Few subjects are as divisive and polemic in Traditional Catholic circles as the topic of Sedevacantism- the question of whether or not Holy Mother Church currently has a legitimate head in the man I have called Pope Frantic from the inauguration of his "pontificate"- and, alas, few subjects are also so lacking in common sense in their analysis.
The main culprit, as far as this wolf sees it, is Vatican Council One. Their definition of "papal infallibility" is imprudent, circular, and largely irrelevant. Essentially it gives the pope a "superpower" that is outside the purview of reason and precedent. Even the popes themselves, most notably Pius X, have insisted that Catholics must give their religious assent- towit, the assent of faith- to anything the pope pronounces in a formal manner, including all encyclicals, moto proprios, and "apostolic constitutions". Moreover, Catholics must be the pope's "loyal subjects", in much the same manner that Protestants stipulated the doctrine of "the Divine Right of Kings".
The current work will lay down some guidelines in light of common sense, and then examine the arguments of the pro- and con- camps in light of those postulates.
Firstly, traditionally, all men have understood, if only implicitly, that authority is not immediate and absolute, even within the competence of its jurisdiction. All authority, including that of the pope, is subject to the limits imposed by custom, which in Catholic circles is underscored further by the concept of Tradition, and most notably, Apostolic Tradition. This is the whole argument- and a quite valid one- against the "reforms" of the "new liturgy". Unfortunately, many Catholics do not take this argument to its whole and logical conclusion, preferring instead to base their arguments on legal positivism, as embodied in the code of canon law, or counciliar definitions.
Let us give two obvious examples.
Firstly, many, including this wolf, uphold both the paternal authority of the father of a family and the right to private property. Now, the right to private property is absolute in the realm of the trivial and the personal. For example, suppose one owns a small plastic wolf that he can put in his pocket. One day, he decides he is going to burn his plastic wolf just for the fun of doing it. Such a decision might be infantile and imprudent, but it is not outside common law.
But let us say that a man owns a house, and one night makes the decision he is going to burn it to the ground. So he calls his family together and informs them that they must move what they can to the shed and make do there, leaving the rest of their possessions and furniture exposed to the elements and sacrificing their privacy until such time as a new structure could be built. I suspect no one would protest those family members going to someone with authority over their father and husband- such as his father, the children's grandfather- or, in a last resort, the king, duke, or other civil authority- and urging them to exert all power- by force of arms, if necessary- to impel their father and husband to act within the bounds of prudence and propriety, or have him consigned to some sort of institution where he can get help for his character and wits, while in the meantime the mother can assume the management of the affairs of the household.
In the second example a monk is given charge over the orchard, and the care of the venerable apple trees which have given fruit over many seasons, providing a considerable portion of the winter sustenance of the community. The abbot orders him, under religious obedience, to cut all the trees to the ground. Now, everybody knows to what extent monks give absolute and immediate obedience to their superiors, seeing in their commands the will of God, and know that holy obedience is a foundation of the religious life. Moreover, chopping down trees is not expressly forbidden by the Divine law, as is murder, sodomy, and contraception by whatever means. Many would forthwith conclude that the monk, under obedience, resign himself to the will of God and execute the will of the abbot. This is nonsense. The monk, on the contrary, should foresee that his actions would cause hardship for the monks, and inquire of the abbot how he plans to provide sustenance for the monks to replace the loss of the apples, cider, and etc. Failing to receive a satisfactory answer, the monk should urgently insist on a chapter meeting where he could consult the more senior monks and question whether the abbot is diabolically possessed or has lost his sanity, or is perhaps acting for some nefarious agent. Rather this, than blindly execute orders that would absolutely endanger the material well-being of the community.
Now, let us take these two examples and apply them to the papacy.
Like the father who cannot burn down his house merely because it is his property and he has the juridical power to so do, the pope, just because he has absolute and immediate power over Holy Mother Church, cannot do what he absolutely pleases without precedent, even if such actions are not immediately contrary to Divine Law.
This applies to the nonsense concerning Pope Benedict's "retirement". Unlike many, I question whether the pope can even "retire". For all those who answer in the affirmative, I ask two simple questions: Imagine one day your father comes into the room and says: "Son, as of today I am no longer your father". Now, a father cannot renounce his divine authority- by reason of the fourth commandment- over his son, let alone the fact of his fatherhood. Even a complete libertine lacking supernatural faith should find the latter patently absurd, outside the bounds of all ontology and metaphysics.
Of Faith we know that Our Lord Jesus Christ appointed St Peter primacy over the whole church, including his fellow apostles. Could one even imagine, in that famous dispute of the Acts of the Apostles where St Paul "resisted Peter to his face" as he relates in his letters, Peter then subsequently "throwing in the towel" and declaring that St Paul is more competent and learned to run the Church? Both Peter and Paul would have instantly recognized such an action as contrary to the ordinance of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And after St Peter had appointed Linus as head of Holy Mother Church, could Linus have subsequently reneged on his authority? One should see that as a slap in the face of his dead vicar and mentor, and a repudiation of his honor as a man.
Subsequently, the man of faith must consider any attempt by the pope to abdicate the authority which he freely accepted at his election and coronation to be an act of violence against the papacy in particular, and Holy Mother Church in general. Such an act completely shatters the peace and tranquility of governance. The possibility is suggested that a coterie of cardinals could pressure a pope they do not like to step down, or for a pope to constantly question his competency. Meanwhile, one grounded in faith knows that it is not the dynamics of a leader that give validity to his reign. The pope does not function primarily as a general who conducts Holy Mother Church in the spiritual combat, but as a referee who judges the actions of the members in the light of Apostolic Tradition and the Deposit of Faith under the special guidance of the Holy Ghost. A pope reigns with tranquility just by being pope, even when he is unconscious on his deathbed. The notion that politics is a dynamic affair, conducted by virulent men leading society on the march of progress, and that humanity is in constant need of legislation adapted to changing times, is a peculiarly libertine idea.
Meanwhile, as concerns the execution of papal decrees and the governance of Holy Mother Church, the solemn duty of the immediate subordinates of the Holy Father is not to be lackeys and cronies, but rather to, by virtue of their knowledge, experience, and office, to constantly judge whether the human actions of the pope are in conformity with right reason, custom, and especially Apostolic Tradition. Our Lord Jesus Christ has bestowed upon us the college of the Apostles as a balance lest the pope become an oriental despot- not that this college has any authority over the pope in ordinary matters of discipline concerning the praxis of the universal church.
The alarm, of course, should have been sounded during the pontificate of Pius XII when he, among other things, questioned the infallibility of the Latin Vulgate, or allowed for changes in the liturgy of Holy Week, undermining the authority of the Council of Trent and indeed calling into question the governance of the ecumenical councils and their ratification by the popes of that day. However, due to the stultification caused by the imprudent actions of Vatican I, little acorns have been allowed to grow into mighty oak trees.
And now we have Pope Frantic, tearing out root and sinew, obviously and uproariously devastating the governance of Holy Mother Church, while the faithful are treated to nothing but confusion and malfeasance by both the "sedevacantist" and "recognize and resist" camps.
The main defect, as this wolf sees it, with the "recognize and resist" camp is their insistence that "we must always have a pope" and so are prepared to give Pope Frantic their religious obedience should he command something "in conformity with the Faith". And who is the judge of that, ultimately? Cardinal Burke? Archbishop Vigano? Bishop Schneider? The "recognize and resist" crowd has degenerated into a coterie of effeminate cowards who are waiting for a political messiah to save the day, rather than manfully acknowledging the gravity of the present apostasy and employing supernatural means, most specifically those requested by Our Lady of Fatima, while concurrently preserving tranquility within the boundaries of their own jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, the "Sedevacantist" contingent has decided that they must themselves assume the prerogatives of Apostolic Authority and act as though the Seat of Peter has utterly ceased to exist. They have themselves ordained priests and consecrated bishops as though they have a Divine mandate coming directly from God, but without any proof. They have completely disregarded the Traditions of Holy Mother Church whereby everybody functioning as ordained ministers of Our Lord Jesus Christ must have an apostolic mandate emanating directly and immediately from the Holy Chair of Peter.
Quite frankly, this wolf sees the current apostasy and confusion as being far, far beyond admitting any human solution. And that is why Our Lady came to Fatima. "In the End My Immaculate Heart Will Triumph!..." She tells us to watch and pray, even after we have lost the Mass and Sacraments, even after Rome has been reduced to ashes, and no visible pope exists. She told Sts Francis and Dominic that "one day, through the Rosary and the Scapular, I will save the World".
We must not be like the apostles who, after Our Lord was arrested, lost heart and lost faith. We must be like Our Lady in her cenacle who lit a candle and sang her psalms knowing that "Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be betrayed to the chief priests and the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death. And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked, and scourged, and crucified, and the third day He shall rise again."
The Apostles had erred grievously in not listening to Our Lord in the Light of the Holy Ghost. Let us not be like them and not listen to Our Lady. She is always only a few decades of the Rosary away. Indeed, even closer, if we say the first two words of the Angelic Salutation, "Hail Mary", with grace and fervor.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. You are our only hope!!