Last Saturday morning, I spoke to Jeff, a hard-core conservative in the Novus Ordo world, who told me that he was a big fan of John Paul 2 and Steubenville University. I was told he was a walking Catholic encyclopedia that could give an answer to sedevacantism. Not only had he never heard of sedevacantism, his one quote from our entire exchange was from the 3rd grade Baltimore Catechism on salvation.
After showing him all the heretical teachings from his Vatican 2 popes, he told us that religious assent must only be given to dogmas ignoring the fact that popes can’t teach heresy regardless.
When we quoted Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura on the pope’s plenary power and giving assent to more than just dogmas, [1] he doubled-down and told us he didn’t have to give religious assent to Pope Pius IX’s teaching. How ironic that he would deny the very document that points to a dogma he’s rejecting, condemns what he’s saying as he’s implying the Baltimore Catechism holds more theological weight than Quanta cura and Vatican I’s definition of the pope’s plenary power.
Then I told him about John Paul 2’s (his favorite pope) teaching on religious assent from his 1993 Catechism of the Catholic Church:
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent”422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
Footnote 422 is reference to Lumen Gentium 25 of Vatican 2.
He was done and ready to go after that.
Yesterday, my younger brother made the same argument. He’s an anything but sedevacantist guy who told me that the pope can deviate from the faith with heresy when teaching with non-dogmatic teaching. I told him, what I told Jeff. I quoted 892 from their catechism and said, “You don’t even follow your own religion. So you become the pope’s pope to determine when your pope deviates from the faith that you may NOT give religious assent?”
My brother doubled-down and quoted Cum ex Apostolatus from Pope Paul IV:
“The Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.”
He continued to tell me the quote means the pope doesn’t automatically lose office if he deviates from the faith.
Apparently, my brother thinks Pope Paul IV is teaching that we are to be the pope’s pope when the pope uses his mere ordinary magisterium.
Pope Paul IV is not saying or implying that a pope can deviate from the faith in official documents whereby each person in the Church can decide when to contradict his official teaching. The context is that a pope who deviates from the faith (not in official documents) ceases to be pope, which is why he can be contradicted. [2] Bellarmine says the same thing. [3] Pope Paul IV also tells us in the document that heretics can’t become popes to begin with, which is the application of sedevacantism today.
Jeff, my brother, and all those like them go much further against Pope Pius IX’s condemnations, because they actually withhold assent to judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See that do touch upon dogmas of faith and morals. They reject the teachings from what they claim comes from an ecumenical council ratified by a pope.
They ultimately believe each Catholic is to be the pope’s pope when their pope isn’t defining a dogma. That’s their fatal flaw. They forget that Christ gave us a pope to keep the Church from deviating from Christianity, not the other way around. They should take note of what St. Robert Bellarmine rightly taught:
The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err.
Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men.
On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope yet, from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err if the Pontiff would err. (De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, Chapter 3; Grant translation.)
Looking at the Vatican 2 church with its heresies on religious liberty to the death penalty, its evil practices of altar girls to giving Communion to non-Catholics and those living in mortal sin, from the acceptance of homosexuality to the hideous architecture of churches, from their liberal clerics promoting abominations to their most conservative believers having to reject magisterial teaching is proof enough that the Vatican 2 religion is not Catholic. Therefore, their popes can’t be true popes. They must reject Catholicism to save their Vatican 2 religion. In rejecting their papal teachings and criticizing how awful and divided their church is, they bear witness to the truth of sedevacantism despite themselves.
Footnotes
[1] “And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church…Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, Dec 8, 1864.)
[2] Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (strobertbellarmine.net)
[3] Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reasonhe can be judged and punished by the Church.
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
This and several other of your posts would be nice to keep handy for reference when discussing such matters with hardheads who think they have all the answers. Thanks for a great article.
It is the Holy Ghost that draws souls to Sedevacantism. Without the Holy Ghost there to guide us the most learned of people deceive themselves. Protestants Scholars go to Universities that teach heresy but for all their leaning they don’t see it. The Vatican II adherents see their false religion rejecting Christ and the Catholic Church but they are chained to it. They disregard all the “Hootnanny” cheese head clown gatherings that is on the surface of this antichrist heresy and follow their false religion false popes and false doctrine without questioning any of it. I believe that it is pride and bad will that chains most all to false religions .I doubt that few in the Vatican II cult have spent time reciting the Rosary asking Our Lady for wisdom on the matter because they seem to believe they already know the truth and don’t need any intervention from Heaven.
exactly when did sedevacantism begin?
Sedevacantism is just a position that the Chair of Peter is vacant. The first instance was when Peter died in 67AD. However, the current situation of sedevacantism began with the death of Pope Pius XII. The first person to recognize that Roncalli wasn’t pope was Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner, who was a Vatican insider who knew that Roncalli’s election was rigged from the beginning. Also, Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga STD, JCD, PhD. was one of the first and you can read about him here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2020/02/06/fr-joaquin-saenz-y-arriaga-catholic-champion-of-the-late-20th-century/
so the whole sede movement today is based upon one man’s view? Did satan entered into the man Roncalli which declared a council made up of catholic churchmen?
Not one man’s view. He was one of the first to see the truth that Rocalli was an imposter pope. Vatican 2 is a robber council like the council of constance. In fact, the simlarities of the two are amazing. Is the following a coincidence or God giving us a sign?
The first John XXIII lasted five years, 1410 – 1415.
The Second John XXIII lasted five years, 1958 – 1963.
The first John XXIII called the Council of Constance.
The Second John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council.
The first John XXIII opened his Council in the 4th year of his reign, 1414.
The second John XXIII opened his Council in the 4th year of his reign, 1962.
The first John XXIII died in 1415, just before the 3rd Session of his Constance.
The second John XXIII died in 1963, just before the 3rd Session of Vatican II.
But j23 was validly elected , by Catholic men , from a legit catholic church, yes? If j23 was an imposter and heretic then the church voted him in. This legit group of Catholic men that sat in on the council approved of the documents as well, including Lefebvre would it not?
J23 was not validly elected. Pope Paul IV told us in 1559 that if the cardinals elected a heretic and he was accepted as pope by the whole world, he would still not be the pope. So not only is it possible for such an event according to a real pope telling us so in a apostolic constitution, it in fact actually happened in 1958 with Roncalli.
As for Vatican 2, we don’t know who signed what. Lefebvre claimed he didn’t sign all of the documents yet his signature is on all of them. We also know that some of the documents that were signed were not the same documents they read to be signed. So we don’t have all the facts. Lefebvre also claimed that over 250 bishops were against Vatican 2 but they lived in fear and/or died before doing anything about it.
What we do know is that Vatican 2 has error in it, which is impossible for the Catholic Church. Therefore, we know it was not a Catholic council but a robber council. If you want to see some of the errors, I have proof elsewhere on this blog that shows it.
Theologians have examined the possibility of a heretical pope,
SPERAY REPLIES: Popes can’t be heretical. What they examined was the possibility of a pope if he were to become a heretic, which is not the situation we have today. The Vat2 popes were never popes.
but one before vcii was ever devised but still doesn’t resolve the issue,
SPERAY REPLIES: Yes it was. Can. 188.4 takes care of it. See https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2016/03/17/canon-188-4-and-defection-of-faith-why-john-salza-and-robert-siscoe-get-it-wrong-part-iii/
how the Church can continue to be visible, if the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, etc., are deprived of their form, then no visible Church hierarchy is left.
SPERAY REPLIES: I deal with the issue here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2020/12/03/the-catholic-bottom-line-part-viii/ The Vat2 church has no visible marks since they all are heretics. The hierarchy can’t all be heretical such as you find with the Vatican 2 popes, bishops, and priests.
This theory has some serious issues that of a head can be head without authority.
SPERAY RPELIES: That’s actually heretical according to Vatican I.
And as long as there is no certain proof, then it is more prudent to refrain from judging.
SPERAY REPLIES: You just prove it. The Church is one in faith and if you’re not one in faith with your pope, then you’re not part of the Catholic Church. We have the proof and lots of it. I show it over and over again here and Novus Ordo Watch has more of it than I do.
This was Archbishop Lefebvre’s line of conduct.
SPERAY REPLIES: Lefebvre was actually a heretic and schismtic. His position was absurd.
That is why he never adopted this position, and even forbade the priests of the SSPX to profess it.
SPERAY REPLIES: The SSPX are the worst of heretics because of their position. They prove sedevacantism right by their very existence. The Church is one in faith and holy in doctrine and they must reject both of these dogmas to exist. They hold the marks of oneness and holiness as the Protestants and Vatican 2’s declaration.
So as it stands J23 was validly elected despite what paul 4 stated.
SPERAY REPLIES: What Pope Paul IV stated was DIVINE LAW. Heretics are not members of the Church. PERIOD!
Besides only a future pope and/or council can make this determination.
SPERAY REPLIES: I prove this wrong here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/my-popes-x-y-and-z-counter-argument/
The main problem with VCii is its ambiguity not outright heresy.
SPERAY REPLIES: There is no ambiguity to some of it such as we see here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2021/04/04/a-right-to-the-christian-name/
and here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2021/05/01/religious-liberty-and-the-dignity-of-the-human-person/
Those teachings of Vatican 2 are not ambigiuous. They are clear cut heresies.
The issue with ambiguity is it can be taken as either on one side or the other.
SPERAY REPLIES: You can’t interpret those 2 points I just showed you as being anything but heresy.
Lefebvre stated that the council can be taken in light of tradition.
SPERAY REPLIES: One cannot even say that Vatican II was “ambiguous” because it would violate the same basic principle, as expressed in Mortalium Animos in 1928: “The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain for ever intact and might be brought with EASE and SECURITY to the knowledge of men.” Ambiguity is a failure, is dangerous, is not teaching with ease, nor security. Nor has any Council in history taught other than by bringing doctrine forth to the knowledge of men with ease and security. That is the divinely constituted character of a true Council….and pope, as we must remember, a Council only becomes “from the Church” when a pope at least nods his head to it, and not before.
Pope Pius VI condemned the veil of ambiguity being taught by anyone. See his Bull “Auctorem fidei,” August 28, 1794.
So by saying Vatican 2 is ambigious, you have proved sedevacantism right because it’s impossible for a council to be so ambiguious!
The same Code also determines how we know a cleric has publicly defected from the Faith and lost his office as a result of the defection: The Church tells us. ( So far The Church has not made this available).
SPERAY REPLIES: Read the article. The Canonists explain it well. It’s a tacit resignation, no declaration needed. Pope Pius XII tells us that the sin of heresy severs one from the BODY of the Church by its nature. You are denying this teaching and arguing against the teachings of the popes. Again, Pope Leo XIII declared in his Encyclical, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium….
St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). …
In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others… But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.
A cleric who has defected by ecclesiastical law follows Our Lord’s directive: “tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” . While the person in Matthew 18 was publicly suspected of a transgression, Jesus tells us to treat him as excommunicated only after the Church judges the matter.
SPERAY REPLIES: The Church doesn’t judge the pope.
Canon 1939, par. 1 requires a special investigation for transgressions against Divine Law :
If the transgression is not notorious, or not entirely certain, but has arisen from rumor or public report . . . before anyone is summoned to answer for the transgression, a special investigation must be undertaken to decide whether, and or what foundation, the charge may be founded.”
In other words the removal can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority. Your example you gave began with one man (Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga) does not give it this authority.
SPERAY REPLIES: No authority can judge the pope. No one removes the pope. Also, Fr. Joaquin Y Arriaga was a doctor in both Sacred Theology and Canon law and you’re arguing with the expert. He’s the competent authority on the law.
Professor of Canon Law, R. P. Udalricus Beste, O.S.B., I.C.D., explains:
“Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See [i.e., the See of Peter] is judged by no one.
“The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously, cannot be its head. We can find no example of this in history.” (Introductio in Codicem. 3rd ed. Collegeville: St. John’s Abbey Press, 1946)
Even more than one person saying this does not make it an authoritative declaration.
SPERAY REPLIES: NO ONE, NOT EVEN THE CHURCH CAN JUDGE THE POPE. What you’re implying is heretical. Christ commands us to beware of false teachers and false teachers can’t be popes. That’s why God gave us popes, to be true teachers.
Then it just comes down to personal opinion.
SPERAY REPLIES: Not at all!
No saint in the Church’s history was ever a sede .
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! SEE: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/the-sedevacantist-saint-vincent-ferrer/ AND https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/03/01/john-salza-and-robert-siscoes-fable-of-st-vincent-ferrer/
“In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation.” -Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus
SPERAY REPLIES: You just proved sedevacantism. Thank you! The Vatican 2 religion is not one in faith, doesn’t profess the Catholic faith whole and inviolate, and therefore is not the Catholic Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: NO ONE, NOT EVEN THE CHURCH CAN JUDGE THE POPE. What you’re implying is heretical. Christ commands us to beware of false teachers and false teachers can’t be popes. That’s why God gave us popes, to be true teachers.
This applies to those heading the church NOT the average joe pew sitter.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! It’s for all men, of course. We must be able to know who the false teachers are and if the false teachers are the only ones that get to say they are false teachers, then you have made the command from Our Lord absurd. Your argument gives an excuse to follow a false teacher.
It is not heretical to believe that everyone has the authority to decide.
SPERAY REPLIES: It’s heretical to say a pope can be judged and be removed.
This applies to the church hierarchy. You steven have decided upon your position outside of your jurisdiction.
SPERAY REPLIES: No hierarchy can judge the pope. I have decided to follow the Catholic Faith based on what the popes have taught. By doing so, I recognize that heretics are heretics and are outside of the Church. They are not popes. See https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2021/01/20/the-catholic-bottom-line-part-ix/
ONLY a church council (with all those participating) or a future pope and in your case no pope can actually emerge because you believe the line of cardinals have ceased to exist since the last one fairly recently died.
SPERAY REPLIES: I answer this here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/the-case-that-proves-church-laws-can%e2%80%99t-always-apply/
Pope Innocent III explicitly affirms that a Pope can be “judged by the Church” for sins against the faith. The following is from his Consecration Sermon, No. 2:
For faith is so necessary for me that, while for other sins I have only God as my judge, only for that sin which is committed against faith could I be judged by the Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: I sent you the link about Pope Innocent III’s teaching from Sermon 4 where he clarifies it better: “The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.”
Notice that he qualifies his statement by saying “or rather, can be shown to be already judged.”
That’s what we’re saying except that they were never popes to begin with.
Bellarmine teaches the same, and cites the above quotations from Si Papa and Pope Innocent as authorities in defense of his position. He begins with the proposition:
“A Pope can be judged and deposed by the Church in the case of heresy; as is clear from Dist. 40, can. Si Papa: therefore, the Pontiff is subject to human judgment, at least in some case.
SPERAY REPLIES: You left out Bellarmine’s clear statement on the issue that clarifies precisely what is meant: Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.
He’s judged by the Church AFTER he’s lost office for heresy, that’s why he can be judged. Yes, I agree!
Ignore: “…It is not heretical to believe that everyone has the authority to decide…”
The sole authority lies within the hierarchy as a whole not the individual catholic.
SPERAY REPLIES: No authority can say a true pope is not the pope. Everybody has the authority to say a false pope is a false pope.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! SEE: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/the-sedevacantist-saint-vincent-ferrer/ AND https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/03/01/john-salza-and-robert-siscoes-fable-of-st-vincent-ferrer/
A myth started not from St. Vincent for sure. He didn’t do anything based upon his own authority but relied upon the church’s.
It’s not a myth. It’s recorded everywhere. What he did destroys your argument!