'Sedevacantism' as a 'pestiferous heresy'? Fr Ripperger's accusation analysed
Some accusations, especially made by men of prominence, require a response.
Some accusations, especially made by men of prominence, require a response.
‘Pestiferous heresy’?
In a sermon on the Ascension, seemingly published on Ascension Thursday or the following Sunday, Fr Chad Ripperger has described “sedevacantism” as a “pestiferous heresy”. “Sedevacantism” is a name given to the theological position that the post-conciliar claimants have lacked papal authority since at least 1965.
In many cases, it is best to pass over accusations of this kind. In his Introduction to the Devout Life, the Saint and Doctor of the Church St Francis de Sales – himself an authority for the opinion of ipso facto loss of office – advises his readers how to respond to accusations. He says that we should not be “over-nice in regard to the preservation of our good name”, and that “overlooking and despising of an injury or calumny is, generally speaking, by far a more effectual remedy.”1
However, the Saint and Doctor of the Church concludes the relevant chapter as follows:
“I except, nevertheless, certain crimes, so horrid and infamous, that no man ought to suffer the false imputation of them, if he can justly acquit himself; and also certain persons, on whose reputation depends the edification of many; for in these cases, according to the opinion of divines, we must quietly seek a reparation of the wrong received.”2
Heresy is one such crime.
The seriousness of the charge
When culpable, heresy is a mortal sin: it destroys the life of grace in the soul. But heresy is not just one mortal sin among others: under certain circumstances, it severs a man from the body of the Church. In other words, he ceases to be Catholic and a member of the Church.
Although this latter effect does not arise from the gravity of the sin alone, it is indeed one of the worst mortal sins of which man is capable. In The Precious Blood, Fr Frederick William Faber wrote:
“The crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins.”3
St Thomas Aquinas explains that it is a part of the sin of unbelief, which he describes as follows:
“Every sin consists formally in aversion from God, as stated above. Hence the more a sin severs man from God, the graver it is. Now man is more than ever separated from God by unbelief, because he has not even true knowledge of God: and by false knowledge of God, man does not approach Him, but is severed from Him.
“Nor is it possible for one who has a false opinion of God, to know Him in any way at all, because the object of his opinion is not God. Therefore it is clear that the sin of unbelief is greater than any sin that occurs in the perversion of morals.”4
Elsewhere, St Thomas explains why such sins are, in a certain sense, more wicked than murder:
“If we compare murder and blasphemy as regards the objects of those sins, it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one’s neighbor. On the other hand, if we compare them in respect of the harm wrought by them, murder is the graver sin, for murder does more harm to one’s neighbor, than blasphemy does to God.
“Since, however, the gravity of a sin depends on the intention of the evil will, rather than on the effect of the deed, as was shown above, it follows that, as the blasphemer intends to do harm to God’s honor, absolutely speaking, he sins more grievously that the murderer. Nevertheless murder takes precedence, as to punishment, among sins committed against our neighbor.”5
In short, an accusation of heresy is a much graver affair than one of murder – or indeed sodomy, fraud, and so on.
Further, as we shall see, Fr Ripperger openly admits that he is using the term “heresy” in an antiquated and equivocal (and therefore rhetorical) way. This is, I submit, unjust and irresponsible.
Given the gravity of the accusation and the prominence of the accuser, it is necessary to offer a response. In so doing, I shall attempt to maintain St Francis de Sales’ spirit throughout, and respectfully explain why Fr Ripperger’s claim is incorrect.
The relevant extract
Here is the relevant section of the sermon:
“As Vatican I said, the pope is the perpetual principle of unity, so that it remains in perpetuity until Christ returns. In other words, once the death of last pope [happens], Christ returns to assume the visible headship again.
“Now, this is quite important because this visible headship is perpetual. The Church is, as they say, it is not anacephalic [sic]. It does not lack a head. It’s not like a chicken that, after Vatican II, its head was lopped off and it’s running around amok. Now, there might be some things running around amok, but it’s not the Church. It’s the members of the Church.
“And what does this all mean? It means that the Church will always have a pope until the last one dies and Christ reassumes the headship. The pestiferous heresy of sedevacantism is a denial of the de fide proposition by the Church that the papacy is the perpetual principle of unity.
“And this is all wrapped up in the Ascension. Why? Because right before the Ascension, this headship is passed on.
“This notion that there isn’t a pope is a novelty. It has never, in the entire history of the Church, ever been proposed that you could go an extended period of time without a pope. In the early Church, novelty was another name for heresy.”
Let us break down the sermon and consider its claims.
Perpetual Principle of Unity
“As Vatican I said, the pope is the perpetual principle of unity, so that it remains in perpetuity until Christ returns. In other words, once the death of last pope [happens], Christ returns to assume the visible headship again.”
There are two points to raise here.
First, Fr Ripperger correctly notes that the Pope is the “perpetual principle of unity.” Here is what Vatican I teaches:
“In order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided and that the whole multitude of believers might be preserved in unity of faith and communion by means of a closely united priesthood, he placed St. Peter at the head of the other apostles and established in him a perpetual principle and visible foundation of this twofold unity, in order that on his strength an everlasting temple might be erected and on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven.”
In other words, Our Lord makes the Pope the “perpetual principle” in order that “the whole multitude of believers might be preserved in unity of faith and communion”; he is to be the “visible foundation of this twofold unity.”
But if Paul VI and his successors have been true Popes, then why is the body over which they preside manifestly divided in faith? And given that communion depends on the external profession of faith, how can there be a unity of communion if there is a disunity of faith?
Pope Leo XIII calls the Pope the “efficient cause of unity” – a concept which I have discussed elsewhere.
Fr Ripperger’s analysis of the situation suggests, on the contrary, that Christ instituted an inefficient cause of unity.
I have also addressed this matter in detail in Zero Marks, Chapter I:
Second Coming at the moment of the last Pope’s death
The second point to raise about this extract is that Fr Ripperger seems to imply that Our Lord will not return until the last Pope dies.
Now, he is either a) suggesting that the Second Coming will occur immediately at this moment, or b) following the elapse of time after the death. But given the rest of his commentary, it seems that Fr Ripperger is alleging the former.
However, there seems to be nothing preventing Our Lord’s return during the reign of the last Pope, or indeed sometime after his death. Fr Ripperger makes his point very confidently, but without the authorities or argument needed to prove it.
Fr Ripperger proceeds:
“Now, this is quite important because this visible headship is perpetual. The Church is, as they say, it is not anacephalic [sic]. It does not lack a head. It’s not like a chicken that, after Vatican II, its head was lopped off and it’s running around amok. Now, there might be some things running around amok, but it’s not the Church. It’s the members of the Church.”
We are all in agreement that “it’s not the Church” that is “running around amok”, but Fr Ripperger is mistaken to attribute the post-Vatican II chaos to just “members of the Church.” The chaos is directly attributable to a) what the supposed popes and hierarchy have done (namely, impose errors and harmful laws); and b) what they have failed to do (namely, teach and govern with authority).
Fr Ripperger continues:
“And what does this all mean? It means that the Church will always have a pope until the last one dies and Christ reassumes the headship. The pestiferous heresy of sedevacantism is a denial of the de fide proposition by the Church that the papacy is the perpetual principle of unity.”
As I have already stated, “sedevacantists” do not deny that the Pope is the “perpetual principle of unity.”
If Fr Ripperger wants to assert that our conclusions entail or imply such a denial, he should make those arguments; but if he could make this case, he would merely prove that it is proximate to heresy, not heresy itself.
In any case, “sedevacantists” are effectively the only ones who recognise this dogma and its implications; indeed, it is one reason for concluding that the post-conciliar claimants have lacked papal authority. By contrast, those who assert the full legitimacy of the post-conciliar claimants, amidst the radical doctrinal disunity of the age, are the ones who are implicitly denying the point in question.
The charge itself
He continues:
“And this is all wrapped up in the Ascension. Why? Because right before the Ascension, this headship is passed on.6 This notion that there isn’t a pope is a novelty.”
Indeed, “the notion that there isn’t a pope” is, in a certain sense, obviously a “novelty”, in that it is a statement of fact pertaining to our contemporary situation.
“It has never, in the entire history of the Church, ever been proposed that you could go an extended period of time without a pope. In the early Church, novelty was another name for heresy.”
The use of the word “heresy” in the early Church was very broad, and to use it in an anachronistic sense – as he states he is doing – is a rhetorical attack, which cannot help but mislead. As we have already seen, an accusation of heresy is a much graver affair than one of murder, sodomy, fraud, and other crimes which we would shrink to impute to others without serious grounds.
This is even more evident when we consider that Fr Ripperger bases his claims on false premises – that an extended vacancy is impossible, and has never been countenanced “in the entire history of the Church”.
Extended vacancy
The Church can indeed suffer interregna, because the perpetuity of successors is a moral and juridical continuity, rather than a physical continuity like that of the English Monarchy (in which the designated heir becomes the monarch ipso facto upon the death of the previous).
Fr Ripperger’s words appear to assert such a physical continuity, which is incorrect. On the contrary, the perpetuity in question does not entail there always, at every moment, being a living Pope, as Fr Ripperger surely knows. Rather, it consists in the perpetuity of the Roman See and a series of successors, even if the election and accession of a successor is delayed by extrinsic causes.7 Further, this perpetuity is not even jeopardised by doubtful or even illegitimate claimants occupying the See.8
There is an equivocation over the phrase “could go an extended period of time without a Pope.” That this could happen as a matter of indifference, I deny; that it could happen as a matter of fact, with the dire consequences which characterise our time, I concede.
It is also mistaken to suggest that “It has never, in the entire history of the Church, ever been proposed that you could go an extended period of time without a pope.”
Theologians on the duration of a vacancy
First, theologians have indeed proposed that the Church could suffer an extended period of vacancy. For example, Cardinal Billot wrote:
“By all means God can permit that at some time or other the vacancy of the see be extended for a considerable time.”9
Following Billot, Fr E. Sylvester Berry wrote:
“In place of this supreme authority, the Church has the right and the duty of selecting someone upon whom Christ will again bestow it. It is evident, then, that the Apostolic succession cannot fail in the Apostolic See so long as the Church herself continues to exist, for although the see be vacant for many years, the Church always retains the right to elect a legitimate successor, who then obtains supreme authority according to the institution of Christ.”10
The theologian Fr Palmieri answers the following objection:
“Objection 2°. Even when the Roman Pontiff is lacking for several years, the Church remains one and the same as before.”11
After addressing the various points, he presents his summary conclusion without at all disputing the possibility of the extended vacancy:
“Therefore, if it is said that, when the Roman Pontiff is lacking, the Church still remains the same and one, I distinguish: completely, I deny; incompletely, and in such a way that it is still one because of its subordination to the power of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, so that he by his authority is in the Church the efficient principle of unity, I concede.”12
The theologian Fr Raphael Cercia SJ addresses another objection against the dogma of Peter’s “perpetual successors”:
“Objection III. Yet in the series, there occur not so much doubtful pontiffs, but rather frequent interruptions, on account of the see being vacant for a long time. Therefore, etc.”13
Cercia answers:
“Resp. I distinguish the antecedent. Frequent interruptions occur which have the true character of an interruption of the series: I deny; which were a simpler, shorter or longer vacancy of the Roman see: I concede.
“For Christ promised the perpetuity of the succession in such a way as to show that He would efficaciously prevent all things that could indeed truly interrupt the series of the succession — but not, upon inspecting everything, that which would merely delay the institution of a successor. Therefore nothing can be concluded in itself from a vacancy of the see, however long, until it be proved that that vacancy had the characteristics of a true interruption.”14
If Fr Ripperger wishes to assert that our conclusions represent “a true interruption”, then he may present his arguments: but as it stands, his claim that an extended vacancy is a heresy is incorrect.
Fr Straub also makes the following points:
“Assuredly, the visibility of the Church requires that its head be visible per se; and it is not incompatible with this that the head should, per accidens, not be seen for some time when disturbances have been stirred up.
“And indeed, the see of the primacy can be doubtfully occupied for years, no less than it can be plainly vacant.
“Nor should any other measure rightly be assigned to the duration of such a doubt – or equally of such a vacancy – than one which, if exceeded, would mean that the at least morally perpetual continuation of the primacy of Peter, or of the exercise of the primacy necessary for the preservation of the Church, would be at an end […]”15
Dom Prosper Guéranger also mentioned the possibility of an extended vacancy:
“A Decius may succeed in causing a four years’ vacancy in the See of Rome; anti-popes may arise, supported by popular favour, or upheld by the policy of Emperors; a long schism may render it difficult to know the real Pontiff amidst the several who claim it: the Holy Spirit will allow the trial to have its course, and, whilst it lasts, will keep up the faith of his children; the day will come when he will declare the lawful Pastor of the flock, and the whole Church will enthusiastically acknowledge him as such.”16
In another work, on the Apocalypse, Fr Berry also suggests that the final days will include an extended vacancy:
“It is now the hour of the powers of darkness. The new-born Son of the Church is ‘taken to God and His throne.’ Scarcely has the newly elected Pope been enthroned when he is snatched away by martyrdom.
“The ‘mystery of iniquity’ gradually developing through the centuries, cannot be fully consummated while the power of the Papacy endures, but now he that ‘withholdeth is taken out of the way.’ During the interregnum ‘that wicked one shall be revealed’ in his fury against the Church.”17
He continues:
“It is a matter of history that the most disastrous periods for the Church were times when the Papal throne was vacant, or when anti-popes contended with the legitimate head of the Church. Thus also shall it be in those evil days to come.
“The Church deprived of her chief pastor must seek sanctuary in solitude there to be guided by God Himself during those trying days.”18
He adds further down:
“Antichrist and his prophet will introduce ceremonies to imitate the Sacraments of the Church. In fact there will be a complete organization — a church of Satan set up in opposition to the Church of Christ. Satan will assume the part of God the Father; Antichrist will be honored as Savior, and his prophet will usurp the role of Pope.”19
Fr Herman Bernard Kramer, in his work on the Apocalypse, also held that this section referred to a papal election conducted under great pressure – and he adds:
“This would suppose an extremely hostile mind in the governments of Europe towards the Church and would cause intense anguish to the Church, because an extended interregnum in the papacy is always disastrous and more so in a time of universal persecution. If Satan would contrive to hinder a papal election, the Church would suffer great travail.”20
At another point in the same work, Fr Kramer writes:
“Satan knows how extensively an interregnum in the papacy would favor his success in recovering his ancient lordship over the world. (See 2 Thess II. 7).”21
In short, Fr Ripperger’s claim that “sedevacantists” are heretics, because “never, in the entire history of the Church, ever been proposed that you could go an extended period of time without a pope”, is demonstrably incorrect.
Vacancies in history
In addition to theologians expressly recognising the possibility of an extended vacancy, there have actually been such periods in history. My colleague Matthew McCusker summarised the matter as follows:
“The longest vacancy in history, prior to the present period, probably lasted for more than three years. The second longest was two years and fourth months.
“The first followed the death of Pope Clement IV in November 1268. The cause of this extended vacancy was disagreement between the cardinals, particularly between French and non-French cardinals, and was related to political and military conflict between European powers.
“It was two years and nine months until the Archdeacon of Liege, Teobaldi Visconti, was elected on September 1, 1271. It was still longer until he received news of his election and accepted the office. As far as we can ascertain from the historical record, he did not publicly accept the office until he had met with the College of Cardinals at some point in February 1272. Therefore, the See should probably be considered vacant during those five months also. He was finally consecrated a bishop and crowned as Pope Gregory X on March 12, 1272.
“A vacancy of similar length lasted between July 4, 1415 and November 11, 1417, between the resignation of the Roman and Pisan claimants to the papacy and the election of Pope Martin V. These resignations, and the consequent election, more or less resolved the Great Western Schism.”22
These vacancies have not been as long as ours, but that is not the point. Fr Ripperger is asserting that there cannot be any kind of extended vacancy, and this is disproved by the facts. There seems to be no basis in divine revelation, the teaching of the Church, or the approved Fathers, Doctors and theologians, for putting a specific time limit on how long a vacancy could last – and the burden of proof is on the one attempting to assert such a limit.
To summarise the overall point, the nineteenth century theologian Fr Edmund O’Reilly SJ, Professor of Theology and described as “one of the first theologians of the day” and a “great authority” by John Henry Cardinal Newman,23 wrote the following:
“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be.
“Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning.
“We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever.
“All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”24
Conclusion
All in all, we have seen that Fr Ripperger:
Correctly notes that the Popes are the “perpetual principle of unity” – and yet in alleging that Paul VI and his successors are the Popes, implicitly treats the Papacy as an inefficient cause of unity, which has been unable to secure any kind of unity of faith or charity over the last sixty years.
Implies that Our Lord will not return until the moment of the last pope’s death, whereas this is far from clear. In fact, he appears to argue in a circle, implicitly supporting the claim that an extended vacancy is impossible by his idea of Our Lord’s return, and in turn supporting this idea by the impossibility of an extended vacancy.
Accuses “sedevacantists” of “pestiferous heresy” by denying the truth that the papacy is the perpetual principle of unity, whereas they acknowledge both the dogma and its implications – whereas these are flagrantly ignored and denied by those who insist that Paul VI and his successors have been true Popes over a period of profound doctrinal disunity.
Attributes the chaos of the post-conciliar epoch to “members of the Church”, whereas it was caused principally by those who apparently held the supreme authority, and in their apparently authoritative acts.
Asserts that the possibility of an extended vacancy has never been proposed in the history of the Church, and is thus a novelty and therefore, in a confessedly rhetorical flourish, a heresy – whereas theologians and history demonstrate that an extended vacancy is in fact possible.
As I have stated several times, the charge of heresy – even if merely rhetorical – is the most serious of all these points. And yet, in spite of its gravity, Fr Ripperger does not substantiate his charge of heresy. As such, his characterisation of “sedevacantism” as a “pestiferous heresy” is unjustified, as well as unjust.
To close, let us recall the Holy Office’s prohibition, issued under Innocent XI in 1679:
“Finally, in order that the doctors or scholastics and all others may refrain from injurious disputes in the future and that peace and charity may be served, the same most holy pontiff orders them, in virtue of holy obedience, that both in books to be printed and in manuscripts and also in theses, disputations, and sermons, to guard against any censure and any reproach, as well as all invectives against those propositions which up till now still continue to be debated among Catholics, until the Holy See, after examining the matter, renders a judgment on these same propositions.”25
To my knowledge, the closest thing to a “censure” which the post-conciliar Vatican has issued against “sedevacantists” is that of “mushrooms”.26
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Read Next:
Follow us elsewhere:
Twitter (The WM Review)
St Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life, p. 149. Ratisbon, F Pestet & Co. (No year provided).
Ibid., p. 152.
F.W. Faber, The Precious Blood, Thomas Richardson and Son, London, 1860, pp. 314-6. Available at: https://archive.org/details/ThePreciousBlood
Summa Theologica II-II, Q10, A3.
Ibid., Q13, A3.
We note that immediately before the section under consideration, Fr Ripperger wrote the following:
“But before Christ ascended, he passed his visible headship. Christ is the head of the Church. This the Church teaches us, and it is very clear.
“But he passes the visible headship to Peter and to the Apostles. And he does this by commissioning them to baptise all nations, and by giving them the power to throw out or cast out demons, and things of this sort.
“So that there is actually… this is the moment in which, right before his Ascension, he actually gives jurisdiction to Peter and the Apostles to govern the Church.
“This will last until he returns, because the visible headship is passed from Christ to the Apostles. This visible headship remains in perpetuity.”
As such, Fr Ripperger twice states in this sermon that the “headship is passed on” right before the Ascension.
For the sake of completeness, let us consider an objection to this, even though it appears resolvable in Fr Ripperger’s favour.
One might object by stating that, for at least some time, St Peter was the Supreme Pontiff while Our Lord was still on earth. After all, Our Lord bestowed the primacy on him by the Lake of Galilee (John 21). Vatican I teaches:
“And after his Resurrection, Jesus conferred upon Simon Peter alone the jurisdiction of supreme shepherd and ruler over his whole flock with the words: ‘Feed my lambs.... Feed my sheep. [Jn 21:15-17].’
Thus, the bestowal of the primacy took place in Galilee, whereas the event “right before the Ascension” to which Fr Ripperger was referring took place in Jerusalem.
However, it appears that Fr Ripperger intends to distinguish the “visible headship” from the primacy, in the sense that Our Lord’s own headship was definitively “invisible” after the Ascension. As such, it does not seem useful to object to Fr Ripperger’s point about timing – although it does seem indirectly related to his mistaken idea that that an extended vacancy is impossible, and that Our Lord will return at the death of the last Pope.
However, as the passage from Vatican I indicates, St Peter is the visible head of the Church; and he is the visible head because of the primacy. This primacy was not bestowed upon Peter and the Apostles, but on “Simon Peter alone.”
And as Pope Pius XII wrote in Mystici Corporis Christi:
40. But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. You know, Venerable Brethren, that after He had ruled the “little flock” Himself during His mortal pilgrimage, Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ’s Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into Heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same.
41. They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.
Unam Sanctam itself states:
This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep‘ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter].
While an ecumenical council subject to the pope may exercise the supreme authority of the Church, its power is understood as being derived from the Roman Pontiff. In short, St Peter, and not St Peter and the Apostles, is the visible head of the Church.
Cf. the text by Fr Cercia, below.
Fr René Goupil writes:
“Let us not forget that this formal and uninterrupted succession should be understood morally, and such is of the very nature of things where there is a succession of persons who are elected, as Christ wished and which has been practiced since times of ancient Christianity. This perpetuity does not require that there be no lapse of time between the death of a predecessor and the election of a successor; nor that in a series of such pastors there never be one who is dubious; but one understands by this a succession of legitimate pastors, such that the pastoral See, even when vacant, even when occupied by someone whose title is dubious, cannot really be thought to have ceased to exist.
“This is to say that the government of the predecessors virtually perseveres in the law of the See which remains always in force and always recognized; and that it will also always persevere in its solicitude for electing a successor.” (Cf. Antoine, De Eccl.) [Emphasis added.]
Cardinal Billot writes:
“When one says that this succession has always lasted without ever being interrupted, one does not mean that no interval of time elapsed between the death of a pope and the election of his successor, nor that there is absolutely none in the whole genealogy whose legitimacy would be doubtful. One means that the pastors succeeded one another in such a way that their see never ceased to be occupied, even when it was vacant or when its incumbent was doubtful.
“In this way, the preceding government continued to exercise itself virtually through the rights of this see, which always remained in force and were always recognised, and the concern was always maintained to designate a successor with all certainty. It is in this sense that the succession was not interrupted: on condition of denying the interruption insofar as it is compatible with the material subject of the succession, and corresponds to a human mode of succession, in a government where the subject of the power is designated by an election, as Christ willed when He instituted His Church.”
Auguste-Alexis Goupil, L’Église, 5th ed. (Laval, 1946), 48–49 – taken from Fr Nicolás E. Despósito ICR, The Apostolicity of the Church and the Cassiciacum Thesis, p. 11. 2026.
Louis Cardinal Billot S.J, Tractatus De Ecclesia Christi, Vol. I, p. 260, fn. 2. Third Edition, Prati: ex officina libraria Giachetti, 1909. Translation: https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/.
Billot, p. 621. Translation: https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/.
Rev E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, p. 227. Mount St Mary’s Seminary, 1955, published now by Wipf and Stock Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2009.
Fr Domenico Palmieri SJ, Tractatus de Romano Pontifice: cum prolegomeno de ecclesia, p. 520. Prati, Ex Officina Libraria Giachetti, Filii et Soc., 1891.
Ibid., p. 523.
Fr Raphael Cercia SJ, De Ecclesia Vera Christi et de Romano Pontifice, p. 351. Volumen I, Tractatum Complectens de Ecclesia Christi, Editio Tertia, Danis, Neapoli, MDCCCLVIII.
Ibid.
The Latin:
“Nimirum visibilitas ecclesiae postulat, ut caput visibile per se sit; cui non repugnat caput per accidens excitatis turbis aliquamdiu non videri. Et revera sedes primatus non minus dubie occupari quam plane vacare etiam per annos potest. Neque mensura alia tempori talis dubitationis pariter ac vacationis recte assignetur quam qua superata de continuatione saltem moraliter perpetua primatus Petri vel exercitii primatus necessarii ecclesiae conservandae actum esset […]
Antonius Straub, De Ecclesia Christi, Volumen I, footnote on pp. 489–90. Oeniponte, Typis et sumptibus Feliciani Rauch (L. Pustet), 1912.
Straub immediately continues in the same place:
“[…] id quod eveniret, si decedentibus hominibus successorem Petri electuris vel episcopis jurisdictione praeditis alii satis efficaciter a pontifice summo, utpote parum comperto, constitui non possent. Certe in his angustiis ex promissione sua Dominus remedium afferret, non quidem permittendo, ut ecclesia pontificem dubium, quamvis canonice positum nec sponte renuntiantem, tamquam nullum desereret, sed potius efficiendo, ut rei veritate tandem explorata eum legitimum studio debito sequeretur.”
In English:
“This would come about if, as the men who were to elect the successor of Peter died off, or as bishops endowed with jurisdiction died off, others could not be effectively constituted by the Supreme Pontiff, inasmuch as he was too little ascertained. Certainly in these straits the Lord would, by His promise, bring a remedy – not indeed by permitting the Church to abandon a doubtful pontiff, canonically established and not voluntarily renouncing [his office], as though he were no pontiff at all; but rather by bringing it about that, the truth of the matter having at last been ascertained, the Church would follow him as the legitimate pontiff with due devotion.”
If we were to follow Straub’s opinions on this matter, it would appear that the difficulties are answered by either a) the continuity of bishops with jurisdiction, which we assert must be the case; or b) the Thesis of Cassiciacum and its understanding of the Novus Ordo Cardinals; or c) both.
Dom Prosper Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, Vol 9 (Paschal Time – Book III), St Bonaventure Publications, Great Falls, Montana, 2000. Thursday after Whitsun, p. 385.
Fr E. Sylvester Berry, The Apocalypse of St John, p. 124. 1st ed., John W. Winterich, The Catholic Church Supply House, Columbus, Ohio, 1921.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 138.
Fr Bernard Kramer, The Book of Destiny, p. 278. TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., Rockford, Illinois, 1975.
Ibid., p. 279.
John Henry Newman, Letter to the Duke of Norfolk, 1875, p. 338. Published in Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching Considered, Vol. II. Longmans, Green, and Co., London, 1900. Available at https://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section9.html
Rev. Edmund James O’Reilly S.J., The Relations of the Church to Society: Theological Essays, pp. 287-8. J. Hodges, London, 1878.
Denzinger-Hünnermann, n. 2167.
“There are good people who don’t agree with each other.” A different thing are “all these ‘mushrooms’ that have sprung up now, these sedevacantists, who look for any little thing to interpret in their own way. They are not bad people, they are sad people. With a sadness of heart, I feel sorry for them”.
Words of ‘Pope’ Francis as reported by Religion Digital, Mar. 13, 2024; translation taken from Novus Ordo Watch, made via DeepL. Available at : https://novusordowatch.org/2024/03/francis-feels-sorry-for-sede-mushrooms/
See also:
It is a pity how many faithful will be deceived by this. Father already caused a lot of damage With his talks about exorcisms. You are Not supposed to talk about that in public, that should be a no brainer.
I’ve always been wary of celebrity exorcists (Ripperger, Amorth, et al). Somehow it seems incongruous with preconciliar practices (hidden, discreet, etc.).
Ps: Notice the majority are bald (Amorth, Ripperger, Lampert, Rossetti, Martins, Farao, et al). As though trying to convey some kind of image?