Expert: Fr. Michael - 10/29/2011

Question
Dear Fr. Michael,

I am a traditional, confessional Lutheran. So, I realize we have many differences of great importance but also that we would be closer on some points than modern liberal Catholics. I have always felt an affection for Catholicism and have tried to study it to see if God is leading me there. One of the main confusions I run into is the whole issue of Vatican Two and modern Popes. Looking at this as an outsider I definitely do see a break with traditional Catholic teaching and practice since Vatican Two. Especially concerning Ecumenism which was forbidden by earlier Popes. So, my question is this: Are you still in Communion with the Pope and under a modern bishop? Or are you a Sedevacantist? Also, if Vatican Two was heretical and many of the other things like the new mass then doesn't that mean the Church has fallen into error? A Catholic would believe that the Pope or a council recognized by him is infallible when teaching on faith or morals. So why would the Holy Spirit permit something like Vatican 2? Where is the Catholic Church now, and how do we discern what authority to follow or who is in authority? If there is no valid pope since that time then what's the use of an infallible church if one can't tell if the pope or councils are valid ones? I hope that question makes sense? I mean no disrespect, I only seek to understand this issue, since it seems overwhelming and quite scarey. Any guidance on this would be much appreciated!

God Bless!

Answer
Your first six sentences are exactly right and form the basis of Catholicism, which now has to be called traditional Catholicism in order to distinguish it from the New Order sect that calls itself Catholic, but has, as you say, broken from Catholicism.

There are various theories to explain the current situation, most of them having been proposed during the period of the Protestant Revolution in the 16th century.  So-called sede-vacantism, that the papacy is vacant because the claimant is a heretic under Catholic theology, is only one of them.  Another argument is that the current claimant was never consecrated as a bishop in the valid, traditional form, so, not being a bishop, he cannot be the Bishop of Rome.

But whatever theory may be argued to explain the current situation theologically is really not that important.  The fact of the matter is that Catholic theology has always held that one cannot follow any pope, who attempts change Catholic dogma or Tradition.  One must shun such a pope, and the history of the Church shows that the Doctors and Saints did so.

Your quotation from Vatican I about "faith and morals" is only partially true.  There are several other requirements for any papal teaching to be infallible, which is rare in any case.  Vatican I, for example, makes it quite clear that the pope's power is limited to acting within the dogma and tradition of the Church.  If he presumes to act outside that sphere, his actions are ultra vires and therefore null and void.  The teaching of the Church on this point is indisputable.  Look at it this way.  If a President of the United States rejected the Constitution and attempted to act unconstitutionally would you morally be able to follow him?  No, he has violated his oath, and his unconstitutional directives cannot be followed.

It may comfort you to know that the current situation in the Church has occurred periodically over the centuries, as the Church is partially a human institution and must be purged periodically.  In those cases, popes have been excommunicated and deposed.  All of this theology and history has been conveniently summarized in an article entitled "Limitations of Papal Authority to Change Sacred Tradition, From the Writings of Roman Catholic Popes, Councils, Saints, and Theologians" (www.traditio.com/tradlib/popelim.txt), to which we refer you for further information.