Answering Objections: "What if they're only Material Heretics?" Defending Sedevacantism- Part 5
Refutation of the Video’s Objections
Summary
The video presents an argument against sedevacantism, primarily distinguishing between material and formal heresy and whether Vatican II popes have lost their office due to heresy. The first speaker argues that a pope does not lose his office due to personal sin, even if public. He asserts that a pope would only forfeit his position if he falls into formal heresy, which requires a deliberate, willful rejection of defined Catholic dogma. While Vatican II popes may say things contrary to doctrine, they do not explicitly reject past teachings but instead attempt to reinterpret them in a "modern context"—thus, they remain popes.
Bishop Donald Sanborn refutes this, arguing that Vatican II and its reforms as a whole, not just individual statements, constitute a radical break from Catholic Tradition. He asserts that Vatican II popes are not merely material heretics (those who unknowingly err) but formal heretics because they are theologically trained and fully aware of Catholic teaching. It is absurd to suggest that John Paul II, Benedict XVI, or Francis—each educated in pre-Vatican II theology—are ignorant of the faith.
Bishop Sanborn further cites Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (1943), which states that heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. If Vatican II popes were merely material heretics, the Church would lose its unity, visibility, and ability to define itself, rendering the Catholic Church unrecognizable.
Thus, the last line of defense for the Recognize-and-Resist (R&R) position—that Vatican II popes are only material heretics—is untenable. The post-Vatican II hierarchy has abandoned the Catholic faith, meaning its leaders cannot be true popes.
Key Quotes & Their Importance
"A pope does not cease to be Pope because he's in sin—not even when it's public sin. A pope ceases to be Pope when he is in formal heresy."
This is the central claim against sedevacantism: only formal heresy, not sin or bad theology, can make a pope lose his office.
The sedevacantist rebuttal: Heresy is already a sin against faith and does not need a formal declaration. A public heretic is outside the Church, period.
"The Pope will say certain things that are against Church doctrine, but he will always say ‘in accordance with tradition.'"
Vatican II popes contradict previous Catholic teachings but insist they are merely "developing" them.
Sedevacantist response: This modernist trick allows popes to introduce heresies while avoiding direct contradiction, making their heresy even more dangerous.
Bishop Sanborn: "Are we going to say for one moment that someone like Ratzinger or Bergoglio is ignorant of Catholic doctrine?"
The idea that these men, trained in Catholic theology before Vatican II, are 'material heretics' due to ignorance is absurd.
Sedevacantist position: They knowingly promote errors; therefore, they are formal heretics.
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi: "The sin of heresy automatically severs one from the body of the Church."
This is a direct refutation of the claim that material heretics remain in the Church.
If Vatican II popes are heretics, they are already outside the Church and cannot be its head.
"If public material Heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish."
Recognizing heretics as popes destroys the marks of the Church (unity, visibility, apostolicity).
Sedevacantist argument: If Bergoglio is pope, then the Church is no longer identifiable as Catholic—which is impossible.
Analysis
Material vs. Formal Heresy is Misapplied to Vatican II Popes
The material/formal distinction is valid when ignorance is involved. However, Vatican II popes are educated theologians trained in pre-Vatican II doctrine.
It is impossible to claim that men like John Paul II, Benedict XVI, or Francis are unaware that their teachings contradict traditional Catholicism.
Heresy Does Not Need an Official Declaration
A person does not need to publicly declare: "I reject the Council of Trent" to be a heretic.
Vatican II officially contradicts past dogmatic teachings, meaning its proponents—including its popes—are automatically outside the Church.
Example:Dignitatis Humanae (Vatican II’s declaration on religious liberty) contradicts Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, which condemned religious freedom as heretical.
Pius XII’s Teaching in Mystici Corporis Christi Settles the Debate
Pius XII explicitly states that heresy, schism, and apostasy sever one from the Church.
Thus, the argument that heretics can remain pope is false.
Recognizing heretical Vatican II popes as legitimate destroys the visibility and unity of the Church.
The Vatican II Hierarchy Does Not Represent the Catholic Church
The sedevacantist position is not just about bad theology but about the systematic dismantling of Catholicism by Vatican II.
The post-Vatican II institution is not the Catholic Church but a new, counterfeit religion.
Takeaways
Post-Vatican II popes are not material heretics but formal heretics because they knowingly promote doctrines contrary to Catholic teaching.
Heresy does not need a formal declaration; promoting heresy in practice is enough to sever someone from the Church.
Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis Christi refutes the claim that public heretics can remain members of the Church or valid popes.
The Vatican II religion is not Catholicism; its popes are illegitimate usurpers.
Recognizing Vatican II popes as true popes destroys the Church’s visibility, unity, and apostolicity.
Conclusion: The Sedevacantist Position Stands
Recognize-and-Resist (R&R) arguments collapse under the weight of Catholic theology itself.
If one accepts Vatican II popes as legitimate, one must also accept:
That heretics can be popes (impossible).
That the Catholic Church can contradict itself (impossible).
That the Church has lost its marks of unity and visibility (impossible).
Thus, the only logical and Catholic conclusion is that Vatican II popes are false popes, the Novus Ordo Church is a counterfeit, and sedevacantism is the only defensible position.
