Domino Fidelis (Archidiacre) Exposed: Why His Anti-Sedevacantist Arguments Fail

Domino Fidelis, a Novus Ordo apologist and a rabid anti-sedevacantist, strives at all costs to label sedevacantism as heretical and to accuse its adherents of heresy, schism, and other grave sins such as rash judgment and deliberate falsehood.

On the surface, his arguments may appear convincing. However, a closer look reveals serious inconsistencies and numerous fallacies. In this article, I intend to expose his sophisms and refute two of his main arguments.

The main fallacies and tricks he employs are as follows:

Double standards:

Our petit Inquisiteur accuses sedevacantists of denying the dogma of the necessity of canonical mission. The objection is valid. However, the post-conciliar popes, whom he ardently defends, believe that schismatic bishops are legitimate pastors of the Church of Christ. Had he a real desire to combat heresies, he would attack them with the same zeal with which he attacks us. Would he do that? I don't think so. He's quite busy using doctrine as stones to be thrown at us, which is a sin according to his sect.

False dilemmas:

• Either you accept that John XXIII and Paul VI were legitimate, or you claim that the Church has ceased to exist. 

• Either you accept Vatican II, or the Church has defected.

Strawman of the sedevacantist position and unproven assumptions:

• Sedevacantists have rejected all bishops.

Misuse of Magisterial texts:

• For example, Leo XIII taught in Eximia Nos Laetitia that a group without bishops is outside the Church. (This is true, but distinctions must be made.)

FIRST ARGUMENT: Sedevacantism is impossible because it implies that all the bishops would have erred in their recognition of John XXIII, Paul VI, and Vatican II (1). Indeed, all bishops recognised them as legitimate, and the Church teaches that the whole hierarchy cannot err in matters of faith and morals. Thus, they are legitimate.

Sedevacantism implies that all bishops would have erred in their recognition of John XXIII, Paul VI, and Vatican II.

Sedevacantism asserts that certain papal claimants are not true popes due to heresy; it does not necessarily follow that all bishops have erred or could have erred. The Magisterium is protected from error in faith and morals. However, individual bishops, or even the majority apart from the pope, are not infallible and may err in contingent matters, including the recognition of a pope’s legitimacy. For example, during the Great Western Schism, many bishops were subject to an antipope, yet the Church did not defect.

Indeed, all bishops recognised them as legitimate.

Our opponent believes that, if a false pope is not denounced almost immediately following his election, any subsequent challenge to his legitimacy is invalid. But this is false. To claim that all bishops with ordinary jurisdiction recognised and submitted to Paul VI as their proximate rule of faith is historical revisionism. Monsignor Thuc declared the vacancy of the Apostolic See in 1982; subsequently, Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Mayer established parallel ecclesiastical structures and consecrated bishops in 1988.

The Church teaches that the whole hierarchy cannot err in matters of faith and morals.

The Church indeed teaches that the whole hierarchy cannot err in matters of faith and morals. The College of Bishops, when united with the Roman Pontiff, possesses the charism of infallibility. Individual bishops, even when considered collectively but apart from the Pope, are not infallible.

Bishops are infallible under the following conditions:

• When dispersed throughout the world and united with the Holy See.

• When assembled in an ecumenical council, exercising their supreme authority to define matters of faith or morals for the universal Church.

General councils, before confirmation by the Supreme Pontiff, are not infallible. Only ecumenical councils, once confirmed by the Pope, represent the universal Church and are assisted by the Holy Spirit; they are therefore infallible in matters of faith and morals (Denzinger 1723).

Conclusion: Thus, they are legitimate.

The Vatican II antipopes are NOT legitimate because:

• Individual bishops, or even the MAJORITY, can err in contingent matters.

• Some bishops and a significant portion of the faithful do not recognise or obey them as their proximate rule of faith. 

SECOND ARGUMENT: A Group Without Bishops Is Outside the Church

Domino accuses us of wilfully separating ourselves from the bishops: an unjust and hasty accusation. Sedevacantists would gladly give their lives, if necessary, to be in communion with the true hierarchy. He argues that without bishops, we would be schismatics:

As an example, Pope Leo XII, Pastoris Aeterni:

'Indeed, how can the Church be your mother if you do not have as fathers the shepherds of the Church, that is, the Bishops? And how could you boast of the name of Catholics if, separated from the centre of Catholicism, namely this Holy Apostolic See and the Supreme Pontiff, in whom God established the origin of unity, you break Catholic unity? The Catholic Church is one, neither torn nor divided; therefore, your so-called "Little Church" can have no connection whatsoever with the Catholic Church.'

Also, Leo XIII taught in Eximia Nos Laetitia that a group without bishops is outside the Church:

'Let them rely neither on the honesty of their morals nor on their fidelity to discipline, nor on their zeal to preserve the doctrine and stability of religion. Does not the apostle openly say that all this avails nothing without charity? Absolutely no bishop considers and governs them as his sheep. They must conclude from this, with certainty and evidence, that they are defectors from the fold of Christ.'

But let us ask: if the faithful, through no fault of their own, do not know who the lawful pastors are, does that make them schismatics?

Taken at face value, this argument implies that unless you can point to a bishop currently governing you, you are no longer Catholic.

This is a simplistic and dangerous claim,  which lacks both theological and historical support. 

In Mystici Corporis, Pius XII sets forth the conditions of membership:

'Only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptised and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.'

Theologian Fenton summarises it as follows:

In Mystici Corporis 22, Pius XII has set forth the conditions or factors which constitute a man as a member of the true Church of Jesus Christ. They are: 

(1) The possession of the baptismal character. 

(2) The profession of the true faith. 

(3) The profession of willingness to be subject to the legitimate authorities within the Church, and thus to be associated with the society of Our Lord’s disciples. 

(4)The fact of not having been excommunicated, in the full meaning of the term.

Schism consists in the voluntary separation from the legitimate authority, and not in mere ignorance or inability to identify lawful pastors. To be Catholic, one must be willing to submit to legitimate authority, but one is not obliged to know contingent facts.

Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur. No one is bound to the impossible. If the faithful cannot know who the lawful pastors are through no fault of their own, they cannot be justly accused of schism.

Consider the Japanese Catholics who lived for centuries without priests or sacraments. Shall we tell them: How can the Church be your mother, if you had not the shepherds of the Church as your fathers?

Let us turn to the Catholics of France in the days of terror. Let us imagine the exchange between Domino (D) and a Catholic (C):

D: Where is your hierarchy?

C: Our priests were exiled or executed.

D: But can you name one bishop who knows you and governs you as his sheep?

C: No. I have already told you that our priests were exiled or slain.

D: Then, by your own admission, you are a defector from the fold of Christ!

Does this seem reasonable and fair? Of course not! That is absurd and contrary to Catholic teaching!

Domino Fidelis’ case against sedevacantism does not withstand scrutiny. His arguments rely on false dilemmas, straw men, and a superficial reading of magisterial texts. The indefectibility of the Church does not mean that every bishop is incapable of error in prudential judgments or in recognising a claimant as pope. Likewise, the accusation that sedevacantists have separated themselves from the hierarchy fails, since schism does not consist in the inability to identify lawful pastors.

The True Interpretation of Religious Liberty in Dignitatis Humanae

The True Interpretation of Religious Liberty in Dignitatis Humanae  - Free download (PDF)

Vatican II and Religious Freedom: Negative or Positive Right?

Question

 I have a question: What is the authentic teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty? Some claim that it affirms a negative right rather than a positive one. Is that correct?

Answer

Dignitatis humanae teaches that 'all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.' (Paragraph 2)

Some have attempted to reconcile DH and Quanta Cura by making a distinction between:

• The right to do X – POSITIVE RIGHT (condemned in Quanta Cura)  

• The right not to be hindered from doing X – NEGATIVE RIGHT (as allegedly defined in DH).

However, this distinction is ultimately illusory, since the Magisterium has condemned the very notion of religious liberty as a right. Even a so-called negative right implies that civil authorities have no right to repress the public profession of false religions, except for reasons of public order. However, this contradicts Catholic teaching:

'…against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "the best condition of civil society is that in which no duty is attributed to the civil power of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except insofar as public peace may require".' (Pius IX, Quanta Cura, n. 3)

'Thus the two principles are clarified to which recourse must be had in concrete cases for the answer to the serious question concerning the attitude which the jurist, the statesman and the sovereign Catholic state is to adopt in consideration of the community of nations in regard to a formula of religious and moral toleration as described above. First: that which does not correspond to truth or to the norm of morality objectively has no right to exist, to be spread or to be activated. Secondly: failure to impede this with civil laws and coercive measures can nevertheless be justified in the interests of a higher and more general good.' (Pius XII, Ci Riesce)

'[…] Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engravers upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide - as they should do - with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man's capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded.' (Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, n. 21.)

Even if we concede that only the notion of religious liberty as a positive right contradicts Catholic teaching, it is evident that the post-conciliar popes have explicitly taught religious liberty as such.

'Religious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and inalienable right. It includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship. It includes the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public. It must be possible to profess and freely manifest one’s religion and its symbols without endangering one’s life and personal freedom. Religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the person; it safeguards moral freedom and fosters mutual respect.' (Benedict XVI, Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, n. 26)

'The Synod Fathers spoke of the importance of respect for religious freedom, viewed as a fundamental human right. This includes ''the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public''.' ('Pope' Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, n. 255)

Sedevacantism and the Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope

Sedevacantism and the Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope - Free download (PDF)

Thesis I. — The Peaceful and Universal Acceptance is Part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (OUM)

Major premise: Whatever is taught by the universal and ordinary teaching authority of the Church, and which Catholic theologians, with universal and constant consensus, regard as divinely revealed, pertains to the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. (cf. Pius IX, Tuas libenter)

Minor premise: The teaching that peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope is a sign of his legitimacy is universally and constantly taught by Catholic theologians.

Conclusion: Therefore, the peaceful and universal acceptance of a pope as a sign of his legitimacy pertains to the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

Proof of the Major Premise

'Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith.' ( Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Tuas Libenter)

'The ordinary and universal magisterium is that which is carried on daily through the continuous preaching of the  Church among all peoples. It includes:

•    The preaching and proclamations of the Corporate  Body of Bishops
•   Universal custom or practice associated with dogma
• The consensus or agreement of the Fathers and of the Theologians
•  The common or general understanding of the faithful'  (A.D. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, 1959, pp. 176–177)

Proof of the Minor Premise

Theologians have unanimously taught that peaceful and universal acceptance is a certain and reliable criterion for the legitimacy of papal elections. Among these are:

1.  Father Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ; an apologetic and dogmatic treatise (1927)

2.     Cicognani (Canon Law, 1947);

3.     Cardinal Billot (De Ecclesia Christi, quaest. XIV Th. 29, § 3);

4.     Father Smith (Dr. Littledale's Theory of the Disappearance of the Papacy, 1896);

5.     Father Connell (American Ecclesiastical Review, 1965)

6.     Sylvester Joseph Hunter (Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, 1896);

7.     Cardinal Journet (The Church of the Incarnate Word);

8.     Dom Guéranger (L’année liturgique, Vol XII, p.188);

9.     Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 8-9; 299, 1953);

10. Wernz-Vidal (Jus can., II, p. 437, note 170);

11. St. Alphonsus de Liguori (Verità della fede, in Opere..., vol. VIII, p. 720, no. 9).

Thesis II. — A Heretical Papal Claimant Who Is Only Nominally Recognised, But Not Accepted as the Proximate Rule of Faith by the Church, Cannot Be the Pope Because He Lacks the Universal and Peaceful Submission That Guarantees Legitimacy.

Major Premise: Whoever is universally and peacefully accepted by the Church as pope is certainly the true pope, on account of the Church’s infallibility in dogmatic facts (a theologically certain proposition).

Minor Premise: But a heretical papal claimant who is only nominally recognised—yet not accepted by the Church as the proximate rule of faith—is not universally and peacefully accepted as pope.

Conclusion: Therefore, a heretical papal claimant who is only nominally recognised, but not accepted by the Church as the proximate rule of faith, cannot be the true pope.

Proofs of the Major Premise

'First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope. For if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208); if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible. This argument is in substance the same as applies to other cases of dogmatic facts. Also, it affords an answer to a much vaunted objection to the claims of the Catholic Church, put forward by writers who think that they find proof in history that the election of a certain Pope was simoniacal and invalid, and that the successor was elected by Cardinals who owed their own appointment to the simoniacal intruder; from which it is gathered that the Papacy has been vacant ever since that time. […] It is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognising a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined.' (Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, 1898, pp. 309–310)

'... universal adherence of the Church is always, in itself alone, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and consequently of the existence of all conditions required for that legitimacy. Nor is the reason for this to be sought from afar. It is immediately derived from the infallible promise and providence of Christ: The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and again: Behold, I am with you always. For it would be tantamount to the Church adhering to a false pontiff as if it were adhering to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule that the Church must follow in matters of belief and always does so in practice, as will become even clearer from what follows. Indeed, God may permit the vacancy of the See to be prolonged for some time. He may also permit doubt to arise concerning the legitimacy of one or another elected individual. However, He cannot permit the entire Church to accept as pontiff one who is not truly and legitimately so. Therefore, once a pontiff has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, no further question should be raised regarding a possible flaw in the election or the absence of any condition necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals any flaw in the election and infallibly demonstrates the existence of all required conditions. Let this be said in passing against those who seek to justify certain schismatic attempts made during the time of Alexander VI, under the pretext that they were undertaken by one who claimed to possess the most certain proofs of Alexander’s heresy, to be revealed in a general council. But indeed, setting aside other arguments by which this opinion could easily be refuted, this one suffices: it is well established that at the time when Savonarola was writing his letters to the princes, the whole of Christendom adhered to and obeyed Alexander as the true pontiff. Therefore, by that very fact, Alexander was not a false pontiff but a legitimate one. Consequently, he was not a heretic—at least not with that heresy which, by severing the status of a member of the Church, would by its very nature deprive him of pontifical authority or any other ordinary jurisdiction. Thus far concerning those matters that pertain to the perpetuity of Peter’s primacy in the Roman Pontiffs. Now, we must address the nature and rationale of that primacy.' (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, 1909, pp. 620–621)

Proofs of the Minor Premise

A papal claimant who is not accepted as the Supreme Pastor and teacher of all Christians, and whose teachings and disciplines are rejected, resisted, doubted, or ignored by a morally significant portion of the Church, faithful and clergy alike, cannot be the Roman Pontiff, as this would destroy the unity and visibility of the Church.

A society is an association of individuals bound by a common goal. Those who work in opposition to each other or are not united by a social bond cannot constitute a true society (Grenier, Thomistic Philosophy, pp. 603–604). The Catholic Church is a visible society whose members are united in one faith, worship, and government. If the visible head of the Church were to profess a different faith from that of the faithful, then the members would no longer be in communion with one another: some would submit to him, others would resist. In such a case, the Church, as one visible society, would collapse.

'…The Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in one and the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government.' (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, n. 6)

'Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws.' (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, n.6)

Sedevacantism and the Peaceful and Universal Acceptance of a Pope - Free download (PDF)