Sedemenefreghismo Arrives in the Anglosphere. The Remnant Newspaper.

Although a superficial reading of this definition — and of the final point of the thesis — might suggest an indifference to one of the most pressing problems of the Church and world, the entire thesis reflects a prudential approach to the reality that most of us care deeply about: the status of the Holy See. Indeed, the preamble explains that the Italians drafted the thesis in attempt to address the wounds caused by the decades-long crisis of the Petrine See:

“Aware of the unparalleled crisis that has been wounding the Church for a long time now, and noting that, among the good, the quarrels, divisions and endless diatribes often have as their object the state of the Petrine See (and of the entire Ecclesiastical Hierarchy), as private persons (clergy and lay people, theologians, philosophers, canonists, jurists and historians), we have unanimously drafted the following . . .”

Thus, the drafters appear to have drafted their thesis precisely because they are not indifferent to the “unparalleled crisis that has been wounding the Church.”

The drafters understand there is a profound crisis with the papacy because the words and deeds of Francis (and his post-Vatican II predecessors) are profoundly incompatible with our understanding of the Vicar of Christ. They also understand, as they describe in point eleven, that well-meaning Catholics can honestly and faithfully come to different conclusions about what this tragic reality means.

The thesis consists of seventeen points, most of which resonate which positions Traditional Catholics have held for decades, such as the first five:

“1. That there is an unparalleled crisis within the Church, that this crisis sees the genuine Catholic Tradition overwhelmed by heterodox doctrines (modernism and neo-modernism), that this crisis is a doctrinal, liturgical and moral crisis, that this crisis involves the ecclesial body (disciple and teacher) up to the Roman See — that all this is not something to be demonstrated, but only recognized;

2. That the crisis, which really has ancient roots, had its turning point in the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) with the coming into dominance of non-Catholic thought in the Hierarchy, up to the Roman See itself, is not something to be demonstrated but only to be recognized;

3. That the new liturgy imposed by Paul VI represents an artificial construction and an objective break with the uninterrupted Tradition of the Church and with Catholic Dogma is not something to be demonstrated but only to be recognized;

4. It is the duty of every baptized person to persevere in the profession of their baptismal faith, that is, in the faith of all time, in the immutable Doctrine received from the Apostles. It is the duty of every baptized person to live and pray in accordance with the holy will of God manifested in Divine Revelation (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition);

5. It is the duty of every baptized person to avoid what could be harmful to their soul, what represents a danger to the integrity of the faith;”

By reciting these duties of every Catholic — to persevere in the immutable doctrine received from the Apostles, to live and pray in accordance with the holy will of God, and to avoid what could be harmful to their souls — the drafters focus on what matters most: honoring God and saving souls. From these foundational principles, they speak of the virtue of prudence with points six and seven:

“6. Given the extent and gravity of the crisis, and until its resolution (condemnation and expulsion from the Church of every heterodox idea, integral return to Tradition in doctrine, liturgy and customs), it is a duty of prudence to be wary of Hierarchs dominated by non-Catholic thought, as well as ecclesiastical institutions that become instruments of non-Catholic thought;

7. It is prudent to stick to what is certain (lex credendi, lex orandi and lex vivendi as they have always been taught) while suspending assent to everything that is doubtful;”

The drafters, and all Catholics to whom they speak, understand there is a profound crisis with the papacy because the words and deeds of Francis (and his post-Vatican II predecessors) are profoundly incompatible with our understanding of the Vicar of Christ. They also understand, as they describe in point eleven, that well-meaning Catholics can honestly and faithfully come to different conclusions about what this tragic reality means. They urge the virtue of prudence to properly direct our actions, in these near-impossible circumstances, to satisfy the duties set forth in points four and five.

Even if we individually detest the positions other than the one we happen to hold, we ought to recognize that our imperfect interpretation of the grave crisis in the papacy is likely the only thing that “separates us” those who hold opposing viewpoints. We all seek the truth, but God has permitted a crisis in which faithful Catholics will necessarily disagree.

Point eleven gets to the heart of their thesis, and presumably the drafters realized it would offer something for many Catholics to denounce. In it, they list several “legitimate” beliefs one may hold about Bergoglio, of which (as they note in point twelve) only one will be true, as will be ultimately determined by the Supreme Authority of the Church:

“11. Due to the involvement of the Roman See itself in the crisis, it is legitimate to question the state of the Papal See. It is a legitimate opinion to believe Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a true Pope, albeit seriously heterodox. It is a legitimate opinion to consider Jorge Mario Bergoglio an illegitimate occupant of the See and/or as an Antipope. It is a legitimate opinion to consider the See vacant. It is a legitimate opinion to believe the Headquarters is only physically occupied. It is a legitimate opinion to consider the crisis of the Roman See as one of an heretical Pope. It is a legitimate opinion to consider the crisis of the Roman See as one of a schismatic Pope. It is also a legitimate opinion to believe in the co-presence of ‘two churches’ behind the appearances of a single Church (in the post-conciliar Church there would be both the true Church of Christ, the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, and a gnostic Neo-church) with the Pope at the top of both, so that the Pope would be the Vicar of Christ but also the Head of a new faith, of a new cult, of a new Church. It is a legitimate opinion to consider the post-conciliar Popes to be true Popes even if marked by non-Catholic thought.”

In reading this list of possible “legitimate” opinions, it should be obvious that one can find faithful Catholics holding each of these positions. Even if we individually detest the positions other than the one we happen to hold, we ought to recognize that our imperfect interpretation of the grave crisis in the papacy is likely the only thing that “separates us” those who hold opposing viewpoints. We all seek the truth, but God has permitted a crisis in which faithful Catholics will necessarily disagree.

From this reality, the drafters present three points that will form the basis of their conclusion:

“13. As mere opinions, none of them, although each is legitimately sustainable, may be considered a certain criterion for dealing with the crisis;

14. Since only the Supreme Authority of the Church is entitled to judge the issue relating to the See, developing/supporting one thesis or another will be an exercise inevitably destined for non-solution. The question of the See is destined to remain open, unresolved, until the end of the crisis, until a certain judgment by the Supreme Authority;

15. Differences of opinion regarding the See can never be a reason for division, as they are disputable opinions and not certain truths;”

Here it seems that the drafters are referring to divisions that cause Catholics to effectively anathematize each other — debates about how to resolve the crisis of the papacy should not be the cause of this type of division. God knows that we would all like to know the answer, but He has permitted a situation in which even our most faithful shepherds disagree with each other (and, yes, even among the sedevacantists there are irresolvable disagreements).

So if we had to synthesize points eleven through fifteen to develop a succinct prudential approach to these differences of opinion we could state it as follows: understand that other faithful Catholics have justifiably formed different opinions about the great crisis of the papacy, which only the Supreme Authority of the Church can definitively resolve, and do not let these differences become a source of acrimonious division. We should pray, charitably debate, and refrain from issuing anathemas.

We can resist Francis and any other heretical claimants to the papacy until the Pope and moral unanimity of the bishops return to the true Catholic Faith.

The other prudential course of action is one already common to most of those holding each of the legitimate opinions from point eleven, and consists of resisting Francis:

“8. The faithful, cleric or lay person, are not called to examine every single teaching, every single liturgical text, every single statement of the Hierarchy, to verify whether or not it conforms to the Deposit of the Faith. Rather, a prudential and ‘prophylactic’ criterion must be adopted: if a non-Catholic thought has infected the Hierarchy up to the Roman See, what was taught before the crisis must be prudently followed and assent to what was taught after must be suspended;

9. The suspension of assent is not ‘free examination’ but a duty of prudence for the preservation of the faith. By suspending assent, one postpones the judgment on the doctrine (of faith and/or morals) and on the lex orandi, leaving it to the Authority of the Church. When the crisis is overcome and the Hierarchy is once again certain in the orthodoxy of the faith, it will be the legitimate Authority that will judge;

10. The crisis can be considered overcome when the Hierarchy (Pope and moral unanimity of the Bishops) teaches the same Doctrine taught by the Church continuously until the Second Vatican Council and the lex orandi of Apostolic Tradition is re-established;”

Thus, we can resist Francis and any other heretical claimants to the papacy until the Pope and moral unanimity of the bishops return to the true Catholic Faith.

Although both the “recognize and resist” Catholics and sedevacantists resist Francis, the sedevacantists deem the non-sedevacantist resistance (which is generally the same as their resistance) to be illegitimate because, they argue, one cannot resist a true pope. Although the Sedemenefreghismo Thesis does not directly address this point, it is worthwhile to recognize that St. Paul resisted St. Peter to his face, and even St. Robert Bellarmine (one of the saints most frequently cited by sedevacantists) clearly tells us to resist a pope who would seek to destroy the Church:

“Just as it is licit to resist a pope who attacks the body, so also it is licit to resist him if he attacks souls or disturbs the civil order or, above all, if he tries to destroy the Church. I say it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will.”

If what really St. Robert Bellarmine meant was that one could never resist a true pope, surely he could have crafted such a statement.

We will honor God, become saints, and mitigate the damage Satan and Francis can do through their attacks on the Church. God alone can resolve the crisis at this point, and Satan clearly wants as many Catholics as possible to obsess over the demonic darkness enveloping Rome.

Point sixteen reiterates the points made in eight through ten:

“16. Whatever the opinion may be about the See, given the recognized crisis (also of the Roman See and of the entire Hierarchy) the prudential attitude must in any case be that of suspending assent, awaiting the end of the crisis.”

The final point elaborates on the title of the thesis, and will be one of the points most prone to criticism:

“17. Let’s also give this thesis of ours the name of “Sedemenefreghismo” in the double meaning of: ‘I don’t care’ about the question of the See as it is an unsolvable question for us and therefore useless [AND] ‘I don’t care’ about what emanates from the See, in so far as who sits (legitimately or illegitimately, only materially or even formally, de facto or de iure, is a disputed question) on the See is dominated by a non-Catholic thought and therefore, prudentially, is not to be listened to.”

So the drafters clearly “care” about the question of the Holy See — otherwise they would not have published their thesis — but because it is unsolvable there is no use fixating on the matter. This is to a large extent an exercise of the virtue of prudence the drafters refer to throughout their thesis: where fixating on a particular issue beyond our control will benefit nobody and likely harm ourselves and others, it is prudent to instead focus on what we can actually control. And for this, we can return to their points four and five:

“It is the duty of every baptized person to persevere in the profession of their baptismal faith, that is, in the faith of all time, in the immutable Doctrine received from the Apostles. It is the duty of every baptized person to live and pray in accordance with the holy will of God manifested in Divine Revelation (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition). It is the duty of every baptized person to avoid what could be harmful to their soul, what represents a danger to the integrity of the faith.”

If this is what we care most about in life, we will honor God, become saints, and mitigate the damage Satan and Francis can do through their attacks on the Church. God alone can resolve the crisis at this point, and Satan clearly wants as many Catholics as possible to obsess over the demonic darkness enveloping Rome. As the crisis worsens, as it surely will, we will better appreciate the wisdom of allocating all of our cares to becoming the saints God wants us to be.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

§§§

Help Stilum Curiae

IBAN

IT79N0200805319000400690898

BIC/SWIFT

UNCRITM1E35

§§§