A Treatise Against the Notion that the See of Peter is Vacant

By Frankie Logue

Pope John XXII [not Pope Bl. John XXIII, the recent one] was a widely acknowledged
heretic; he preached that the souls of the saints do not enjoy the Beatific Vision prior
to the general judgement.

This was not a defined dogma at the time, granted, but it was part of the Church's
Tradition (such as the Immaculate Conception and the Glorious Assumption of the
BVM were before they were defined), and Pope John XXII was therefore considered
to be a heretic by many. I believe he recanted before his death.

Now, the main argument advanced by those who believe that the See of Peter is
vacant is that a Pope loses his office when he falls into heresy or apostasy. We find
no reason to suggest that anybody thought that Pope John XXII was not the Pope,
and, were he not to be, then it would be fitting to suggest that St Thomas Aquinas
was not validly canonised, for it was Pope John XXII who canonised him!

Let us next examine Pope St Marcellinus. Before he returned to the faith and was
martyred for Christ, he was called upon to sacrifice by the Romans, and thence
offered incense to idols. This constitutes a public and material apostasy, which is
graver than heresy. However, we also find nobody proclaiming that this saint ever
lost his Papal office.

One must remember Pope Adrian VI, when he said, "If by the Roman Church you
mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters
touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or
decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope
John XXII". This means that Popes can err in decrees that are not touched with the
mark of infallibility; since sedevacantists would argue that the documents of the
Second Vatican Council, and since we know that Pope Bl. Paul VI intentionally
refrained from invoking infallibility and thus the extraordinary magisterium, we can
know that the Popes and bishops that promulgated such documents, even if they
were heretical, would not lose their office as a result.

Those who adhere to the notion that the Apostolic See is vacant often base their
arguments off of the papal bull of Pope Paul IV known as Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio,
which bars heretics, apostates and non-Catholics from becoming Pope. It's
entertaining to note that this bull says that those who fall into heresy lose their
office - but exclusively chooses not to mention the office of the Papacy in that list of
offices that are lost when one falls into heresy.

This bull does, however, state that those who have fallen into heresy prior to their
elevation to the Papacy are not valid Popes. This then shifts the argument to the
Second Vatican Council and whether one believes that those who accept it are public
and manifest heretics, and onto the Council in general. I personally believe that the
Second Vatican Council strays into heterodoxy as it pertains to collegiality and
religious freedom, as well as a few other dubious statements, but I would never go
so far as to say heresy. But let us, for a minute, assume that those who do accept the
Second Vatican Council are heretics. One who is heretical on the internal forum may
still be a member of the Body of the Church in the external forum. But to examine
this thought, we must first discuss heresy itself:

The matter of heresy is any belief contrary to a defined dogma. This may be
intentional or innocent. The form of heresy is in the will; should one unknowingly or
innocently reject it, one becomes an informal, or material heretic. When one wilfully
doubts or rejects any area of Catholic dogma, one becomes a formal heretic, in the
internal realm, that is, the realm of conscience - they are thus cut off from the Soul of
the Church, but not the Body. To quote Fr. Francisco Suárez, a great 17th century
Jesuit theologian, "The Pope heretic is not a member of the Church as far as the
substance and form [soul] which constitute the members of the Church; but he is the
head as far as the charge and action". What is the difference between the Body and
the Soul of the Church, you may ask? Well, to quote from the Catechism of Pope St
Pius X:

"The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is,
faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the
heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ,
and of the Saints."

"The Body of the Church consists in her external and visible aspect, that is, in the
association of her members, in her worship, in her teaching-power and in her
external rule and government."

One is perfectly united to the Soul of the Church when one possesses the three
theological virtues, that is, faith, hope and charity, and is therefore living in a state of
supernatural grace. One is imperfectly united when one has the theological virtues
of faith (or both faith and hope) but is in a state of mortal sin i.e. lacks the virtue of
charity. Perfect union with the Soul of the Church is absolutely necessary for
salvation.

One is perfectly united to the Body of the Church when one is a formal member of
the Church, and in visible communion with her Bishops. One is imperfectly united to
the Body of the Church when one is united to the Body of the Church in voto (in
desire) but not in re (in reality). Examples would include catechumens. Perfect
union with the Body of the Church is not strictly necessary for salvation, provided
that the catechumen made a perfect Act of Contrition and therefore achieved the
state of grace before death.

Now, to quote St Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, "Just as mortal sin is
contrary to charity, so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith". Thus, we
can conclude that those who stray into heresy have fallen out of union with the Soul
of the Church, since they lack the theological virtue of faith.

It is only heresy in the external forum that cuts one off from the Church. How is this
so, since it is only something that separates one from the Soul of the Church, you
ask? Well, heresy in the external form is when such heresy is declared to be so by the
proper authorities or by the individual himself.
Well, we know that the Pope has no juridical superior on Earth, for Cum Ex
Apostolatus Officio itself even says that the Pope "can be judged by none in this
world". Does, then, the Pope publicly and manifestly declare his heresy? Well,
according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law, accepted by Sedevacantists, one who is
suspected of heresy is given six months before becoming a heretic, and is even then
only subject to penalties from a superior (of whom the Pope has none), and are not
automatic.

Let us, for the sake of sympathy, go with the arguments that sedevacantists draw
from St Robert Bellarmine, who agrees with the theological opinion that a heretical
Pope automatically loses his office ipso facto. Well, the same great Saint and Doctor
of the Church requires two warnings for a heretic to be manifestly obstinate, and the
great 19th century Italian theologian Fr. Pietro Ballerini agrees, saying that a Pope,
according to the precept of St Paul himself, is deposed after a warning from
"Cardinals, by the Roman Clergy or even by the Synod". This has not so far
happened, let alone twice.

Fr. Suárez, the same theologian mentioned above, noted that "in no case, even that of
heresy, is the Pontiff deprived of his dignity and of his power immediately by God
himself, before the judgment and sentence of men. This is the common opinion
today". The Pope has not been judged, nor sentenced, by men, and therefore not by
God. His Reverence elaborates:

"[I]f the external but occult heretic can still remain the true Pope, with equal right he
can continue to be so in the event that the offence became known, as long as
sentence were not passed on him. And this for two reasons: because no one suffers a
penalty if it is not “ipso facto” or by sentence, and because in this way would arise
even greater evils. In effect, there would arise doubt about the degree of infamy
necessary for him to lose his charge; there would rise schisms because of this, and
everything would become uncertain, above all if, after being known as a heretic, the
Pope should have maintained himself in possession of his charge by force or by
other"

Now, to conclude, it is clear to me that the Popes succeeding Pope Pius XII have
indeed held the Office of the Blessed Apostle St Peter, and have all been the Supreme
Roman Pontiff, for many aforementioned reasons. I therefore beseech
sedevacantists, that they would return to communion with Rome, and to remain
with that Church, who art the Bride of Christ and the Ark of Salvation, unto ages of
ages.

On the following page, I’ve included a prayer for Christian unity, which can converge
in the See of Peter alone.
O God, who in instituting the Sacred Office of the Papacy,
didst deign to grant us unworthy sinners a source of
sacerdotal and visible unity, grant that we, who are so
scattered by confusions that have plagued the Church as of
late, may come to converge in the unity of Peter, and share
in but one Eucharist. I ask this through Jesus Christ, Thy
Son Our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity
of the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. Amen.

Sancte Petre, ora pro nobis!

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelo et ora pro nobis!
Omnes sanctos, orate pro nobis ad Dominum, Deum nostrum!