THE
SOCIETY OF PIUS X, A FALSE SOLUTION TO A REAL PROBLEM
Rama P. Coomaraswamy,
M.D.
A Recent publication of the Angelus Press claims to demonstrate that Sedevacantism is a false solution to the crisis in the
Church, and that the only truly Catholic position is that of the Society of
Pius X. They do this by falsifying the Sedevacantist
position and by refusing to recognize the theological errors and cultic
practices of their own organization.
1. Throughout the text the author repeatedly and persistently claims to
base his position on prudence, the assumption being that Sedevacantists
lack this moral virtue. Let us be clear about the definition of Prudence.
According to Prummer, “St Thomas and Aristotle define
prudence as correct knowledge concerning things to be done… or the intellectual
virtue whereby man recognizes in any matter to hand what is good and what is
evil… the acts of prudence are three in
number: to take counsel carefully, to judge correctly, and to direct.”
One can certainly question to what degree Fr. Simoulin
has fulfilled these criteria.
2. The author categorizes sedevacantists as either “Rigerous, “Conclavist” or followers of the Cassiciacum thesis. Let us first of all consider the latter, which can be superficially characterized as holding that we have a pope who has no authority, but whose authority would return if he returned to the faith. Now while this latter position is advocated by some highly intelligent individuals – Guerard des Lauriers, Bishop McKenna, Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Racossa, to name those who write in its defence, the fact remains that the average Catholic sedevacantist neither understands this thesis nor believes in it. If one were to go to a sedevacantist parish and ask those attending what the Cassiciacum thesis was, they would not know what you were talking about. Les than 1% of traditional Catholics would fall within this category.[1]
2. While it is true that there are a moderate number of “conclavists” and a plethora of “popes,” either self elected or followed by
relatively small groups of people, the fact remains that the sedevacantist position is in no way tied to such groups.
Let it be clear that there is nothing going on in the Churches today that
prevents anyone from being truly Catholic. While it is regrettable that we do
not have a true pope able to direct the activities of the Church, it should be
clear that there is nothing that prevents any Catholic from being Catholic.
Such has always been the case during periods characterized as being
“inter-regnum.” As Catherine Emerick said, if there
is only one Catholic in whom the faith exists, the Church resides in him.
3. To characterize sedevacantists as “Rigerous” is inappropriate as it implicitly suggests that
they are fanatical. Such is far from the case for Sedevacantism
is simply a logical response to the situation one finds in the post-Conciliar
Church today. One can no more speak of a rigorous sedevacantist
than one can speak of a lax or liberal sedevacantist.
4. Two issues which the author raises require clear cut responses. A) the
author holds that the sedevacantist denies the
indefectibility of the Church. This is to put it mildly, nonsense. Anyone who
is not as blind as the proverbial bat can see that “the Pope and the Bishops in
union with him” have defected from the true Church. It follows that both the
“pope” and those that follow him risk the anathemas of Peter and Paul such as
were applied to those who forbade the so-called Tridentine Mass. (St Catherine
of Sienna in regard to a somewhat similar situation bluntly stated the pope
involved and those who followed him would go to hell.) It should be clear –
indeed obvious - that it is not the Church which has defected for such is
impossible. It is the new and post-Conciliar organization which has defected
from the true Church which still continues to exist and against which the Gates
of Hell cannot not prevail. That the
true Church is in a certain sense “underground,” but by no means “invisible” is
a fact of our days. A somewhat parallel situation existed in
5. The author claims that the “Rigorist” sedevacantist
position holds that “the teaching Church no longer exists.” Now in so far as
the sedevacantist holds that the Church continues to
exist, it clearly follows that he holds its teaching function continues to exist.
The Magisterium is not a dead organ once a pope dies – rather it is a live
organ to which the sedevacantist adheres with all his
heart. The sedevacantist does not believe the
ordinary Magisterium can contain error as Michael Davies holds; nor does he believe
that the various statements of the post-Conciliar hierarchy are part of this
Magisterium except by accident when they hold views that are consistent with
what the Church has always taught. I would remind the members of the Society
that Paul VI characterized the documents of Vatican II as “the supreme form of
the ordinary Magisterium” which John PauL II
reiterated by calling it the “highest form of the ordinary Magisterium.”
Vatican I made it quite clear that the ordinary Magisterium was infallible. Moreover
Paul VI told Ardchbishop Lefebvre that he had to give
his “intellectual consent” to everything in the Documents of Vatican II. To
give one’s intellectual assent is to accept them as true –quod
absit.
6. The Society holds that the post-Conciliar “popes” are true popes. If
such is the case, according to Catholic teaching, they should be obeyed. A pope
is “one hierarchical person with our Lord” and when he speaks or acts within
his function, he is to be obeyed. Now quite apart from the fact that Archbishop
Lefebvre et all were excommunicated, the Society does in fact accept all the
new sacraments, the new Code of Canon Law and what it chooses to accept of John
Paul II’s teachings promulgated through the organs of
the ordinary Magisterium. This puts the Society and its members in the position
of “picking and choosing” just what they will and will not accept – a truly
Protestant principle. As such they lead the faithful who turn to them into a
fundamental Protestant faith.
7. The author casts doubts on the validity of the Thuc consecrations on the grounds that he consecrated some individuals who were in one way or another unqualified. Now it is a matter of common sense that Bishops who use their consecratory powers will occasionally consecrate individuals who are unworthy. To imply that they knowingly did so is a calumny. For example, I know that Archbishop Lefebvfre ordained a priest who was homosexual. Is this grounds for casting doubt on all his ordinations? I hardly think so, for the good Archbishop had no way of knowing that the individual involved was homosexual. Indeed this criticism might well apply to the innumerable priests who have left the Society to marry, enter the new church, or become sedevacantists. Many of us have gone through a long history of trying to accommodate to the new Church only in the end to find it is impossible. To criticize those who are at various stages in the process of clarifying their thinking (bringing it into line with the thinking of the Church) is to say the least, unjust if not a calumny.
8. The Society persistently claims that no one can judge the Pope. Now clearly no one can judge another soul, but one can certainly judge the popes actions. Moreover, one has to be blind and deaf not to recognize that the post-Conciliar “popes” have defected from the faith on innumerable occasions – that is to say, embraced and taught heresy. Listen to the words of St. Robert Belarmine: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.” Similarly, St. Francis de Sales teaches that “when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso fact from his dignity and out of the Church…” If the Pope is not a heretic, than why does the Society of Pius X exist? And if they do not think he is a heretic – both material and formal – then I suggest that the members of the Society read a basic text on theology or even the Catechism of the Council of Trent. If however if these “popes” have fulfilled the criteria of St. Belarmine, what other possibility is there than that we are in an inter-regnem and sedevacantism is the only truly Catholic position.
If the Society holds that we cannot judge what is heretical and what is not, what is true and what is false, then the Society holds that we have no responsibility to be Catholic as opposed to any other pseudo-religion.
9. The author makes a plea in favour of Un Cum, that is to say, the appropriateness of listing John Paul II in the Canon of the Mass as a true and Catholic believer. To do so once again confirms our need to obey and follow him without picking and choosing. Traditional priests replace this with the phrase that we are in union with the Apostolic See – with all the true popes going back to Peter, but hardly with self proclaimed heretics.
This does not mean that sedevacantists do not pray for the miserable man who currently sits on the Chair of Peter.
10. Returning to the need for prudential
action, let us once again consider the words from Prummer’s
text on Moral Theology. “St Thomas and Aristotle define prudence as correct
knowledge concerning things to be done… or the intellectual virtue whereby man
recognizes in any matter to hand what is good and what is evil… the acts of
prudence are three in number: to take
counsel carefully, to judge correctly, and to direct.” Given the fact that
there have been innumerable periods in the Church when there was no pope
reigning, and given the fact that the Church continued to exist under such circumstances,
and given the fact that there is no way that the post-Conciliar “popes” can
claim to be “one hierarchical person with our Lord,” and given the fact that
obedience to false popes endangers our salvation, what is the prudential thing
for a Catholic to do? If he is a true pope obey him, if not his commands have
no authority and he is not a true pope.
11. One last comment. One will find an excellent discussion by Father Stepanich, O.F.M., a former professor of theology and a traditional sedevacantist priest on my web page (Coomaraswamy-catholic-writings.com). Those who wish for greater clarification are urged to turn to this source.
12. In conclusion, let us face the reality that to
follow the post-Conciliar “popes” requires that we apostasize
as they have. The choice is clear. Either we obey the post-Conciliar hierarchy
and give up our faith, or we declare that the current pseudo-pope and the
bishops in union with him are themselves not in the true Church. To join one of
the various groups that do declare him to be a true pope whom one need not obey
and to accept highly dubious if not false sacraments is not to remain in the
Catholic Church, but to join a cult the number of which seems to be legion.
ã R Coomaraswamy, 2004
[1] The use of the word “traditional” is without any great accuracy as almost all Catholics claim to be such – indeed, how could one be other than traditional. It is hoped the context will make it clear that we are referring to those who find the new church in some ways unsatisfactory.