Where Is the Church? An Examination of the Church's Visibility During a Vacant Apostolic See (Part II)

The essential point is that one must arrive at the only logical conclusion that protects the claims and doctrines of the Catholic Church.

In this second part of a two-part essay [Part 1 here], we will look at some further approaches to explaining where the Church is during a time when the seat is empty, or, if you prefer, occupied by a usurper, anti-pope, or false pope.

Although the explanations differ and the final answer is reached by different paths, the essential point is that one must arrive at the only logical conclusion that protects the claims and doctrines of the Catholic Church: the postconciliar popes cannot be true popes, and the religion advanced since the Second Vatican Council is not Catholicism.

This is important for many reasons, but one of the most significant is that many people outside the faith are waking up to what is happening in Catholicism. It has now become commonplace for Protestants, and others whom we want to bring into the faith, no longer to raise objections primarily against our doctrines or traditions, but rather against the fact that the current usurpers in the Synodal hierarchy and the Synodal religion contradict what we have claimed Catholicism to be for two millennia.

From even mildly informed Protestants, you will hear statements such as, “Francis or Leo is your pope, but he is teaching [fill in the heresy], which you have previously claimed the Catholic Church rejects.” Although it is tragic that this is where we find ourselves, it helps us see clearly that if we claim the postconciliar religion is Catholicism, then we necessarily have to admit to our inquirer/ accuser that the Church has defected and that the Church’s teaching about the papacy is erroneous. Admitting this, however, would make one a heretic.

It is therefore of utmost importance to be able to explain that the Catholic Church and her teaching still exist, with her integrity intact, even though we do not currently have a legitimate pope or any true representation in the physical location of the Vatican.

We will look more closely at the alternative to recognizing the absence of a true pope and the existence of a false religion in a future article. For now, suffice it to say that the alternative is both unthinkable and untenable.

But, let us return to part two of our essay.

The second major explanation offered within the circles of those who have rightly concluded that there is not a legitimate pope currently occupying the Seat of Peter, is commonly known as the Cassiciacum Thesis or the material and formal thesis. This is also known as sedeprivationism which merely means the seat is lacking authority.

Developed principally by the Dominican theologian Fr. Michel Guérard des Lauriers during the 1970s, it attempts to preserve both the visibility of the Roman See and the traditional doctrine that public adherence to error is incompatible with the exercise of papal authority.

Unlike most sedevacantists, proponents of this thesis do not argue that the occupants of the Vatican are entirely unrelated to the papacy. Rather, they distinguish between material occupation of the office and formal possession of papal authority. Drawing upon Aristotelian and Thomistic distinctions between matter and form, they maintain that a claimant may possess the legal designation to an office while lacking the authority necessary to exercise it.

According to this theory, the postconciliar claimants have been designated according to the existing electoral procedures of the Church, but because they publicly adhere to doctrines incompatible with the Catholic faith, they lack the formal authority that Christ confers upon a true Roman Pontiff. The See is therefore materially occupied but formally vacant.

Supporters of the thesis argue that this explanation preserves important elements of Catholic ecclesiology. It accounts for the continued existence of a visible Roman hierarchy while explaining why that hierarchy lacks divine authority. It also provides a theoretical means by which a future conversion to the Catholic faith could result in the restoration of formal papal authority without requiring an entirely new election.

Critics, including many other sedevacantists, object that the distinction is unnecessarily speculative and lacks clear support in the earlier theological tradition. They argue that Bellarmine’s assertion that a manifest heretic cannot be the head of the Church excludes not only formal authority but any genuine occupation of the papal office. For this reason, the Cassiciacum Thesis remains a minority position, although it has exercised considerable influence in academic discussions because of its philosophical sophistication.

A third approach places greater emphasis upon the extraordinary character of the present crisis than upon any particular theory concerning papal jurisdiction.

According to this position, the Church has entered an unprecedented period in which many of the ordinary structures of ecclesiastical government have become inoperative. This situation, although extraordinary, does not contradict Catholic doctrine because the Church has experienced severe disruptions before.

Advocates of this view frequently point to historical examples. During the Great Western Schism, large portions of Christendom were sincerely uncertain concerning the identity of the true Pope. Saints found themselves supporting rival claimants. The Church remained the Church despite widespread confusion concerning the papacy.

Similarly, the French Revolution devastated the ecclesiastical life of France. Bishops were exiled, imprisoned or executed. Religious communities were suppressed. Many dioceses were effectively left without ordinary government. Yet no Catholic concluded that the Church herself had ceased to exist because her ordinary structures had been violently interrupted.

The difference lies not in principle but in magnitude. Previous crises were localised or comparatively brief. The present crisis is universal and prolonged. Nevertheless, no dogma of the Church specifies the maximum duration of a papal vacancy. The Church teaches that the papacy is perpetual as an institution established by Christ. She has never defined that every vacancy must be brief.

This distinction is important because opponents sometimes assume that a lengthy vacancy is itself impossible.

Classical theology does not appear to support such a conclusion. Vatican I teaches that the primacy of Peter will endure perpetually in the Church. It does not define that the See of Peter can never remain vacant for an unusually long period under extraordinary historical circumstances.

Closely related to this approach is another argument emphasizing apostolic succession itself. Rather than focusing exclusively upon the Roman Pontiff, some argue that the Church remains visibly constituted because bishops continue to exist throughout the world.

Pius XII teaches that bishops belong to the divine constitution of the Church. Although they exercise ordinary jurisdiction only within the hierarchical order established by Christ, they nevertheless remain true successors of the Apostles through episcopal consecration. Consequently, so long as valid bishops continue to exist and transmit Holy Orders, the Church retains one of her essential visible characteristics.

Bellarmine likewise describes the Church as consisting of pastors and faithful, not simply of the Pope in isolation. The Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the episcopal college, but the existence of the Church does not cease during every interregnum merely because the office is temporarily vacant. The hierarchy remains, even if its supreme office awaits a lawful occupant.

This argument does not deny the necessity of the papacy. On the contrary, it insists that the papacy belongs permanently to the constitution of the Church. It argues only that an extraordinary interruption in the exercise of papal government does not destroy the Church herself.

Some adherent writers supplement these theological arguments with biblical typology. They readily acknowledge that such comparisons do not constitute theological proof, but that they do illustrate recurring patterns within salvation history.

The prophet Elijah believed himself almost alone in preserving the worship of the true God after the widespread corruption of Israel under Ahab and Jezebel. God replied that He had reserved seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to Baal. The lesson commonly drawn is not that the Old Testament kingdom had ceased to exist, but that numerical majority and official prestige did not necessarily coincide with fidelity to divine revelation.

The history of Noah presents another frequently cited example. Throughout the ancient world, the visible civilization surrounding Noah had abandoned God. Yet the true worship of God continued within a remarkably small remnant preserved by divine providence.

Likewise, the Maccabean revolt demonstrated that fidelity to revealed religion sometimes survived outside the dominant religious establishment supported by political authority.

These examples function primarily as analogies. They suggest that God’s covenant people have often appeared weak, isolated and numerically insignificant without thereby ceasing to be His people. Responsible sedevacantist authors generally avoid presenting these narratives as direct prophecies of the postconciliar Church. Instead, they argue that they reveal a consistent biblical pattern in which external triumph and authentic fidelity do not always coincide.

Perhaps the most important distinction to be maintained throughout this discussion concerns the difference between established doctrine and theological application. It is here that polemics often obscure careful analysis.

No serious dispute exists concerning the Church’s indefectibility. It is Catholic dogma that the Church cannot officially teach error as the rule of faith. Likewise, her visibility is beyond dispute. The Church is a visible society established by Christ and not merely an invisible communion of believers.

There is also broad agreement among the classical theologians that manifest heresy is incompatible with membership in the Church. Bellarmine, Suárez, Cajetan and John of St. Thomas differ concerning the juridical process by which ecclesiastical office may be lost, but none argues that public heresy can simply coexist indefinitely with legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

Where disagreement begins is in the application of these principles to the unprecedented circumstances of the modern Church.

Bellarmine never addressed a papal vacancy lasting many decades. Suárez did not write concerning a worldwide doctrinal crisis following an ecumenical council. Cajetan never envisioned the possibility that nearly the entire episcopate might simultaneously profess doctrines regarded by others as incompatible with previous magisterial teaching.

Their works therefore provide principles rather than complete solutions.

This observation is essential for maintaining intellectual honesty. It is entirely legitimate to argue that Bellarmine’s ecclesiology supports sedevacantism but is not historically accurate to claim that Bellarmine himself taught modern sedevacantism. Such a position would have been impossible for him to formulate because the historical circumstances had not arisen.

The same caution applies to Scripture and the Fathers. Passages concerning apostasy, persecution and faithful remnants illuminate the theological issues involved, but they do not by themselves identify the present crisis as the fulfillment of those prophecies. Any such identification belongs to theological judgment rather than defined revelation.

The various schools of thought about a vacant papacy therefore share considerably more than they divide. All maintain that the Church cannot defect from the Catholic faith. All insist that the Church remains visible. All affirm that apostolic succession continues through valid bishops and priests. All reject the notion that the Church has become an invisible spiritual fellowship detached from sacramental and hierarchical reality.

Their disagreements concern the precise manner in which the Church’s visibility and juridical continuity are to be explained during an exceptionally prolonged vacancy of the Apostolic See.

Some emphasize the remnant preserving the faith. Others distinguish between material and formal authority. Others stress the extraordinary character of the present crisis while declining to advance a comprehensive theory concerning the Roman See. Still others emphasize apostolic succession as the continuing visible principle of ecclesiastical life.

What is ultimately important to know though is that the true Church has not disappeared, nor has she become an invisible association of private believers. She remains the same visible Catholic Church founded by Christ, preserving the same faith, the same sacraments and the same apostolic priesthood.

What has changed is not the nature of the Church, but the condition of her earthly government. The explanations differ in their theological detail, yet all seek to preserve the same fundamental conviction, namely that Christ has remained faithful to His promises even in the midst of what they regard as the gravest crisis in the history of the Church.

What you unfortunately cannot do if you want to remain Catholic and confess Catholic truth, is claim that the postconciliar popes are Catholic or that the postconciliar religion is Catholicism.

PS: These two essays were the “short answer”, so to speak. If you want to get a deeper understanding, I really recommend the following:

· WM Review

· Novus Ordo Watch

· Stephen Kokx and Sean Wright’s ongoing coverage of the subject on the Integrity Magazine You Tube Channel. You can find the playlist on the subject here.

Our Lady, Co-redemptrix, pray for us…

Our Lady, Mediatrix of all Graces, pray for us…

Viva Christo Rey!

Also Read:

Where Is the Church? An Examination of the Church’s Visibility During a Vacant Apostolic See (Part I)

Sorry, Cardinal Burke, but We No Longer Need Men to Diagnose the Symptoms—We Need Leaders Who Will Help Remove the Cancer

Progressive Theologian Explains How Radical Modernists Should Get Their Way in the Synodal Church (But It Won’t Work for Traditional Catholics!)

Drama Continues as SSPX Files Canonical Recourse Against Vatican Decree

The Death of the “Pastoral Council” Argument and Its Serious Implications