Roman Catholicism (Both Traditional & Novus Ordo) Proves Eastern Orthodoxy

By: Jay Dyer

The recent debate has, in my mind, solidified the completely unworkable and impossible scheme known as Roman Catholicism – whether it’s the traditional forms found in sedevacantism, the SSPX or FSSP or the Novus Ordo.  The essence of the refutation of all these flavors of the Roman system centers around one key area which most “traditional Catholics” overlook – the dogmatic decrees of Vatican I in 1869.  In addition to this, the 1917 Code of Canon Law and various other encyclicals and papal constitutions make evident the necessity of accepting the universal ordinary magisterium (and not merely the extraordinary magisterium), the decisions of the Roman Congregations and Curia (including disciplinary decisions) ratified by the pope, and the actual, visible successor the Cardinals in Rome elect.

If normative Roman Catholic dogma and canon law affirms these claims prior to Vatican II, then the Roman See (and its offices) that entered into Vatican II must be fundamentally the same Roman See that emerged after Vatican II.  As we saw with our friend John C. Pontrello’s book, this was part of his key thesis in his excellent book.   But we want to stress this excellent book isn’t just useful for refuting the fringe of traditional Romanism found in sedevacantism, but the other “traditional” forms that recognize Francis as the true pope.   We will cover each of these three positions below and demonstrate how the impossibility and self-evident contradictions in each of these traditional forms vindicates the only legitimate contender left in the world for fulfilling the “4 marks” of the Church – one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic – the Orthodox Church.  In the debate the time limits forced me to speedily read out the citations that proved my argument and many missed these citations.  In this essay, we will cover them with a written record.

1. Sedevacantist Arguments 

The 1917 Code of Canon Law on the Roman Curia, Congregations & Election of the Pope

The sedevacantist position refers to a couple key documents to argue its legitimacy as the solution to the dilemma of how the Roman Church is infallible and indefectible, and yet has for 60+ years officially taught heresy.  Sedevacantists are correct that the Roman See cannot officially teach error, and they are correct in affirming against the SSPX and “recognize-and-resist” positions of traditionalism the necessity of affirming the pope’s universal ordinary magisterium as well as his juridicial and disciplinary decisions.  As Pontrello notes, sedevacantism is thus a theory on the defection of the Roman See itself, arguing the present day Roman See the world knows as the Roman See is no longer Catholic and now outside the Church.  To prove this thesis, after various litanies of clear and manifest examples of apostasy and heresy (such as participating in pagan services, rejecting converting pagans and atheists, denying the necessity of a confessional state, teaching Muslims and Christians worship the same God, and on and on), sedevacantists appeal (among other documents) to Pope Paul IV’s 1559 “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio,” and canon 188.

Cum Ex explains that only Catholics can be elected to the papal office, including former Catholics who have left the faith through heresy and apostasy.  The context was the suspicion that a Cardinal who was a possible successor might be secretly a Protestant:

“7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]: that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories: the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him…”

Of course, for sedevacantism the argument seems airtight – the text is certainly intended to preclude and heretic being elected to the office of Peter.  The next classic prooftext is canon 188.4 relating to the ipso facto excommunication:

“There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”

According to the famous encyclicals Satis Cognitum of Leo XIII and Mystici Corporis Christi of Pius XII: heresy, schism and apostasy sever one ipso facto from the mystical body of the Church, leading to the logical conclusion that a public, manifest heretic cannot be elected pope.  The post-Vatican II papacy, therefore, are antipope imposters.  Satis Cognitum reads as follows concerning indefectibility and infallibility, moving then to demonstrate heresy and schism immediately remove one from the Body:

“Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. “Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee” (Richardus de S. Victore, De Trin., lib. i., cap. 2).

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. Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3).”

“From this it is easy to see that men can fall away from the unity of the Church by schism, as well as by heresy. “We think that this difference exists between heresy and schism” (writes St. Jerome): “heresy has no perfect dogmatic teaching, whereas schism, through some Episcopal dissent, also separates from the Church” (S. Hieronymus, Comment. in Epist. ad Titum, cap. iii., v. 10-11). In which judgment St. John Chrysostom concurs: “I say and protest (he writes) that it is as wrong to divide the Church as to fall into heresy” (Hom. xi., in Epist. ad Ephes., n. 5). Wherefore as no heresy can ever be justifiable, so in like manner there can be no justification for schism. “There is nothing more grievous than the sacrilege of schism….there can be no just necessity for destroying the unity of the Church” (S. Augustinus, Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, lib. ii., cap. ii., n. 25).

Mystici reads:

“For not every offense, although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

Thus, public and manifest heresy not only spiritually severs the bond with the Church, but also severs the bond legally without any need of ecclesial declaration, as the actions make manifest the separation that is already fact. These are Latae Sententiae Excommunications:

“Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offense itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge…”  Contrary to this clear meaning, the defenders of the Novus Ordo system all declare ipso facto excommunications require the judgment of the Church, when, by definition, they do not.  Further, they generally counter that sedevacantists cannot “personally judge” who the pope is and if he is, in fact, a heretic, while simultaneously presupposing they themselves have the capacity to recognize and interpret the writings of the “valid” popes they accept.  In reality, both of these groups are correct and both are wrong, from different angles, as John Pontrello highlights.  Denzinger 1830 (citing Vatican I) reads:

“1830  [Recourse to the Roman Pontiff as the supreme judge]. And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [cf. n.1500 ], and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment [cf. n. 466 ]; moreover, that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment [cf. n.330 ff.]. Therefore, they stray from the straight path of truth who affirm that it is permitted to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than the Roman Pontiff.”

2. Sedevacantism Falls Apart 

By this stage, the sedevacantist thesis for what happened to the Roman See and also how to salvage the thesis of the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church appear to be preserved by simply pronouncing the last several papal claimants to be heretics and imposters.  However, as mentioned, the problem with this thesis is precisely Vatican I itself, as well as canon law.  For example, in my debate I listed the following canons relating to the Roman See: 149-150, 154-165, 180, 230-241.

These canons can all be found here and summarize what the Roman Curia and Congregations are, that they alone elect the pope and that their election is binding.  I am not going to screenshot 30+ pages for you, so you can go read the actual canons through the links, but as you can see from my selections, the claims I made in the debate were accurate.  We see the pope is chosen by the Roman Curia, it alone elects the pope, and this decision is binding when they make that choice.  Note as well, the Apostolic Constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica of Pius X is the only means by which the pope is known or elected.

Vacante Sede Apostolica of Pius X reads as follows:

“CONCERNING THE ELECTION OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF
CHAPTER I Concerning the Electors of the Roman Pontiff

“The right of electing the Roman Pontiff pertains solely and exclusively to the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, having excluded and in every respect removed any intervention at all of any other Ecclesiastical dignity or lay power of any rank or order without distinction. If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff die during the celebration of any general Council, whether it be held in Roma or in any other place in the world, the election of the new Pontiff must be effected always and exclusively by the sole College of Cardinals, but by no means by the Council itself: We declare invalid ipso jure [i.e., by the law itself] acts of a Council, which in any way whatsoever may seem to weaken by a reckless venture the exclusive right of the Sacred College of Cardinals; again, besides the aforementioned Cardinals, any other persons of any kind whatsoever at all have been barred from carrying through the same election…”

Now things get hairy for the sedevacantist precisely for the reasons I argued in the debate.  If the entire Roman Curia is apostate, there is no one to elect the pope, which by papal decree, can only be done by the Cardinals.  But in the sedevacantist thesis, all the Roman Curia and the Cardinalate are also now all apostate and outside the Church. This means the entire Roman See, as it has fundamentally been constituted and known for centuries, has in fact defected.  This is precisely why the sedevacantist thesis fails, as it must then sever the essential characteristics of the papacy as listed in Vatican I and encyclicals like Satis Cognitum and Mystici to no longer have the same visible structure, function, unity and form it did, right up until the time of Vatican II!

Indeed, as we can see from the canons listed above and in the standard descriptions of the various Roman Congregations and Curia, their decisions and juridical judgments, such as a decision of the Holy Office or the “Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith” are also binding when they have papal approval.  Thus one cannot legitimately decide for themselves based on private judgments which decisions and pronouncements of the Roman See they will choose to follow.  This is made clear in Denzinger:

1683: “And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.”

In other words, as 1722 later relates, it is a condemned proposition that the Roman Church is only to be followed in extraordinary dogmatic matters: 1722: “The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of faith (30 [see n. 1683])” CONDEMNED.

This if because the universal ordinary magisterium is just as “infallible” and necessary in the Roman Catholic system as is the extra-ordinary magisterium, as Vatican I stated in Denzinger 1792:

“[The object of faith] .Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.”

Indeed, the decisions of the Holy Office and the Roman Congregations are also binding, including the disciplinary decisions in Denzinger 1698:

“Nor do they blush to profess openly and publicly the axiom and principle of heretics from which so many perverse opinions and errors arise. For they repeatedly say that “the ecclesiastical power is not by divine right distinct from and independent of the civil power, and that the distinction and independence of the same could not be preserved without the essential rights of the civil power being invaded and usurped by the Church.” And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [2 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 rights 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.”

This, as we said, is the key line that refutes the absurd position of the SSPX (and all “trads” that reject Vatican II and the teachings and juridical decisions of the post-Vatican II popes, while foolishly and hypocritically claiming to accept them as valid popes), but the reason we are stating this here is to elucidate the interconnectedness of the Roman Curia, the Roman See, the pope himself, and the living magisterium and its continual, essential functions.  As Pontrello summarizes, Vatican I shows us multiple essential factors of the Roman See and its purpose, all of which are absolutely fundamental and necessary to the Roman system and proclaimed to exist perpetually with this same function and visible source of unity until the end of time.   We can summarize these as follows from Pontrello and source them from Vatican I:

1. 1. Peter’s Papacy is the underlying basis for unity.
   2. The primacy is perpetually bound to Rome.
   3. The office of the papacy is the position of primacy.
   4. A living Roman Pontiff must fulfill/exercise this papacy (excluding sparse periods of vacancy).
   5. These are symbiotic in order to realize the unity for which Christ instituted the papacy: unity of the Church.

These are corollary points related to the essential aspects of the papacy which also cannot alter or change or defect or “go away” for 60, 70, or 100 years (in the Vatican I mindset).  These are as follows according to Satis Cognitum, Mystici Corporis Christi, and Session 4 of Vatican I, known as Pastor Aeternus:

1. 1. The purpose of the Church is the permanent duration of the work of redemption.
   2. The papacy is the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church.
   3. Rome is the foundation of the papacy.
   4. Rome and its Curia alone identify the valid pope.
   5. Roman Pontiffs realize the unity of the Church.
   6. Visible unity of the Roman Church is perpetual.
   7. Unity with the Holy See identifies the hierarchy and the faithful.

This fundamental, essential constitution of the Roman Church and its center, the Roman See, cannot defect, disappear, die out, go into hiding and lose visibility, etc.  If sedevacantism is true, then the Roman See has in fact defected and Vatican I is not true, as it dogmatically mandates this fundamental and essential structure cannot defect or fall away.  This lasts until the end of time, not until an amorphous period of 100-200-1000 years before the end of time, but up to the end of time: Meaning the Church also cannot lose jurisdiction, as many sedevacantists admit their sects lack, splintered among the countless non-jurisdictional warring chapels, factions and collections of online quacks. Indeed, hierarchy and jurisdiction go together in Roman Catholicism, and are grounded in the papal succession, as Pius XII made clear by showing jurisdiction can no more disappear in the universal Church than can episcopal orders, in Ad Sinarum Gentem,:

“12. By virtue of God’s Will, the faithful are divided into two classes: the clergy and the laity. By virtue of the same Will is established the twofold sacred hierarchy, namely, of orders and jurisdiction. Besides – as has also been divinely established – the power of orders (through which the ecclesiastical hierarchy is composed of Bishops, priests, and ministers) comes from receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders. But the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter, to whom not only the simple faithful, but even all the Bishops must be constantly subject, and to whom they must be bound by obedience and with the bond of unity.”

For sedevacantists to justify their position, they must divide jurisdiction from holy orders, which Pius XII actually says go together, as none of the episcopacy can exercise these functions outside the bond of unity found in the See of Peter.  The See of Peter cannot fail to have living successors, and periods of vacancies are not a proof of this.   The simple proof of this is the fact that if the Roman Curia and the Roman See have been vacant for 60+ years, then all the Curia who would elect the Roman Pontiff are also all apostate now.

This means the Roman See has defected (contradicting Vatican I) and no pope can ever be elected again (since popes are elected by the Roman Curia as per Pius X’s decree).  Thus the sedevacantist position must divorce multiple necessary and essential elements of the papacy in order to maintain being in union by desire with an “empty see.”   This is nothing but the invisible church heresy of calvinism where the source of unity is not a visible, papal head (as Session 4 of Vatican I mandates), but an invisible “spiritual” chair that is no longer associated with the actual See in Rome the whole world recognizes as the only Roman See.  Thus sedevacantism must deny the fundamental elements of the constitution of the Roman See according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law and Vatican I.  The Roman Catholic Church is not merely online dogmas you read and adhere to mentally, but an actual historic entity that has dogmatically claimed its fundamental constitution and visible, unitary structure will continue until the end of time:

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record.

1. 1. The Son of God, redeemer of the human race, our lord Jesus Christ, promised, when about to return to his heavenly Father, that he would be with this church militant upon earth all days even to the end of the world [3] . Hence never at any time has he ceased to stand by his beloved bride….
2. 1. So then,

1. 1. just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world [39] ,
   2. even as he had been sent by the Father [40],
   3. in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time….

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. 1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45] .”

These statements, when taken in concert with the rest of the points made in Pastor Aeternus make clear the fundamental and essential elements of the papacy are what will continue until the end of time, and to deny any of these elements is to deny Vatican I.  These elements are:

1. 1. Peter and his office
   2. The Supremacy of jurisdiction.
   3. The Roman See (in Rome)
   4. The living Roman Pontiff.

These are all mentioned clearly in Vatican I to be essential to the constitution of the Church and make up the marks by which the unity and visibility of the Church will continue to the end of time.  To deny this is to deny the fundamental structure and constitution of the Church remains the same in terms of the Roman See.  This means sedevacantism is schismatic and heretical and a dead end position.  This is precisely why sedevacantists are miserable and rabid – their position does not produce unity, holiness, catholicity or apostolicity.  if sedevacantism were true, it should exemplify the 4 marks of the Church, and sedevacantism exemplifies none of the marks, but in fact bears all the marks of a schismatic, heretical movement.  There is no solution for the loss of these essential properties in the various sects of sedevacantism, apart from vague appeals to the “end times,” which is irrelevant to the dogmatic contradiction we are highlighting, as La Salette was prior to Vatican I and Vatican I trumps La Salette in Romanism, as it dogmatically mandated the Roman See cannot defect and “become the Seat of Antichrist.”

3. Novus Ordo Catholicism Falls Apart 

At this point we would affirm the critiques of the sedevacantists, generally speaking, on the objective factuality of the present day Roman See’s apostasy and acceptance of almost every error and heresy, including even the active participation in numerous pagan ceremonies, festivals, rites, superstitions, and apostasy – even to the point of actively dissuading conversions and proselytizing.  Why proselytize other religions when all religions are, as Vatican II teaches, potential pathways to heaven?  Indeed, as Vatican II kicked off and spread its “spirit,” the sharp decline in the Roman communion went into light speed, with vocations dropping as fast as abuse allegations skyrocketed.  These contradictions have been treated with more detail here.

The real root of the pedo abuse crisis is not ultimately about sexual attractions, but in fact the very curse of God Himself upon an institution which has for centuries rejected Orthodoxy and promoted hermeticism and perennialism.  Indeed, ecumenism wasn’t invented and fostered in the decades prior to Vatican II, but all the way back to the Renaissance and the Renaissance papacy, which fostered Neoplatonic magic systems and syncretism hundreds of years ago. This is the red pill no trads want to swallow, and when they do swallow it, they end up Orthodox because these are precisely the heresies Orthodoxy called out a millennium ago – that generic theism, perennialism, platonism and all the other stupid Hellenic heresies we still anathematize in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy are the very roots of the Roman apostasy.  In fact, as the product of the 7th Ecumenical Council, the Roman Church itself should affirm the Synodikon as dogmatic!

In fact, as Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus wrote to Pope Francis only a few years ago, these facts have all been only further demonstrated and vindicated in the disastrous papacy of Francis and his apostate Pachamama scandal.  The point is that the millennium of innovations Orthodoxy has leveled against the papacy has come to full fruition in Pachamama and the open apostasy of the Amazon Synod:

All three positions of so-called “authentic” Catholicism, whether “conservative” Novus Ordo, FSSP – SSPX “recognize and resist positions,” and sedevacantism all fail at a basic level, not due to the failures of the various proponents to exercise the most amazing mental gymnastics of all time, but because of a simpler reason – the Roman Catholic Church is not the true church.  It is an innovation that has evolved over centuries and is, in our day, evolving into a system that is outright Antichrist as many great Orthodox saints warned.

Subscribe to JaysAnalysis in the Purchase Membership section to access the archives of videos and interviews and lectures or purchase my books in the Shop!