous problem of an "heretical pope" with the very dilemma which seems to gore most anti-sedevacantists. That is, he has laid down, in an earlier chapter, the absolute principle that no man may judge the pope, which is taught most clearly by the Church and in fact is stated in Canon Law. Then, in opening his presentation of the true solution to the problem of an "heretical pope," in Chapter 30, he presents St. Paul's instruction to the faithful that "the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence." Then comes the dilemma, presented explicitly as follows:

"Now, a [heretic] Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?"¹²

Awful problem! If ever we are confronted by a man ostensibly a true pope, but manifestly a heretic, how can we truly avoid him?

And truly, this dilemma is at the root of the chaos which surrounds us at present. The Fraternity of St. Peter solves the dilemma by denying the integrity and immutability of the faith, and simply accepts the reforms of Vatican II as genuine acts of the Catholic Church. The Society of St. Pius X solves the dilemma by ignoring St. Paul's injunction in principle, and insisting instead on remaining in public communion with the heretic. Of course, in practice their position is to avoid the heretic, in large part at least, because their Catholic sense tells them that it is entirely impossible for Catholics to be really subject to non-Catholics in religious matters. And if their Catholic sense were to fail, then their experiences at the hands of Karol Wojtyla would be sufficient to inform them of this truth.

No doubt many SSPX supporters will be outraged by this explanation of their position, because they will say that there is no dilemma - Karol Wojtyla is not a heretic. But that is not their true position, as is proved by studying the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre, and of other SSPX luminaries. They do admit the fact that Wojtyla is a heretic - they merely insist that he is not a "formal" heretic.

They admit that he is a committed enemy of the faith. This principle was at the root of the Archbishop's refusal to keep to his agreement with Wojtyla regarding the consecration of bishops for the Society, in 1988. Archbishop Lefebvre made it clear that Wojtyla was not to be trusted, and that if he were trusted in this matter, the faith would be seriously threatened, because he would not permit a truly traditional bishop to be consecrated. Likewise is the attitude of all the SSPX clergy to Wojtyla's "hierarchy." Their "Indult" Masses are to be avoided because they are merely a ploy to seduce traditional Catholics back into the Novus Ordo sect. Proofs could easily be multiplied, but there is no need - the attitude of the SSPX to both Wojtyla and his "bishops" is patent.

And not only is Wojtyla regarded as a committed enemy of the faith, but he is also admitted to be a preacher of heretical doctrines. Universal salvation, for example, is one of the heresies that SSPX writers accuse Wojtyla of preaching. In a book issued by the SSPX's publishing house, Angelus Press, Fr. Johannes Dörmann¹³ has argued at length that Wojtyla believes and teaches the salvation of all men. Once again, proofs could be multiplied for this point, but there is no need. The SSPX do not generally deny that Wojtyla preaches heresy. They merely deny anybody the right to "judge" him a true heretic.

So it is in fact true that the SSPX position is effectively an in principle denial of St. Paul's teaching, "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he that is such an one is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment."¹⁴

The gloss in the Douai-Rheims gives the following perfectly straightforward explanation of this text:

"By his own judgment. Other offenders are judged, and cast out of the church, by the sentence of the pastors of the same church. Heretics, more unhappy, run out of the church of their own accord, and by doing so, give judgment and sentence against their own souls."

Dr. Haydock adds the following, among other comments:

"Knowing that he that is such an one, is subverted:§ a metaphor, from a house that is thrown down, even to the foundation, by the Greek. He speaks of heretics whose obstinacy seems evident; for no one is properly a heretic but who is obstinate in his errors.- And sinneth, being condemned; or, condemned by his own judgment, when his ignorance cannot be a sufficient plea for him."

Against this traditional teaching the SSPX sets up its own novelty, that no man can ever know a true heretic prior to the judgement of the Church. And if this principle is not asserted, then another which serves the same purpose is introduced as a replacement, that no man may judge a pope, meaning, of course, that once a man claims the papacy he is immune from such judgements. Upon this basis one may think of the papacy as a "safe house" for criminals, in much the same way as children often have a place of immunity when playing “tag.” Once the See has been claimed, the rules change, and no means remaining to mankind can result in the criminal fraud being exposed and rejected.

That St. Robert Bellarmine rejects this "solution" is manifest. He sees the dilemma as a true devil's choice. Is one to avoid the heretic, and thus separate oneself from the true pope? Or is one to remain in communion with a heretic, against the word of God Himself?

After answering various arguments by which Cardinal Cajetan sought to maintain that the Church could depose such a heretic "pope," and other arguments which attempted to restrict this matter to the domain of ecclesiastical law, St. Robert presents the true solution as follows:¹⁵

"Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.' "¹⁶

After providing more proofs that this is the constant tradition of Holy Church, the holy Doctor proceeds to explain the basis of this teaching:

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."¹⁷

In other words, St. Robert Bellarmine maintained that formal heretics (i.e. true heretics) can be known as such, and cannot maintain authority over Catholics. Likewise he quotes Pope St. Celestine I in support of this doctrine,

"The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever."¹⁸

In other words, once it became clear that Nestorius, who had been Patriarch of Constantinople, was preaching heresy, then he immediately lost all jurisdiction, for he was no longer a Catholic, and non-Catholics cannot maintain ordinary jurisdiction.

That Pope St. Celestine I, along with Pope St. Nicholas I whom St. Robert cites as having taught exactly the same thing, regarded a warning by authority, or an ecclesiastical sentence, as necessary for Catholics to be able really to know a heretic, is simply not sustainable. Bellarmine himself has made abundantly clear that no such authoritative warning is required, both by insisting upon the principle that no man may judge a pope, for he has no superior and therefore no "authority" exists which could admonish him, and by the following clear words:

"…heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms."¹⁹

It should be noted that this doctrine of Bellarmine's, which he says is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church, is also commonly presented by later theologians and canonists, and in fact only five weighty theologians can be identified who held the contrary view, that a heretic could be, or remain, pope. These men are Cajetan, whom St. Robert has already answered, Suarez, who held that the Church (meaning, the bishops) could act "juridically" against a pope, which is at least proximate to heresy since the Vatican Council, John of St. Thomas, who proceeds most peculiarly by failing to address Bellarmine's arguments and instead simply presents his own views, the French canonist, Bouix, whose real position was that what we see happening today could never occur, and Cardinal Journet, who merely adopts the doctrine of John of St. Thomas without giving reasons. None of these men have anything like the authority bestowed upon Bellarmine by the popes, and none of them possessed the heroic sanctity of Bellarmine. And they remain a tiny minority, in the face of an almost-universal consensus.

In any case, St. Robert Bellarmine is presented by Holy Church to the faithful as a pre-eminent "Doctor," which means simply "teacher." Therefore it is manifest that it is not only permissible, but praiseworthy in the highest degree for the faithful to be taught by him. Rejecting his doctrine in favour of a tiny minority of lesser men seems at best imprudent, and at worst, temerarious. Certainly such a choice demonstrates no love for truth, but rather a preference for comfortable, and comforting, opinions.

Thus we see the true dilemma, and its true solution, as presented by Holy Church's approved teachers.

Returning to the story of St. Vincent Ferrer, who like Bellarmine was a faithful follower of St. Thomas Aquinas, we are in a position to understand the basis upon which he acted. As Bellarmine has pointed out,

"St. Thomas also teaches (S. Theol., II-II, q. 39, a. 3) that schismatics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and that anything they try to do on the basis of any jurisdiction will be null."²⁰

St. Vincent had referred to such principles in his treatise on the Schism, as follows:

"We should not decide the legitimacy of the popes by means of prophecies or miracles or visions. The Christian people are governed by laws against which extraordinary events count nothing."²¹

The law of the Church, reflecting the divine law explained and proved by Bellarmine, was codified in the Decretals as the canon, Si papa. It reads:

"Let no mortal have the presumption to accuse the Pope of fault, for, it being incumbent upon him to judge all, he should be judged by no one, unless he departs from the faith."

Which, of course, is the identical doctrine as was taught by Pope Urban VIII, in Unam Sanctam. We see in the quote from the sainted Thomist, Br. Vincent, two clear points relevant to present controversies:

1. Christians may and ought to "decide the legitimacy of popes" as circumstances demand, and
   
2. These determinations are to be made according to known laws.
   

Now let's see how he applied them in practice.

St. Vincent had often urged Benedict XIII to arrange a double resignation of himself and the Roman claimant, for the good of Holy Church, so that a single pope could be elected who would be accepted by all of Christendom. He presented this to Benedict as a sacrifice - the sacrifice of his true authority, his true office, for the greater good. However Peter de Luna, Benedict XIII, continued to frustrate all efforts at bringing this great event about.

In the mean time men had growth thoroughly disgusted with the Schism. It had lasted almost forty years, and circumstances were ripe for a solution to be found. The solution agreed upon was a council, to be held at Constance, which would receive the resignations of the (at that time) three papal claimants, or if necessary depose them, and select a new, universally acceptable pope.

In the lead up to the Council St. Vincent redoubled his efforts to convince Benedict to resign, but to no avail. Such was his fame, and his unequalled moral authority, that the entire world was expecting St. Vincent to bring about an end to the great Schism, and after weeks of penance, unceasing prayer, negotiations, threats, exhortations, more penance, more prayer, even more exhortation, threatening, and negotiation, the thaumaturg was at the end of his resources, with no sign of peace or unity. He declared that he would retire for a few days, and then he would give the solution to the crisis. The world held its breath.

When the great day arrived, St. Vincent was seated with an audience of churchmen, nobles, and Benedict himself, and he delivered the most astonishing address that one could imagine; he declared that whilst Benedict was the rightfully elected Roman Pontiff, his ill-will in refusing to sacrifice his rights for the good of the Church had made it clear that he was, in fact, a schismatic. And as a schismatic, he had forfeited his membership in Holy Church and with it his papal office. He was no longer pope. This epiphany was delivered on January 6, 1416, at Perpignan.

St. Vincent Ferrer was a practical and theoretical “sedevacantist,” who "judged" a pope (that is, judged the validity of the claim of a man to the papacy), and found him wanting, and then rejected him. He had never expressed any doubts about the legitimacy of Benedict's election. Nor had he considered his claim doubtful in any way. His case was quite clearly that Benedict lost his membership in Holy Church by schism, and thus forfeited his office. In other words, St. Vincent applied the principles of St. Thomas and of the Fathers; the same principles later presented by Bellarmine, with perfect, and perfectly clear, consistency.

The effect was stupendous. All but a couple of cardinals abandoned Benedict, and the schism was effectively ended. As Henri Ghéon put it, Martin V, elected subsequently by the Council of Constance, was "Br. Vincent's Pope." Martin V, in turn, recognising the divinely ordained means by which his office had been secured and the unity of Holy Church defended, wrote to the saint and offered him "anything he wanted." St. Vincent wanted, of course, nothing but Jesus Christ. Shortly afterwards he was perfectly united to Him in heaven.

That the laws enunciated so clearly by St. Robert are the very laws referred to by St. Vincent is clear from internal evidence - we have the word of the saint himself that they are the unanimous teaching of the fathers, who cannot err when they teach unanimously. And who can doubt that the Dominican St. Vincent, Thomist par excellence, Doctor of Sacred Theology and "legate of Christ," learned his doctrine most carefully from the same sources as Bellarmine, and of course, as the Angelic Doctor himself? We know, for example, that upon the lone donkey which accompanied St. Vincent Ferrer on his fantastic travels throughout Western Europe, the Saint carefully transported a copy of the Summa. We also know that St. Vincent was a master of both civil and ecclesiastical law, and was so regarded by all of the leading men of the time. He was even appointed as judge of the question as to which of the various claimants to the Crown of Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia was legitimate.

Mr. Cure states baldly, "We see that through declining respect for the papacy and confusion on the issues relevant to the papacy the Great Western Schism was brought about." Which of course is not what produced the Schism at all. A lack of due respect for the papacy evidently contributed to the result, but the same cause could be said to be a contributing factor to every heresy and schism in history. Certainly there was no confusion of principle which contributed to the Schism. It was simply a matter of different men applying true principles to what they thought were the facts, when the facts were unclear, at least to many. St. Catherine of Sienna held one set of facts to be true, and came to the conclusion that Urban was the true pope. St. Vincent Ferrer differed in his judgement of the facts, applied the same principles as St. Catherine, and came to a different conclusion.

Mr. Cure, however, has ignored all of the relevant principles, leaped to the conclusion that the very principles he has ignored were not appreciated clearly by the men of the time, thrown in a rash judgement concerning the motives of those same men, and on the basis of all that, has "proved" that the manifest heretic Karol Wojtyla is actually the visible head of the Catholic Church. It is positively dizzying. But that is not all.

Having managed to make this much of a mess of matters, Mr. Cure proceeds to make things even worse. He gives the following Gallican proposition (also known as Conciliarism):

“In spiritual matters a General Council is superior to the pope.”

And then draws the following astonishing conclusion:

“From the second [i.e. the one given above] proposition or ideal came the idea that a pope can be judged by a council and of course if a council can judge the pope then so can individuals because individuals make up the councils.
“This Gallican proposition is the tap root of sedevacantism.”

The latter part of the first sentence is a complete invention. If Mr. Cure could find a single Conciliarist author who believed that individuals could judge popes, because (as they say) Councils can, then he would have some basis for the claim. But of course he cannot. Because, apart from anything else, it is utterly illogical. One might as well argue that because General Councils are infallible, this means that each bishop cannot err, for bishops form General Councils. Or that because Congress can impeach a president, that each congressman can, because congressmen constitute Congress. With this “logic” Mr. Cure could go anywhere or everywhere. He certainly goes to some pretty strange places.

The assertion that the heresy of believing Councils to be superior to popes has some connection with "sedevacantism" is ridiculous, as should be clearly evident from a consideration of Bellarmine's presentation. Bellarmine condemns the idea that Church is superior to the pope, so that it is impossible even for the Church herself to depose the pope. He was as anti-Gallican as any theologian has ever been. In fact, one of the controversies for which he is famous is his demolition of the Gallican writer William Barclay. The Gallicans, to a man, regarded St. Robert Bellarmine as their chief opponent. Bossuet, probably their most famous defender, in a letter to one of his friends, exclaims, "I tremble at the thought. Is it possible? Bellarmine reigns supreme and in his own person represent tradition…"²² That was in 1682. In the year before the Vatican Council, 1869, Bellarmine's writings were still regarded as the greatest obstacle to Gallicanism, as is witnessed to by the fact that the Gallicans then preparing for the Council saw Bellarmine's arguments as the ones to be refuted.

But if nothing else proves that Bellarmine (and subsequent "sedevacantists") was anti-Gallican, then the fact that he denied its key principle in the very text in which he proved that a heretic cannot be pope, should eliminate all possible quibbles.

"Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this."²³

The fact remains that many historians are insufficiently trained in theology to interpret the actions and words of historical figures correctly. Thus, when they see that a given individual appeals to a council against a pope, they leap to the conclusion that the Conciliarist (and Gallican) error is involved. It is true that on many occasions during the Middle Ages particularly, this error raised its ugly head. And Pope Pius II issued Execrabilis in an attempt to end this insidious error and threat, once and for all. But to label men such as St. Vincent Ferrer and St. Robert Bellarmine, who defended the truth as a matter of divine law, as somehow infected with Gallicanism is not only stupid, but grossly unjust.

As Cardinal Journet²⁴ explains, in relation to another Dominican who had dared to speak against the legitimacy of a papal claimant,²⁵ Fra. Girolamo Savonarola:²⁶

"Basing our argument on the doctrinal authorities which Cajetan was soon to invoke, we should say that Savonarola wished to collect together the Council, not because, like the Gallicans, he placed a Council above the Pope (the Letters to the Princes are legally and doctrinally unimpeachable), but so that the Council, before which he would prove his accusation, should declare the heresy of Alexander VI in his status as a private individual. P. Hurtaud concludes: 'Savonarola's acts and words - and most of his words are acts - should be examined in detail. Each of his words should be carefully weighed and none of the circumstances of his actions should be lost sight of. For the friar is a master of doctrine; he does not only know it but he lives it too. In his conduct nothing is left to chance or the mood of the moment. He has a theological or legal principle as the motive power in each one of his decisions. He should not be judged by general laws, for his guides are principles of an exceptional order - though I do not mean by this that he placed himself above or outside the common law. The rules he invokes are admitted by the best Doctors of the Church; there is nothing exceptional in them save the circumstances which make them lawful, and condition their application."'

These "rules," alluded to by Hurtaud, are of course summed up in the canon, Si papa, quoted above, and explained so lucidly by St. Robert Bellarmine. Pope Innocent III, probably the greatest promoter and defender of the sublime rights of the papacy of all time, explained in a sermon,
“The faith is necessary for me to such an extent that, having God as my only judge in all other sins, I could however be judged by the Church for the sins which I might commit in matters of faith.”²⁷

The truth is actually that this idea of Mr. Cure's, that popes are fallible except once or twice per century, is associated with the heresies of Gallicanism and Conciliarism. Pastor, in his monumental "History of the Popes," summarises the Conciliarist theory of von Gelnhausen, a German theologian of the time of the Great Western Schism, and the following stands out in this context:

"Infallibility resides in the whole Church. The individual pope is fallible, whence it evidently follows that a Council may be lawfully assembled without his authority."²⁸

This erroneous doctrine was presented in service of the idea that a Council, since it is superior to a pope, may not only assemble without his authority, but may depose and replace him if necessary. So we see that it is the “sedevacantist,” Bellarmine, who defends the primacy of the pope, while it is the Conciliarist heretics who impugn that authority and primacy.

Let's travel along a little further with Mr. Cure to see to what other fantasylands his "new logic" takes him. He asserts:

"Stricken to death, as a free opinion, by the Council of the Vatican (I), Gallicanism could survive only as a heresy; the Old Catholics have endeavored to keep it alive under this form.
“It is from the roots of the Old Catholics that some of today's sedevacantist bishops come.”

I doubt that Mr. Cure would enjoy it if we applied that unsupported calumny to his own favourite institution, the SSPX. Does the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre, and therefore most of the SSPX clergy, are descended from Mgr. Lienart mean that the SSPX are Freemasons? Obviously not.

But at least that allegation can claim to be based on a known fact. The fact is there are no respectable “sedevacantist” bishops whose "roots" are with the Old Catholics. There are, of course, Old Catholics who pretend to be “sedevacantist” Catholics, but that is a different matter entirely. There are also one or two “sedevacantist” bishops who were fooled by Old Catholics on occasion, thinking that they were true Catholics because they lied and dissembled to that end.

But if guilt by association is a proper weapon in such disputes, then Mr. Cure had better be careful how he wields it, for it cuts both ways. For example, there is the Fraternity of St. Peter, which pretends to be fully traditional, and there are Matthew Fox and "Bishop" Weakland, who pretend to be Catholics. Guilt by association is a fearful thing, Mr. Cure. Aren't you in communion with "Fr." Matthew Fox, whose favourite doctrines relate to all men becoming one with the ever-evolving universe? Isn't he a fellow-member of your Church? Don't you, along with these men, acknowledge Karol Wojtyla as the visible head of your church?

“Sedevacantists” not only deny any resemblance to, or connection with, Old Catholic heretics, but the facts also prove that this is the case.

Trying to prove that Wojtyla is pope by casting lying aspersions at “sedevacantists” is merely grotesque, and certainly unworthy of a Catholic gentleman. If this is what Wojtyla's defenders are reduced to, then we can at least take comfort in the fact that they have nothing stronger to offer. The type of suggestive association presented by Mr. Cure is not only foolish and dangerous, it is malicious also, for it seeks to achieve what neither truth nor logic can, which is to paint as somehow un-Catholic everybody who has the cheek to disagree with one's pet theories.


A Cure for Infallibility

Leaving behind his interesting dissertation on the history of the Church, at least in the main, Mr. Cure proceeds to discuss papal infallibility, which of course is a red herring. Whether or not Karol Wojtyla has ever attempted to impose his heresies ex cathedra, he believes them himself, pertinaciously, so that he is not a Catholic, and is not the pope.

Of course the view Mr. Cure takes of the ordinary magisterium is typically flawed, but since it is beside the point we will leave the matter there.


A Cure for Blindness

Mr. Cure believes, he claims, in a visible Church. He writes:

"The strongest reason for opposing sedevacantism is that it stands against the visible Church."

Apparently Mr. Cure doesn't care what the Church looks like, whether she has a unity of faith, as she must to be true Church, or whether she has a unity of charity (communion) as she likewise must to be the one, true Church of Jesus Christ. No, he merely insists that she be visible.

What is the truth of the matter? Van Noort explains:

"Catholic teaching has it that the Church, by the institution of its Founder, and hence necessarily and essentially, enjoys a threefold unity which is external and visible, namely, unity of doctrine and profession, unity of communion, and unity of government."²⁹

And the Vatican Council teaches:

"The eternal shepherd and guardian of our souls, in order to render permanent the saving work of redemption, determined to build a church in which, as in the house of the living God, all the faithful should be linked by the bond of one faith and charity. Therefore, before He was glorified, He besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in Him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one. So then, just as He sent apostles, whom He chose out of the world, even as He had been sent by the Father, in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation. Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation."³⁰

Mr. Cure's Church might well be visible, but it is not the Catholic Church, for the Catholic Church is a visible unity, against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. Hence Mr. Cure is content to recognise as parts and members of the Church those who profess heresy and refuse to be united in Faith with Catholics. He is content to recognise as parts and members of the Church those who refuse to be united in the unity of charity with Catholics. Those, for example, who will not share the sacraments with us, or who show by their words and actions that they “hate the brethren” and will not consider us their fellow-Catholics.

Thus, Mr. Cure's version of the Catholic Church is a visibly disunited hodgepodge of those who believe whatever they like and who are visibly at war with each other. The one and only thing that these men have in common is that they recognise the heretic, Karol Wojtyla, as the visible head of the Church. Nothing could be more destructive of sacred doctrine, or of ecclesiastical unity, than such a nonsensical position.


A Cure for Consistency

In concluding his article, Mr. Cure manages to maintain with perfect consistency the record he has established throughout – he gets everything upside down.

He turns to a consideration of the Arian Crisis, and his conclusions drawn from it are so thoroughly confused as to leave one wondering where to begin. Perhaps the best way to see how badly wrong he has the whole thing is to outline the key facts and principles, and then note how Mr. Cure differs.

But before we do, let's keep in mind the charming way in which Mr. Cure's concluding section begins:

“To consider sedevacantism without considering the seriousness of schism would be like studying a rattlesnake without considering how deadly it can be.”

To consider Mr. Cure's article without recalling to mind Our Blessed Redeemer's warning (given through St. John) against malice would be foolish:

“But he that hateth his brother is in darkness and walketh in darkness and knoweth not whither he goeth: because the darkness hath blinded his eyes.”³¹

During the Arian Crisis most of the bishops of the Catholic Church disappeared into heresy. Thus they lost their offices and were rejected by the faithful. In return, the Arians persecuted the Catholics, and in response to this persecution St. Athanasius (one of the few orthodox prelates remaining) wrote his famous letter in consolation:

"You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the faith which has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and if an execrable jealously has tried to shake it in a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.
"No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers, and we believe that God will give us our Churches back some day. Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church but in reality they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray.  Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

Once the crisis was effectively over, the Pope had a problem – what to do with all of these bishops who had returned to the unity of the Church? Should he maintain the ancient discipline which insisted that all who returned from heresy be received as laymen? Or, in light of the desperate shortage of clergy this would entail, might it not be better to grant these men the ecclesiastical offices they had forfeited by their crimes? The latter course was chosen. Some of those who had remained orthodox during the crisis reacted badly, and refused communion with any of the ex-heretics. Lucifer of Cagliari was the chief of these, and he caused a schism by his refusal of submission to the decision of the Pope.

Note that St. Athanasius declares that those who have not the true faith are outside the Church. Mr. Cure will not accept this fact – to him, those who profess heresy are to be regarded as Catholics unless and until some undefined authority declares otherwise. Hypocritically, he writes:

“It is very important to note that St. Athanasius did not condemn all those opposed to him and true doctrine.”

Why is it, we might ask, that Mr. Cure fails to follow St. Athanasius in this invented position? St. Athanasius did indeed “condemn” the enemies of Christ and His Church, but Mr. Cure thinks that he did not. And yet Mr. Cure himself condemns as schismatic those who fail to agree with his own fancies. Nothing could be more blatantly hypocritical.

Likewise, St. Athanasius expressed the constant tradition of Holy Church which is that the Church herself is the “Catholics faithful to tradition.” Mr. Cure instead maintains that the Church consists of those who recognise the heretic Wojtyla as pope, no matter what they believe or how they behave.

Furthermore, Lucifer of Cagliari was a schismatic because he refused communion with Catholics, after the crisis was over and they had returned from heresy. Mr. Cure, on the contrary, thinks that Lucifer was a schismatic for cutting off communion with heretics, which is absurd, and only proves that he hasn't read any real history. Likewise, Mr. Cure cuts off communion with “sedevacantists” – describing us as “schismatics” – even though no ecclesiastical authority has condemned us, which in Mr. Cure's view is necessary for such a position as he himself takes.



The Truth

Enough of Mr. Cure. In conclusion, let us consider the words of an eminent Italian theologian of the XVIIIth Century, Father Pietro Ballerini, who presents the constant tradition of Holy Church, in the course of which text the numerous errors of Mr. Richard Cure, inventor of doctrine and fomenter of discord, are exposed.

After observing that a General Council would only be able to pass sentence over a “pope heretic” if he were already deposed, Father Ballerini explains:

 “A peril for the faith so imminent and among all the most grave, as this of a Pontiff who, even only privately, defended heresy, would not be able to be supported for long. Why, then, expect the remedy to come from a General Council, whose convocation is not easy? Is it not true that, confronted with such a danger for the faith, any subjects can by fraternal correction warn their superior, resist him to his face, refute him and, if necessary, summon him and press him to repent? The Cardinals, who are his counsellors, can do this; or the Roman Clergy, or the Roman Synod, if, being met, they judge this opportune. For any person, even a private person, the words of Saint Paul to Titus hold: “Avoid the heretic, after a first and second correction, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, since he is condemned by his own judgment” (Tit. 3, 10-11). For the person, who admonished once or twice, does not repent, but continues pertinacious in an opinion contrary to a manifest or public dogma - not being able, on account of this public pertinacity to be excused, by any means, of heresy properly so called, which requires pertinacity - this person declares himself openly a heretic. He reveals that by his own will he has turned away from the Catholic Faith and the Church, in such form that now no declaration or sentence of any one whatsoever is necessary to cut him from the body of the Church. In this matter the argument given by Saint Jerome in connection with the cited words of Saint Paul is very clear: 'Therefore it is said that the heretic has condemned himself: for the fornicator, the adulterer, the homicide and the other sinners are expelled from the Church by the priests; but the heretics pronounce sentence against themselves, excluding themselves from the Church spontaneously: this exclusion which is their condemnation by their own conscience.'³²

John Lane
Perth, Western Australia
Feast of St. Matthew, 2001

Footnotes:

1. CIC. 188, §4
   
2. Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, "Christ's Church" - Mercier Press, 1958, pp. 239 ff.
   
3. Ibid.
   
4. Vat. Council, Denz. 1800
   
5. Vat. Council, Denz. 1818
   
6. St. Vincent Ferrer, by Henri Ghéon, Sheed and Ward, London, 1939, p.37.
   
7. St. Vincent Ferrer was not, of course, a Gallican, nor any kind of heretic.
   
8. Pope Urban VIII, Unam Sanctam
   
9. St. John Chrystostom, Homily XXIII on St. Matthew
   
10. St. John Chrystostom, Homily XXIII on St. Matthew
    
11. De Romano Pontifice, St. Robert Bellarmine
    
12. Bellarmine, Op. cit., lib. II, cap. 30.
    
13. Fr. Johannes Dörmann, Pope John Paul II's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi, Part II, Vol. I, Angelus Press, Kansas City, Missouri, 1996.
    
14. Tit. 3:10,11.
    
15. Bellarmine, Op. cit., lib. II, cap. 30.
    
16. Ibid.
    
17. Ibid.
    
18. Ibid.
    
19. Ibid.
    
20. Ibid.
    
21. St. Vincent Ferrer, De moderno ecclesiae schismate, Bibl. Nat., no. 1470; quoted by Mourret, History of the Catholic Church, B. Herder, Vol. V, p. 133.
    
22. Quoted by Broderick, Robert Bellarmine, Longmans, 1928, p. 187.
    
23. Bellarmine, Op. cit., lib. II, cap. 30.
    
24. Card. Journet, The Church Of The Word Incarnate, Vol. 1, p. 484, trans. A. H. C. Downes, Sheed & Ward, 1955.
    
25. Although, of course, it is clear now that Alexander VI truly was pope.
    
26. No comment is here implied as to the goodness or otherwise of Savonarola's activities.
    
27. Innocent III, Sermo IV, quoted by da Silveira, Theological and Moral Implications of the New "Ordo Missae."
    
28. Dr. Ludwig Pastor, The History of the Popes, From the Close of the Middle Ages. John Hodges, London, 1891, vol. I, p. 184.
    
29. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, Christ's Church, Mercier Press, 1958, p. 126
    
30. Vatican Council, De ecclesia Christi. Emphasis added.
    
31. 1 John, 2:11
    
32. Pietro Ballerini, De Potestate Ecclesiastica…," pp. 104-105.
    

Home