A Catholic Refutation of “Mere Sedevacantism” or Acephalism

The following statement, which I have pruned and streamlined, and which I will here attribute to an XYZ, was made in response to my charge against the Sedevacantist Club of being Acephalist and anti-Catholic, opposed to the restoration of the Papacy and dedicated to frustrating the Catholic Restoration; XYZ attempts to defend the Sedevacantists against these charges, and prescribes what he believes is the correct (read "Sedevacantist") method of solving the problem as against the alleged "Conclavist solution" (Conclavism is a false name, one that I reject). My response to XYZ is given below.

XYZ wrote: I think Lucio is trying to make the point that he… thinks that Sedevacantists, versus Conclavists, are inconsistent because while like Conclavists they recognize a claimant to the papacy to be fraudulent they unlike Conclavists fail to act by electing a new pope.

In the case of religious Indifferentism, such individuals are merely acting cowardly out of respect for man, or else are ignorant of the great moral and objective evil that heresy is and the failure to respond to it accordingly or in an appropriate way that acts on said comprehension.

In the case of Sedevacantists, supposing Conclavism were right in the manner they prescribe, they merely aren't working towards a logical solution to a real problem.

For Conclavism to be done properly, the whole Church would have to elect a pope or accept said election on at least a moral unanimity.

Before this, a more appropriate re-action towards a logical solution based on a recognition of the real problem would be to confront all the legitimate Catholic clergy, at least those of note (e.g. all the Pius XII bishops) with the relevant information.

After this, depending on whether they confirm themselves to be of bad faith (by showing a refusal to accept the facts), in which case the laity of good faith are all to be sought out and invited together to choose a candidate and agree upon him for election, or in the case some of the P XII bishops show themselves to be of good faith, they are to be left with the duties of agreeing on a papal candidate and elect him with the moral unanimity of the faithful.

But the standards set forth from history, history and epikeia being the foundations the Sedevacantists form their argument from, seem higher and stronger and more consistent than the standards of the Conclavists. So, if anything, Sedevacantists are consistent while Conclavists aren't.

And as for the Sedevacantist solution, there are Sedevacantists working towards this practical solution: Confronting Pius XII bishops, drawing the true faithful together in mind and spirit, etc.

XYZ

Response by Lucio Mascarenhas:

I can understand where XYZ comes from, although his ideas are false. When I began to reject the Bogusordian religion, I too flayed around trying to understand things and had erred in several things. It is only study, experience of debates, and the development of logic to conform to the ideas taught by the Church that made me see the errors of my ways and to correct them.

Thus, I had originally believed that the best way to obtain a true Catholic pope was an Acephalous Council, composed of remnant bishops, including those men who had obtained Episcopal orders in what I now unequivocally recognize as having been unacceptable and illegal conditions, under the pretense of “Epikeia” or Equity as it is called in Civil Law.

Later on, I realized that men who obtained orders guerrilla like, however sincere they may be, while they certainly possessed a valid Episcopal character, they were NOT Catholic bishops, but remained laymen; that all bishops who have even tacitly approved the Modernist Apostasy, by continuing to participate in or otherwise approve and implement the Accursed Robber Council “Vatican II” had lost all title to the name of Catholic, and could not claim to be Catholic bishops but if they were reconciled, their legal standing could only be that of laymen; and that Canon Law in response to the Conciliarist heresy that was represented by the “Councils” of Pisa, Constance, Basel-Lausanne, had thenceforth excluded Councils from electing Popes, by having them automatically suspended on the death of the reigning Pope until reconvened by the next Pope.

The basic principle of Sedevacantism is flawed, which is why I was never one for even a day; I went from questioning the Vatican II apostasy straight on to “Orthopapism” (belief in the existence of a true Catholic pope) or what some others call “Conclavism” which I consider an imprecise term.

Sedevacantism is merely a negative assertion; it denies to a fraud the title of being genuine. But a mere negation cannot of itself suffice. If I know that X is not pope, my next question is: So WHO is then the true Pope, and if there isn’t anyone, HOW can we obtain a new Catholic pope?

The Church is the Army of God and as an army it needs its Generalissimo, appointed by God and through whom God works and commands and guides us in battle.

The Church needs its Pope more than individual souls need or have a right to the Sacraments (Dying without the sacraments will not bring the sincere soul to eternal damnation).

While the “Indifferentists” are motivated by a “cowardly fear of human respect” the Sedevacantists too are motivated by exactly the same – a cowardly, or even worse, a traitorous attitude of human respect or of kowtowing to the ungodly world – which is why they refuse to work for the election of a Pope; they are motivated by a cowardly fear or even traitorous attitude of human respect for the opinion and pretended “scandal” of unbelievers, of an unbelieving world (But when one considers oneself bound by the opinions of an unbelieving world, one confesses oneself a part of a communion with them, which means that they are NOT of the Communion of Jesus Christ).

Sedevacantism is supposedly premised on the rejection of the Bogusordian Antipopes. But that is only one half of the story. There is a second, un-enunciated principle of Sedevacantism and that it refuses to proceed to the next logical task, which is to obtain for the Church a true Catholic Pope.

I and many others have been troubled by the nature and relationship between the Catholic Resistance to Modernism AND the Traditionalist movement. We have tried to agree with the latter’s pretension to be the former, but we have also been forced to recognize and acknowledge the basic and fundamental antipathy between the two positions. Considered carefully, it quickly becomes evident that true Traditionalism exists solely to frustrate the Catholic Resistance. Whereas Catholicism acknowledges that the Bogusordian “popes” aren’t Catholic and not true Popes, it does not stop there, as Traditionalists do, but goes on to see how a true Catholic Pope may be obtained, and then works on that program.

You (XYZ) wrote: “for Conclavism to be done properly, the whole Church would have to elect a pope…” or… “accept said election on at least a moral unanimity”

This is a false claim. The election of the Pope was never an exercise in Democracy. The elections are merely a form of Divine Lottery, where the Holy Ghost uses the hearts and minds of the Electors to designate the next true successor of St. Peter.

You (XYZ) wrote: “for Conclavism to be done properly, the whole Church would have to …accept said election on at least a moral unanimity”

Again a false claim. Catholicism has always defined that acceptance of the election is not a condition for its validity. What is valid is valid for its own reasons. Canon law is quite clear on this subject.

You (XYZ) also wrote: “Before this, a more appropriate re-action towards a logical solution based on recognition of the real problem would be to confront all the legitimate Catholic clergy, at least those of note (e.g. all the Pius XII bishops) with the relevant information. After this, depending on whether they confirm themselves to be of bad faith (by showing a refusal to accept the facts), in which case the laity of good faith are all to be sought out and invited together to choose a candidate and agree upon him for election, or in the case some of the P XII bishops show themselves to be of good faith, they are to be left with the duties of agreeing on a papal candidate and elect him with the moral unanimity of the faithful. But the standards set forth from history, history and epikeia being the foundations the Conclavists form their argument from, seem higher and stronger and more consistent than the standards of the Conclavists. So, if anything, Sedevacantists are consistent while the conclave group isn't. And there are Sedevacantists working towards that practical solution (confronting Pius XII bishops, drawing the true faithful together in mind and spirit, etc.)”

Again, these are false principles. There are no legitimate Catholic bishops left, and none are left over from Pope Pius XII. Catholics are not obliged to any of these apostates. The very suggestion is laughable and demonstrates a total ignorance of Catholic thought, and does not merit an in-depth refutation. Suffice it to say that the Church has always taught that when men fall away, they are no longer members of the Catholic Church. Pope Paul IV’s law continues in application.

Both Pope Paul IV’s law, and the Code of Canon Law clearly states that those who have fallen away do not automatically regain office by converting back to Christianity; they have the status of mere laymen, and only a Pope can dispense this law and appoint them to church offices which they had lost.

The election of Pope Michael I is legal and binding. It is not negotiable. It is the action of the Holy Ghost. Those who reject the legitimacy of H.H. Pope Michael I do not reject “David Bawden,” instead they willfully commit the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

I have already defined what this crime constitutes in the Catholic Controversies group.

I repeat: The validity of Pope Michael is from God Himself, and is not negotiable. Those who willfully reject, are guilty of blasphemy against God. Those who work, or pretend to work for an alternative commit a grave crime against God, and their work is damnable and in vain, an affront to God.


Lucio Mascarenhas