St. Catherine of Siena
Last month I received an interesting email asking about a quote from St. Catherine of Siena and how to reconcile it with sedevacantism. Here’s the quote:
“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.”
— Saint Catherine of Siena in St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222.
The answer:
St. Catherine is simply using hyperbole to emphasize a point. Popes, bishops, and priests may be wicked but that doesn’t necessarily make them non-popes/bishops/priests.
Notice that St. Catherine is referring to a pope, not an antipope. By Divine and Church law, heretics/apostates can’t be popes at all. Therefore, St. Catherine wasn’t referring to the oxymoron heretical pope.
Our position is that popes must be Catholic to be popes. Their holiness or wickedness has no bearing on the question as far as we’re concerned today. Therefore, St. Catherine’s statement has no bearing on sedevacantism except that her statement supports our position against the SSPX, which advocates disobeying popes.
That being said, St. Catherine’s contemporary, St. Vincent Ferrer gives us the historic precedent. I wrote about it here: The Sedevacantist Saint Vincent Ferrer
Keep in mind that the second mark of the Catholic Church is holiness. It’s an article of Faith that the Church is holy. That would include all of its teachings, laws, and practices. If a single teaching, law, or practice were not holy, then you know it’s not the Catholic Church.
So while a pope may be unholy, he could never promulgate an unholy teaching, law, or practice for the universal Church. Yet, the popes of Vatican 2 have already promulgated things the Church has condemned as unholy, such as a harmful liturgy. Benedict XVI even admitted in his autobiography that the new mass “provoked extremely serious damage to the Church” which is impossible for the true Church, especially in light of Pope Pius XII’s teaching that the liturgy is an untainted source. Altar girls have been condemned repeatedly, but John Paul II has approved them by canon law. Read here: Altar Girls are Impossible for the True Catholic Church
The Vatican 2 popes have promulgated several heresies and condemned practices, such as: the heresy of a formally divided Church of Christ, communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics, a civil right to religious liberty, Divine Revelation was completed at the Crucifixion, the Jews are not presented in Scripture as rejected or accursed, deficiencies in the formulation of Church teaching should be put right, etc. I could provide other things, but these suffice.
Either sedevacantism is true or the gates of hell have prevailed. Take your pick.
If St. Catherine of Siena lived today, she would be appalled to think any Catholic could believe that Francis I is pope. She would say the Devil is more qualified.
I’m posting this question and answer for others out there who’ve hesitated to embrace the fact that Francis isn’t pope based on St. Catherine’s quote.
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
Interesting comment. It certainly gels with this statement of principle from the Catholic Encyclopedia (on “General Councils”; emphasis added):
“[A] heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience.”
Incidentally, I imagine that most readers probably do not have access to the kind of theological manuals to which you and NovusOrdoWatch often refer in support of your arguments. To such people, for what it is worth, I would heartily recommend reading the various articles of the Catholic Encyclopedia that touch on this subject. This resource is available online and is perhaps more accessible to the average Catholic.
My own experience of reading the Encyclopedia is that, if one reads the expert statements that directly touch on the principles involved, and does not attempt to abstract one’s own set of principles from a subjective reading of particular historical incidents, I have not found a single statement that supports the Recognize and Resist position. On the other hand, I have found plenty that, when applied to our times, consistently support the sedevacantist conclusion.
well said bro..
I think it should be kept in my mind that Satan is not a heretic. He wants us to be heretics. If Satan were a heretic (didnt know the truth), then he couldn’t lie to us.
A heretic is a baptized person. Satan couldn’t be a heretic. St. Catherine was simply using hyperbole.
I think you are confusing heretic with apostasy; . A heretic is someone in error, he promulgates false doctrine;an apostate is someone who betrays the true faith. Bergogglio does both.
Heretics who, having been baptized, retain the name of Christians, but obstinately deny or doubt some of the truths that must be believed by divine or Catholic faith. Apostates are those who repudiate the Christian faith entirely.
Pope Leo XIII, in his 1896 encyclical, Satis Cognitum, on the Unity of the Church, teaches that alien to the Church is whoever in the least degree from any point of Doctrine proposed by her Magisterium; that whoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulterous; and that he who rejects any Faith rejects all Faith. Pope Pius XII, in his allocution to the Irish pilgrims, on October 7th 1958, makes it clear that you must be Catholic to be a Christian. All heretics automatically lose the Christian name just as they lose membership in the Church. A Christian by the very fact is a member of the Church, Bride, and Body of Christ. Anyone who regards heretics as Christians is a heretic himself.
Yes! Satis Cognitum is my favorite papal document ever!
All schismatics, heretics, and apostate betray the True Faith to a certain degree. A schismatic refuses to be in communion with and follow the orders of a true pope. That in itself makes him a heretic. There’s no such thing as pure schism. A heretic cherrypicks from the Faith and therefore rejects it all. An apostate is a heretic who admits to rejecting the Faith.
While reading a traditional catechism I read that it is sinful to disbelieve Christ’s promises to the Church. The Holy Ghost is with the Church, keeping it holy and free from all error. The V2 church does teach error, so it is a serious error to consider it the Catholic Church. The Holy Ghost is NOT guiding the V2 church. It’s a counterfeit! If you insist that it is the Catholic Church and that it’s hierarchy teaches error and unholiness you are implicitly saying that Christ was wrong.
I encountered the same quote and gave a similar response.
At first, I mistook you for the other Steve Ray, the one who’s obstinately anti-“Sedevacantist”. I didn’t know there was another Steve Ray who’s firmly “Sedevacantist”.
My last name is Speray.
Reblogged this on and commented:
Thank You
Can you provide the actual letter St Catherine composed. The footnote above offers nothing, and I think may be false. Thank you.
What you see is what was sent to me to answer. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not because the point is that it doesn’t refute sedevacantism.
Yiz. ¿How can satan be the Pope? ¿How can he incarnate? It is obvious that St. Catherine is using hyperbole.
Whoa whoa, she would definitely not say that the devil were more qualified than Pope Francis! She would support him and obey him
It appears to me that Francis is perfectly possessed by the devil. St. Catherine would never support the anti-Catholic apostate Francis as pope.