(The following is a research paper written for my Foundational Theology course. This course focused on the credibility of the Church amidst descent and disagreement)
There have been numerous reactions to the effects of the Second Vatican Council. Many within the Church have sought answers to concerns raised by the Council in the fringes of the Church. Extreme liberalism and conservatism both react to the post-conciliar changes with a type of correlational criticism of theology. As used by liberal theologians, this criticism calls tradition into doubt due to “contemporary” theological principles, and tries to align the Church’s teachings with modernity by critiquing tradition in order to fit it into the modern world. This translates into a general questioning of anything that may contradict, at face value, modern scientific fact. The same criticism, as used by conservative theologians, approaches questions of tradition in terms of empirical fact. It tries to establish itself within strict confines of expressions of tradition, and critiques the credibility of proper authorities concerning these expressions. Subsequently, if these authorities are found for any reason to be lacking, they are considered at best flawed, and at worst illegitimate. This is seen, then, as an obligation by conservative theologians to deviate from obedience into the realm of traditionalist interpretation.
The focus of this paper will be on the latter example of correlationalism. In particular, it will address the sect that utilizes conservative correlational theology known as “sedevacantism.” This sect seeks to establish an ideological current that they see as consistent with the “True Church” that existed prior to the Second Vatican Council. They express an interest in conveying counter-critical approaches to the present situation of the Church, but in reality, show a deep-seated reliance on personal interpretation. They also have little historical or traditional precedent or justification, and are heavily dependent upon emotional reaction and intellectual dishonesty. It is primarily because of this that the sedevacantist movement is seen by the vast majority of Catholic theologians as based on untenable propositions, and gives reason for their tendency to adopt the post-critical method of theological study.
The term “sedevacantism” comes from two Latin words: “sedes,” meaning chair, and “vacans,” meaning vacant. A movement found among some Catholic traditionalists, it contends that since the death of Pope Pius XII, there have been no legitimate popes to hold the See of Rome. According to this contention, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were not validly elected, and so are termed “anti-popes,” being the leaders of a theologically altered church that espouses heresy and blasphemy. At the outset, one must first be made aware that not all traditionalists who are opposed to the Second Vatican Council are in agreement. They consist of a “segmented network of associations, publishing initiatives, … priories, religious orders and foundations, and chapel and Mass location sites.” Sedevacantist traditionalists tend to have a focus of anti-conciliarism while not necessarily agreeing among themselves on the means by which to answer claims of credibility by the post-conciliar Church. Traditionalist movements at large have been helpful in raising concerns with regard to Church doctrine and discipline that have occurred in the post-conciliar era. This, however, is not the aim of sedevacantism. As Dr. William Dinges, professor of Religion and Culture at the Catholic University of America has noted:
In its most sectarian mode, the traditionalist rejection of the Council is unequivocal: Vatican II was a “false” and “heretical” deliberation, the work of a satanic-driven conspiracy of humanistic, Protestant, liberal, socialist, and Masonic forces that have been working since the French Revolution to “de-Christianize” the West and destroy Catholic civilization. The movement believes that church leaders have promulgated three principle heresies, delegitimizing their claim to authority. The first deals with the Latin phrase “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,” commonly translated “outside the Church there is no salvation.” This phrase, initially proposed by St. Cyprian of Carthage in response to lapsed Christians in his diocese, has come to embody a principle doctrine of Catholic teaching, affirming the necessity of Christ’s mediation by embodying him in the communion of his followers. Alleged proof of the post-conciliar Church’s deviation comes from the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, in paragraph eight: This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity. The word “subsists” becomes an important means of interpreting this statement. They contend that to say the Church of Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church” is to deny the Articles of Faith which state that the Church is “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.” The Decree on Ecumenism is used to strengthen their argument:
…almost everyone, though in different ways, longs for the one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and sent forth to the whole world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God… Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her sons who, though joined to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all its aspects. Sedevacantists argue that it is seemingly preposterous to say the Catholic Church longs for a “truly universal” church because it is the truly universal Church. Further, it cannot be prevented from realizing the “fullness of catholicity proper to her” because she is that fullness. The second alleged heresy proposed by the Council builds on the first. The idea that the Church of Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church” allows for a corrupted form of ecumenical outreach to begin with non-Christians. Rejection of Christ is, therefore, not seen as a rejection of the “One True God,” but rather, simply another avenue in reaching out to Him. They again cite Lumen Gentium for proof:
… the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day. This statement is interpreted to mean that the explicit rejection of the Christian God does not result in rejection of God as such. They reject the claim that Christians, Jews, and Moslems worship the same God, because, as they would contest, to not believe in a Trinitarian God, regardless of ability to know or comprehend this Article of Faith, is to not truly believe in the God of Abraham. Therefore, to say that these other faith groups indeed do worship the same God as Catholics is to undermine the meaning of the Incarnation. The third alleged heresy is that Man has the right to religious freedom, and therefore the right to live out whatever faith he chooses. Seen as a natural conclusion to the first two, this heresy allows every person to worship any god they want in the public arena, promoting theological pluralism. For their proof, sedevacantists tend to go to the Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae:
The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups, and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone, or in associations with others… the right [to religious freedom] continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it. In short, this movement espouses the ideology that, since the post-conciliar Church and popes have promulgated alleged errors and heresies, they do not legitimately hold the magisterial authority of the Church, and therefore, cannot in good conscience be followed or obeyed. According to Rev. Anthony Cekada, a traditionalist priest under the leadership of Bishop Daniel Dolan of the St. Gertrude the Great sedevacantist group in Cincinnati, Ohio, the possibility that a pope can become a heretic and thus loose office is substantial evidence that the current situation of the Church is brought about by a heretical papacy. In his booklet “Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope,” he goes to great lengths to tie the possibility of papal heresy and expulsion with historical documentation: Theologians and canonists such as St. Robert Bellarmine, Cajetan, Suarez, Torquemada, and Werns and Vital maintain, without compromising the doctrine of papal infallibility, that even a pope (as an individual, of course) may himself become a heretic and thus lose the pontificate. Bellarmine’s work De Romano Pontifice is particularly cited for historical backing:
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. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is a teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. Since the Church cannot defect from Truth, it must be seen that “men have defected and lost their offices and authority.” The post-conciliar Church, according to Fr. Cekada, has officially sanctioned error, and so lacks the “real authority” of the indefectible Church. In an appendix to his work, Fr. Cekada uses multiple quotes from theologians and canonists, ranging from Pope Innocent III to St. Alphonsus Liguori, to give written evidence to his claim. It can be seen from the preceding pages that sedevacantism is firmly rooted in a “hermeneutic of doubt,” being based on a counter-critical scheme of theology. According to Avery Cardinal Dulles, author of Craft of Theology: From Symbol to System, the counter-critical movement began as a reaction to the critical movement in general. It worked against the grain of renunciation of theological doubt by using empirical evidence and syllogistic logic to answer the questions of theology. Its main vehicle of expression has been the neo-scholastic movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which lent itself to an orthodox, yet dubiously rationalistic approach. Sedevacantists’ utilization of the counter-critical method is an even fiercer polemical theology than other traditionalist movements. Ironically, it is itself a modernist phenomenon, aggressively reasserting elements of tradition against the perceived threat of modernism without historical context. Because of this, sedevacantism uses Church writings in the same way Protestant fundamentalists use Sacred Scripture. This can be seen clearly in Fr. Cekada’s work, in which he uses personal, a-historical, and selective interpretation. An example of this is how the section of St. Robert Bellarmine’s work on the papacy is de-contextualized in order to align with the point being made. The writing was created during an historical timeframe in which ecclesial authority was being challenged by Protestant reformers. Bellarmine was promoting a way in which the Church authorities could affirm or deny a bishop’s legitimacy in light of blatantly Protestant, anti-Catholic stances. In these terms, manifest heresy would be required, meaning denial of Articles of Faith, such as the Trinity, the transubstantial nature of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, etc. This is not referenced by Fr. Cekada, but is simply left to be eisegetically interpreted by the reader. A more poignant example of selective interpretation comes from sedevacantists’ use of various documents of the Second Vatican Council. One of the best examples can be found in the interpretation of Lumen Gentium. As was discussed previously, they look at this document as proof that the post-conciliar Church denies the axiom “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” because it accepts other faiths as sharing aspects of truth. To make this claim, however they are forced to utilize segmented quotations without reference to the context of the document as a whole. When looked at contextually, Lumen Gentium continually calls the Church necessary, implicitly and explicitly. Names for the Church are given, such as “the kingdom of Christ already present in mystery,” “a people brought into unity from the unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” “a sheepfold, the sole and necessary gateway to which is Christ,” etc. To be even more specific, the constitution clearly states: This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it (cf. Mt. 28:18, etc.), and which he raised up for all ages as the “pillar and mainstay of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). This statement, although directly preceding it, is not used to give context to the quote most often used by sedevacantists to reject post-conciliar ecclesial authority, namely, concerning how the Church “subsists in” the Catholic Church. Although this is only one example of misinterpretation and obvious intellectual abuse, others could be shown very easily with further research.
In comparison to the sedevacantist counter-critical approach to theology, twentieth century Catholic theologians have come to envision a more positive approach to the critical movement. Dulles termed it the “post-critical approach,” which does not deny the efficacy of criticism, but does demand that critique of criticism be itself a factor in theological study. This theological movement is based on a “hermeneutic of trust,” presupposing that one’s religious commitments are worthy of one’s faith, without immediate suspicion. This places a large amount of importance into confidence in and obedience to the Church’s official leadership, principally because of its office as transmitter of the “heritage of faith.” Because of this stance based on trust, flaws become evident with other critical approaches to theology. An obvious flaw is criticism’s basis on doubt. In Cartesian fashion, critical methods require that one discard a conviction that could in any way be doubted. As Dulles stated in his book previously mentioned, this basis “is a distinct liability in a time when moral and religious convictions have been thoroughly eroded by skepticism.” By doubting seemingly legitimate authorities, one opens the floor to questioning purported truth in general, nullifying any standard of proof and hence, one’s own position. Another problem with the critical method is its inability to be utilized consistently. Evidence is hard to come by for nearly everything, even the most obvious of realities. What are used in these situations are presuppositions and reliance on others. By doubting everything, one strips away the principles necessary for answering any question, much less those of theology. A fundamental problem to the critical method in theology is its reliance on the individual’s ability to know. It stresses the ideology that each person is absolutely capable of “commanding all the evidence” required to answer the questions of theology. But to say that no one has the ability in his or herself to comprehend fully the mysteries of theology is not to say that a certain few do have this ability, to the exclusion of others – this would be a form of Gnosticism. Rather, it is an assertion of the necessity of the “social dimension of knowledge,” meaning that knowledge cannot be had in a vacuum, but depends on the cooperation of all to promote and propel one’s grasp of it. The approaches given by Sedevacantism and the post-conciliar Church regarding criticism and credibility serve to show the extent to which these two bodies of thought agree and disagree. What is in agreement is the necessity to promulgate and preserve the Church. What is in conflict is the means by which to do so. Sedevacantism takes a markedly rigid and reactionary stance to modern problems in order to preserve what they see as the remaining remnant of the Church. Post-critical Catholicism seeks a way to propel the Church forward by acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of Modernity and meeting it on its own terms in order to bring the world to salvation. Intellectual and theological credibility are important in seeking legitimate answers to questions faced by Christianity at large. The extents to which these respective approaches have maintained their credibility are the instruments by which to measure their success in continuing the Faith and spreading the Gospel.
