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.
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?
In brief, let's note that sedevacantists agree that…
No one is obliged to obey evil commands, and unjust laws are no laws at all.
Obeying the Roman Pontiff in absolutely everything is not necessary to be Catholic, because “absolutely everything” is too wide an umbrella.
All things being equal, disobedience, while potentially sinful depending on the context, does not cause a Catholic to lose his membership of the Church. The same applies for being wrong about “The Pope Question” itself.
On the contrary, what is necessary as a criterion of membership is a state of submission to the Roman Pontiff, which involves rendering obedience to him when obedience is due.
The premise of the allegation conflates two matters – commands and universal laws – which must be carefully distinguished.
Because all this is admitted, the anti-sedevacantist objection based on an alleged misunderstanding of obedience falls.
But there’s a lot more that could be said—and in fact, it's those making this objection that should be concerned here.
Let’s look a bit closer:
This is a temporarily free version of a members-only article.
If you like reading The WM Review and value our material, please consider supporting us with a monthly or annual subscription. Articles like this one are our way of giving something back to those who make this work possible!
Remember - clergy and seminarians get free access upon request.
Submission/subjection vs. obedience
We must be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to be members of the Church. This subjection is necessary for salvation, as Pope Boniface VIII infallibly taught in Unam Sanctam:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”[1]
This subjection entails rendering obedience when it is due. Obedience is, in a sense, a consequence of this subjection or submission.
In considering this, we must distinguish between dominative power and legislative or jurisdictional power – and between commands and laws.
Dominative power gives a superior the right to issue commands to those subject to him (among other things). Commands are directed to the good of the “household” over which the dominative power is exercised.
Legislative or jurisdictional power is that which gives a superior the right to make laws to those who are subject to this power (among other things). Laws are public, and directed to the common good.
Commands
The command of an authority or superior requires the obedience of a subject.
The objection correctly states that we are not obliged to obey an unjust or evil command. We cannot be obliged to obey a command to sin, and other factors may also suspend the duty of obedience.
It is debatable whether the Roman Pontiff can be said to have dominative power over individual Catholics.
However, even if we assume that he does, sedevacantists recognise that the distinction between true and false obedience applies even to commands of the pope, and that they could theoretically be evil.
Consider the text of Abbé Damien Dutertre, of Bishop Donald Sanborn’s Roman Catholic Institute:
“The particular commands, and the personal actions of the pope, are not the object of the special assistance promised by Christ to His Church through the divine institution of the papacy. They may sometimes be legitimately resisted and denounced.”[2]
In other words, we do not say that “obeying the pope” in absolutely everything is a criterion for being a Catholic. “Absolutely everything” extends too far.
Therefore, it is incorrect and unjustified to assert that sedevacantists do not understand obedience correctly concerning commands.
In fact, given that this clear text is taken from an extensive set of studies produced by one of the most prominent sedevacantist organizations in the world, it is impossible to maintain such claim in the face of it.
Laws
According to St Thomas, a law is “an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated.”[3] Ordinances which do not conform to this definition are “acts of violence rather than laws.”[4]
This could be summarised as saying that an unjust law is no law at all.
It is therefore evident that we are not obliged to obey unjust laws. As St Thomas teaches, “such laws do not bind in conscience”, except perhaps in certain individual circumstances, “to avoid scandal or disturbance.”[5]
This is not in question amongst sedevacantists.
Therefore it is also incorrect and unjustified to say that sedevacantists do not understand obedience correctly concerning law, taken abstractly and in general.
The Church’s universal laws
As we have seen, commands and laws are distinct. Because of this, it is a mistake to assume that one can use all the principles about the former to prove a point about the latter.
As Abbé Dutertre said, “[t]he particular commands, and the personal actions of the pope, are not the object of the special assistance promised by Christ to His Church.” But it begs the question to assume that such points about commands can also be applied to laws. Further argumentative work or authorities would be necessary to prove each such point.
We have recognised that certain commands of the Roman Pontiff could be legitimately disobeyed and resisted; and that in the abstract, unjust laws (really, non-laws) can also be legitimately disobeyed or resisted.
This can certainly apply to any civil law. It may also apply to particular or non-universal ecclesiastical laws.
But this does not apply to the particular case of the Church’s universal laws.
The magisterium and Catholic theologians teach that the Church’s universal laws are indeed an “object of the special assistance promised by Christ to His Church.”
What does “universal” really mean? This does not directly touch on the objection at hand, but Novus Ordo Watch wrote about this in 2023, explaining what is meant by this qualifier.
This is a very standard thesis of ecclesiology, discussed with authorities and examples here:
As the theologian Van Noort writes about such universal laws:
“[T]he Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree as intimated above—and to such an extent that it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.
“The Church was endowed with infallibility that it might safeguard the whole of Christ’s doctrine and be for all men a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life.
“But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life.
“It would not be a guardian of revealed doctrine, for the imposition of a vicious law would be, for all practical purposes, tantamount to an erroneous definition of doctrine; everyone would naturally conclude that what the Church had commanded squared with sound doctrine. [Emphasis added]
“It would not be a teacher of the Christian way of life, for by its laws it would induce corruption into the practice of religious life.
“2. From the official statement of the Church, which stigmatized as ‘at least erroneous’ the hypothesis ‘that the Church could establish discipline which would be dangerous, harmful, and conducive to superstition and materialism.’”
As such, the matter of true or false obedience should be irrelevant to the discussion between sedevacantists and sedeplenists.
Let’s be clear: without regard for the answer given to “The Pope Question,” traditionalists agree that the Novus Ordo Mass and other measures associated with the Conciliar-Synodal Church are indeed harmful and at odds with faith and morals.
We agree about the distinction between true and false obedience, and that this distinction is relevant for the first and practical response to the whole Conciliar-Synodal revolution.
We agree that we cannot obey evil commands or laws, no matter who delivers them to us – particularly when they work against the Catholic faith.
We agree that we are not obliged to obey irrational or unjust acts which have the appearance of laws (although certain extrinsic circumstances might require us to submit to such non-laws for reasons of prudence or peace).
The problems with such evil commands or apparent laws come before considering the status of the post-conciliar claimants. They are indeed a primary motivation reason for considering that issue, and reaching the conclusion that the Holy See is vacant.
But the consideration of the status of these papal claimants is a development of that initial, practical response and comes after it. The issue, then, is specifically this:
Can the Church make universal laws (such as imposing the Novus Ordo, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, etc.) which are harmful, or at odds with faith and morals?
We who have concluded that Francis etc. have not been true popes say “No,” based on the teaching of the magisterium and approved Catholic theologians.
Those making the objection say “Yes,” based on an assumption that what can be said about commands, civil laws and non-universal ecclesiastical laws can also be applied to the specific case of universal ecclesiastical laws. This is a mistake, and cannot be used as the basis of an explanation of the events of the post-conciliar revolution.
Conclusion
From all this, we can return to our key points:
It is not true that sedevacantists have a faulty understanding of obedience. Sedevacantists are clear on the practical question: we cannot obey what has come since Vatican II.
It is not true that we think that the obedience, which is owed to the Roman Pontiff as a criterion of membership, entails what is rightly called false obedience to evil.
On the contrary, we agree that some commands should be disobeyed; and that unjust laws are no laws at all.
The question of these papal claimants cannot resolved with reference to virtues such as obedience, as the question is one of ecclesiology, the magisterium and the secondary object of infallibility (i.e., the doctrinal safety of universal laws).
For these reasons, the objection falls.
PS: A final word for us sedevacantists.
When accused of “hyperpaplism” and misunderstanding the virtue of obedience, it would be better to clarify the differences discussed here, rather than throw out a rhetorical argument liable to be misunderstood.
The distinction between true and false obedience is valid. The problem with using it as an interpretative key for the current situation in the Church is not so much that there are cases where this distinction ceases to be valid, and more that there are cases in which God’s assistance will prevent it needing to be applied.
The difference is quite subtle, but important. The fact that it evidently does need to be applied to the Conciliar-Synodal revolution is an indication of where the solution lies, but we can actually obscure that solution by suggesting that those who recognise the evil of this revolution should obey it because of the putative authorities which imposed it.
We said that the objection falls. So let’s not breathe life back into a fallen objection by saying that traditionalists who don’t accept our arguments should submit themselves to the evil Conciliar-Synodal revolution.
They just might do so.
PPS: Thank you to all our subscribers for making it possible to carry out original research and translation.
Please do recommend The WM Review to your family and friends – or even consider buying them a gift subscription:
PPS: You can read more about some of the issues discussed here:
As Amazon Associates, we earn from qualifying purchases through our Amazon links. See also The WM Review Reading List (with direct links for US and UK readers).
[1] Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302.
[2] Fr Damien Dutertre, The Errors Of The “Recognize And Resist” System, 2022. Now included without authorial attribution as Chapter XI on TheThesis.us, accessible at https://web.archive.org/web/20231115094847/https://thethesis.us/chapter-xi/
[3] St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II. I q.90 a.4
[4] St Thomas Aquinas, ST II. I. q.96 a.4
[5] Ibid.
I very much like this post and would like for it one day to be opened up to the general readership with one caveat: a different source than Abbé Damien Dutertre for the point referenced to him if at all possible. Something that will be more convincing to those holding different positions.