Usquequodomine1958: 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.

Make the most of your spiritual life with the CATHOLIC DEVOTIONAL GUIDE 2025