Jeremiad on Sedevacantism (the Denial that Pope Benedict XVI is Actually the Pope, and Utter Rejection of Ecumenism)

[ source ]

"Pope Michael": David Allen Bawden (b. 1959), who lives in Kansas, is a former SSPX seminarian who was never even ordained as a priest, yet who was elected as "pope" by a group of six laypeople on July 16, 1990. Gotta love it: a 31-year-old non-ordained pope from Kansas. This guy's not even fit to be the Wizard of Oz.


This post came about in a private Facebook group e-mail exchange. Somehow I got on the list with several sedevacantists (literally, "the seat is vacant" or the notion that there is no valid current pope, and/or that Pope Benedict XVI is a heretic). Perhaps this was God's providence.

I certainly spoke my mind! I have little patience with this line of thought, so forgive me beforehand for any lack of charity exhibited. I can't reveal other comments, since it was a private discussion; hence, the somewhat "choppy" nature of my comments.

Above all, please fervently pray and do penance for people who are trapped in this sad way of thinking. There was no reasoning with them. The Holy Spirit will have to do a work of grace here, to open blinded eyes. All of my reasoning seemed to fall on deaf ears; yet we never know how the Lord might be working on someone, from the inside. The apologist must always remember this, even in the midst of the most immensely frustrating encounters, as this was.

* * * * *

Here I'm replying to a bald statement that Pope Benedict XVI was a "heretic":

Rather, you are a schismatic. You incoherently reject the method that Holy Mother Church has providentially adopted in order to select her popes. This undermines all authority by logical extension, since you have adopted private judgment: a fundamental rejection of the Catholic rule of faith. Hence, people of your persuasion also reject ecumenical councils that are every bit as valid as Trent was.

Why not become a Catholic liberal? You would fit right in, with this mentality. The liberal, so-called "progressive" dissidents don't want to do what the pope says. You take it a step further and reject the authority of the sitting pope altogether. Thus, it is a sort of super-liberalism.

You're in a bad spiritual place. I strongly urge you to seriously reconsider this error.

* * *

After many more rants and blasts of Church and pope alike, I stated, with sarcasm, but with perfect seriousness; making a logical point:

Why don't you proclaim yourself to be pope [several sedevacantists have done exactly that], then we can start on the road to recovery, led by your manifest wisdom?

* * *

Someone said that they accepted the papacy, just not Benedict XVI.

Well, you actually don't, because, as I noted, you reject the method that Holy Mother Church has long since established for selecting her popes; hence you reject the present pope, and with him, the orthodox idea of the papacy itself. The Catholic can't simply make himself the judge over the Church. That was Luther's error. Why play games at being a Catholic with this absurd method and incoherent ecclesiology that you espouse?

* * *

And what is his false doctrine, pray tell, Pope [His name] I? A brief summary shall suffice.

* * *

I was informed that the Catholic Church now thinks Allah and the Christian God are one and the same (because of some ecumenical statements in Vatican II); thus, that the Church has rejected trinitarianism. I had several thoughts about that:

I've dealt with this thoroughly wrongheaded notion of what Vatican II taught about Islam in my paper: Does the Catholic Church Equate Allah and Yahweh?

By your convoluted reasoning, our Lord Jesus was clearly a heretic and wild-eyed liberal ecumenist because he commended the pagan Roman centurion for his faith (and said he had more faith than most -- or all? -- in Israel):

Matthew 8:5-13 As he entered Caper'na-um, a centurion came forward to him, beseeching him [6] and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress." [7] And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." [8] But the centurion answered him, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. [9] For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, `Go,' and he goes, and to another, `Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, `Do this,' and he does it." [10] When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. [11] I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, [12] while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." [13] And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; be it done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed at that very moment.

By the same token (by your reasoning), St. Paul was a heretic and no Catholic Christian, since, after all, he commended the pagan, idolatrous Athenians for their religiosity (Acts 17:22) and pragmatically utilized their existing worship of "the unknown god" as a bridge to preach the gospel to them (17:23-31).

Paul is a terrible heretic. Look at what he says in Romans 2! He talks about "Gentiles who have not the law" (2:14) -- by analogy, not possessing the full revelation of the gospel -- and implies that they quite possibly could be saved despite their ignorance (2:15).

Many Muslims are at least as pious as the Roman centurion or the pagan Athenians or the Gentiles "without the law," yet with a conscience, whom Paul discussed in Romans 2.

You have a dim understanding of the biblical motifs that underlie ecumenism, and also historic Catholic ecumenism, such as seen in St. Thomas Aquinas in his developed theology of baptism of desire, etc. and in popes of the last 150 years. It didn't just start with Vatican II. But the radtrad myth and mantra would have it so, so there can never be any serious or deep enough analysis to help you see the error of your ways.

* * *

Fellow orthodox Catholic and friend William Albrecht commented:

Your assertion that Benedict XVI praying with Muslims is tantamount to heresy is outrageously ignorant. Only God knows the minds and hearts of individuals, and if you consider this an act of heresy, then Paul lost his office also for calling the Pagans very religious and for entering synagogues. A thorough, intelligent examination of the Pope's actions is due.

That's a good point, William, about synagogues. It's another related argument: Paul and Peter and the early Christians worshiped in the temple and in the synagogues; they observed Jewish feasts. Paul acknowledged the legitimate authority of the high priest (over himself) even during his trial.

By sedevacantist "logic" they were completely off-base because in so doing, they were supposedly denying the Trinity and espousing the Jewish absolute monotheism (God is one Person rather than three). Jesus even told His followers to do what the Pharisees told them to do (Matthew 23:2-3), despite the fact that the non-Christian Pharisees did not accept the Trinity.

If you give me a ridiculous "Christian" religion that requires me to reject Jesus and Paul and Peter as heretics, then I will reject it every time. But this is what your "reasoning" entails. It's far more absurd than liberal Catholicism. At least liberal, dissident, pick-and-choose, "cafeteria" Catholics know that there is a sitting pope.

***