Is This the Sanest Position for Faithful Catholics to Hold Regarding Post-Conciliar Popes?
Many Catholics have long sensed an irreconcilable contradiction between the perennial teachings of the Faith and the doctrines, disciplines, and liturgical forms that emerged after the Council.
Have you ever embarked on something knowing, deep in your heart, that you’re about to open a can of worms of, shall we say, Biblical proportions? Yes? Well then, welcome to this essay.
I suspect my introduction, and disclaimers may end up being longer than the actual meat-and-potatoes portion of the essay—but let’s see.
First, I want to state emphatically that the purpose of this essay is to get you thinking, to encourage civil and robust discussion about the subject, and perhaps even to help you articulate your own position. As the title indicates, I am merely asking a question. What this is not is me standing on a soapbox claiming to proclaim the final Gospel truth. I need not explain that this is a very sensitive and complex topic—one I have been wrestling with since my conversion to Catholicism. Because some of our brothers and sisters who read Radical Fidelity still attend Novus Ordo parishes and are only now beginning to sense that “something is rotten in Denmark”, and because new converts to the Faith also read this publication, I want to proceed with extreme care, charity, and caution—for the sake of souls. I implore those in the comment section to do the same.
That being said, Scripture instructs us to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling,” and therefore each of us has a responsibility to clarify matters as important as these. Again, keep in mind that individuals are at different stages of their Catholic journey. Not everyone is a theologian or an apologist. So, once more: be kind and charitable. Let us use this opportunity to learn from one another and to engage prayerfully with what we learn.
What is safe to say, however, is that most Catholics—even those with the most rudimentary grasp of the Faith—know by now that something has been terribly wrong for a very long time. Post-conciliar popes have been breaking our hearts ever since the dreaded Second Vatican Council and matters only seem to worsen with each new pope (or “pope,” as I often might say).
What I also refuse to do is leave those in grave error there simply for the sake of not offending anyone. Their blood will ultimately be on our hands when Judgment Day comes. I want to echo the first pope, St. Peter, in saying that ultimately “we must obey God rather than men.” That may be an oversimplification for the more learned among us, but I believe it with the faith of a child.
So bear with me, and bear with one another. The aim of Radical Fidelity has always been to spread and defend the Faith in its purest form—and where we struggle to find answers, at least to interrogate the complexities fiercely in an effort to grow closer to Christ and to the beautiful One True Faith He left us.
The Thesis of Cassiciacum and the Crisis of Vatican II
The upheaval that followed the Second Vatican Council has produced one of the most profound crises in the history of the Church. Many Catholics have long sensed an irreconcilable contradiction between the perennial teachings of the Faith and the doctrines, disciplines, and liturgical forms that emerged after the Council. At the heart of this conflict stands a question that touches the very constitution of the Church: How can the indefectible Bride of Christ promulgate teachings and practices contrary to what she has always held to be true, holy, and sanctifying?
The Thesis of Cassiciacum—formulated principally by the Dominican theologian Bishop Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers, O.P. (1898-1988)—proposes a resolution to this problem by making a crucial distinction between the material and formal aspects of the papacy. Today it is held by a number of clergy and communities, including certain bishops descending from the consecrations of Bp. des Lauriers, priests of the Institute of the Mother of God, parts of the CMRI clergy trained under the des Lauriers line, and various independent traditional priests.
The need for such an explanation arises because Vatican II introduced teachings that had been expressly condemned by previous popes and councils. Its innovations concerning the unity of the Church, ecumenism, religious liberty, and episcopal collegiality stand in contradiction to solemn magisterial pronouncements. These doctrinal shifts were accompanied by novel disciplines which earlier Catholic tradition regarded as gravely sinful—such as communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics, admission of non-Catholics to Holy Communion, ecumenical worship, and the granting of annulments so freely that they now function, in practice, as Catholic divorce.
Likewise, the post-conciliar liturgical reform, culminating in the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI, represents a break with the Roman Rite sanctified by centuries of use and solemnly guaranteed at the Council of Trent. In its structure and expression, the new rite downplays the sacrificial character of the Mass, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the distinct priesthood, while adopting many elements characteristic of Protestant services.
These changes have, in substance, produced a new religion, though one that continues to call itself Catholic. But the Church cannot promulgate harmful liturgy, misleading discipline, or erroneous doctrine. Her indefectibility, guaranteed by Christ, makes such a betrayal impossible. Thus Catholics who uphold the Faith find themselves in a grave dilemma: they owe obedience to the Roman Pontiff, yet they cannot accept teachings and practices that contradict what the Church has always taught.
In response to this dilemma, four principal solutions have been proposed. Some groups—such as the Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King—accept the post-conciliar popes as true pontiffs while attempting to preserve aspects of Tradition. Others, including the Society of Saint Pius X, maintain that these popes are legitimate yet must be resisted in their erroneous acts—a position known as “Recognize and Resist.” A third solution, that of complete sedevacantism, asserts that the Vatican II popes never possessed papal authority in any respect and that the See is fully vacant.
Each of these positions contains serious difficulties. The first two imply that the Church’s magisterium and universal discipline can teach error or harm the faithful, which is incompatible with her divine constitution. The third, while rightly denying that the post-conciliar claimants possess papal authority, struggles to explain how the Church maintains juridical continuity and apostolic succession in the total absence of a designated subject to receive papal authority.
Here the Thesis of Cassiciacum offers an attractive, and might I add seemingly coherent and theological, answer. According to this explanation, the post-conciliar claimants were validly elected and therefore constitute the material element of the papacy—they hold the legal designation to receive authority. But because they lack the necessary intention to uphold and defend the Catholic Faith, and instead manifest the intention to redefine it according to modernist principles, they do not receive the form of the papacy, which is the supreme authority granted immediately by Christ.
A man who accepts the external appearance of election while intending to alter or distort the very constitution of the Church cannot truly accept the papacy as Christ established it. His designation remains legally presumed until judged otherwise by competent authority, but he is not a true pope. Thus the See is vacant in reality, though not yet juridically declared vacant. This distinction allows the Church to retain indefectibility and apostolic succession at the same time: the juridical structure remains intact, and yet no error is attributed to the authority of Christ.
From this theological foundation follow the practical consequences. If the post-conciliar claimants possessed true papal authority, then the teachings and reforms of Vatican II would require obedience; to reject them would be schismatic. But if they lack that authority—if they are merely material popes—then their teachings, laws, and liturgical rites hold no binding force and must be rejected as dangerous innovations. As Bishop Robert McKenna, O.P., succinctly put it, “You cannot have your pope and eat him too.” One cannot reject the Council while accepting as pope the man who promulgates it.
According to the Thesis then, Catholics must adhere to the traditional Faith, the traditional Mass, and the traditional sacramental discipline of the Church. They must attend Mass offered by priests who do not commemorate the Vatican II claimants in the Canon, since naming such a man implies recognition of his authority and thus acceptance of the conciliar revolution.
In an age of unprecedented ecclesial confusion, the Thesis of Cassiciacum presents a theological framework through which Catholics can preserve fidelity to the Faith of their fathers without compromising the Church’s indefectibility or her perpetual apostolic constitution. Grounded in classical theology and articulated by one of the twentieth century’s most learned theologians, it offers clarity where confusion reigns and continuity where rupture is most keenly felt.
Why The “Recognise and Resist” Position is Problematic
As regular readers know, I attend a SSPX Chapel which is my only option as a so-called “Traditional” Catholic in my country. I love attending Mass there, love my priests dearly as well as my community there. This is therefor not an attack on the SSPX. But for the sake of intellectual honesty, we have to address the elephant in the room.
A central difficulty for the “Recognize and Resist” position lies in its apparent tension with the Church’s traditional teaching on the nature of papal authority and the sin of schism. Classical Catholic ecclesiology consistently holds that the Roman Pontiff possesses supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church and that refusal of obedience to his authoritative acts constitutes a rupture of ecclesial unity. Thus, the idea of simultaneously acknowledging a pontiff as the legitimate Vicar of Christ while habitually resisting his governance stands in contrast to the principles articulated throughout Church history.
St. Thomas Aquinas gives one of the oldest and clearest definitions of schism: it is the refusal of “obedience to the Sovereign Pontiff” and a withdrawal from communion with those subject to him. This definition is echoed almost verbatim in later canonical legislation, including the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which identifies schismatics as those who “refuse to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff.” Such formulations do not restrict schism to the denial of papal identity; rather, they explicitly include disobedience to papal authority as its essence.
Magisterial teachings reinforce this understanding. The Council of Florence teaches that the Roman Pontiff has “full power to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church,” a statement later taken up and defined dogmatically at the First Vatican Council. Pastor Aeternus affirms that the pope possesses “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power” and that the faithful are “bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience.” This is not presented as merely an ideal or general guideline but as the divinely instituted structure of the Church.
Popes throughout history have emphasized the same doctrinal principle. Pope Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam famously teaches that subjection to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. Pope Leo XIII, in Satis Cognitum, states that refusing obedience to the legitimate authority of the pope “gives proof of a mind averse to the Church.” He furthermore identifies union with the Roman Pontiff as the public criterion of authentic Catholic unity. St. Robert Bellarmine likewise describes schismatics as those who refuse submission to the pope, whom all the faithful are “bound to obey.”
Taken together, these sources form a consistent line of Catholic thought: recognition of a true pope logically entails obedience to his authoritative governance, and habitual disobedience—especially on matters touching faith, morals, or universal discipline—has historically been classified as schismatic behavior. This creates a fundamental challenge for the “Recognize and Resist” position, which maintains that one must accept the post-conciliar popes as legitimate while simultaneously rejecting substantial portions of their magisterium, disciplinary acts, or reforms.
From the perspective of traditional ecclesiology, such a stance risks collapsing into an internal contradiction. If obedience to the Roman Pontiff is a necessary mark of communion with the Church, and if resistance to his teachings or governance is an act traditionally associated with schism, then to recognize someone as pope while resisting his magisterial or disciplinary authority introduces a conceptual inconsistency. The problem is not merely practical but doctrinal: it places the believer in a posture toward the papacy that the Church’s own theological tradition does not seem to allow.
For this reason, critics argue that “Recognize and Resist” does not fit smoothly within the historical framework of Catholic teaching on papal primacy. The weight of ecclesiastical tradition suggests that the faithful cannot coherently affirm both the legitimacy of a pope and a principled stance of resistance to his universal teachings and governance. This intrinsic tension represents one of the most significant challenges to the internal coherence of the “Recognize and Resist” approach.
If you have read this far and not unsubscribed, thank you. I also tip my hat to your spiritual maturity and willingness to engage with the “hard stuff”.
Let us continue to live, share and defend the One True Faith that Christ has handed on to his Apostles and their successors, even if we sometimes disagree.
Our Lady, Co-redemptrix, pray for us…
Our Lady, Mediatrix of all Graces, pray for us…
Viva Christo Rey!
Also Read:
Pope Claims Christians and Muslims Worship Same God at Interfaith Spectacle in Beirut
Believing in the God You Just Vomited
New Apostolic Letter Calls for Abandoning Doctrinal Clarity in Favor of Unity
I actually agree with you that the “recognise and resist” framework has serious internal contradictions. It tries to square a circle the Church has never allowed to be square: you cannot simultaneously affirm a man as the Roman Pontiff and withhold obedience from his universal acts of governance without drifting into the definition of schism. I’m entirely convinced on that point.
But here’s where I think both the sedevacantist position and the Cassiciacum thesis end up putting the cart before the horse. Both are technically elegant solutions, and I understand the appeal. They preserve indefectibility, infallibility and juridical continuity. But they do it at the cost of the very reason those doctrines exist.
The Church doesn’t teach papal infallibility or indefectibility so that we can work out who the real pope is. These doctrines were given to us so that obedience to the Church is a reliable path to holiness and salvation. They are meant to take pressure off individual judgement, not add a new layer where each Catholic has to determine whether the man everyone calls “the pope” only has the matter or also the form of the office before trusting anything.
If infallibility and indefectibility become tools for identifying true popes, then we end up with a circular problem. We end up saying:
We know who the true pope is because he teaches true doctrine.
And we know true doctrine because the true pope teaches it.
This doesn’t work. It makes identifying true doctrine the individual’s task again, which is exactly what these doctrines were meant to prevent. It operates out of an entirely untraditional paradigm.
Both sedevacantism and the Cassiciacum distinction seem driven by the desire to preserve absolute certainty. They keep the system tidy in theory but only by undermining the basic trustworthiness of the Church. What good is a papacy that is only to be regarded as the papacy when it teaches what we already think is true? At that point the papacy isn’t guiding us as much as we’re judging the papacy.
None of this means that popes cannot be worldly, cowardly, confused or morally compromised. History certainly shows they can. But being Catholic involves trusting that the broad outline of the Church’s doctrinal authority remains steady, even when the individuals involved fall short. Our expectations of Rome’s clarity and purity have been shaped by modern media and constant information. If we had a clearer sense of what medieval popes were like, I think our expectations would be more realistic, and we wouldn’t feel pushed into theories designed mainly to protect our own sense of certainty.
And I do think that’s what drives a lot of these positions. Many of these ideas about material vs formal papacies, vacant sees, and so on are attempts (especially among converts) to hold onto a level of certainty we were never promised and don’t actually need. I suspect many of us do this because a big part of our conversion was more about the epistemological reliability of Church teaching than an actual desire to submit and live by such teaching (but perhaps I'm only speaking for myself).
What we need is basic trust. Not blind trust that refuses to admit even the possibility of wolves in sheep's clothing, but trust that Christ keeps His promises to the Church even when the leadership is unimpressive. That seems more in line with the Catholic tradition than trying to theologically overhaul the Church’s structure in order to settle our own anxieties.
Read the CCC paragraphs 675-678. We are somewhere along the Via Dolorosa. When Satan finally celebrates the true Church’s demise, the Church of history, one, holy,
universal and apostolic, yes! the Chuch that’s being maligned and persecuted from within currently, her Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Co-Redemtorix and Co-Mediator of all Graces.
False ecumenism will be crushed.
The storm on the Sea of Galilee…..”Oh ye men of little faith. Why are you afraid? “.
In the meantime? Keep rowing!