True & false obedience: Have we misunderstood this basic distinction?
Some say sedevacantism is a misunderstanding of 'true and false obedience' – and that it is a form of 'hyperpapalism,' thinking we must obey the pope in absolutely everything. This is false.
Dear Readers,
This is our regular Editors’ Updates newsletter for monthly and annual subscribers.
Here’s a very common objection often presented in the controversy over whether Francis and his recent predecessors have been true popes or not:
“Sedevacantists do not understand the doctrine of true and false obedience.
“They think that we have to obey the pope in absolutely everything in order to be a Catholic.
“But that’s false, because we are not obliged to obey unjust or evil commands.
“Therefore, there’s no reason to do anything other than recognise that Francis is the pope, and resist his errors – and in fact, the argument for a vacancy is based on false premises, bad theology and bad moral philosophy.”
Now, before we address this argument, we need to acknowledge that it is not wholly a strawman. Sometimes sedevacantists do indeed make a rhetorical argument along these lines:
“If you think that Francis and his recent predecessors were true popes, then obey them.
“Unless you conclude that they were not true popes, you are obliged to accept and obey everything they’ve given you – including the Novus Ordo Mass, etc.
“So if you continue to recognise them as popes, then you should accept the whole Vatican II revolution.”
Sometimes there is an additional point added to this argument:
“If you claim to recognise Francis as the pope and don’t obey him, you’re not just sinning – you are also objectively a schismatic, and therefore a non-Catholic.”
However, unless we’re careful, this argument can come across quite differently from how it is intended. For example, we may need to remember and spell out…
That nobody can obey the commands or putative universal laws coming from Francis etc., whatever they think about their claims, because they are dangerous to the faith, as all agree.
That Francis etc. have not been popes, and that disobeying him and them cannot thereby make someone a schismatic or a non-Catholic.
That on several occasions, this rhetorical argument has driven some persons (and even whole religious orders) back into the arms of the modernists.
These points can really get lost if this argument is presented as a soundbite.
In essence, we have one argument, being used in two different ways to prove two different conclusions:
One way is trying to prove that Francis etc have been true popes
The other is a rhetorical means of convincing sedeplenist traditionalists to become sedevacantists.
What should we make of the two sides of this coin?