Sede Vacante!: Part One: Dogmatic Ecclesiology Applied to Our Times

By Griff Ruby

Many concerned Catholics today, seeing the ways and teachings of Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pope Francis), are asking themselves, Can that man be a real Catholic pope? From the time of Paul VI, a small contingent of faithful Catholics known as sede vacantists have expressed the gravest doubts that he and each of his successors in turn since then were real popes of the Catholic Church. This minority view, long dismissed by most, now emerges into a wide public view as Jorge Bergoglio seems to go out of his way to puncture every expectation a Catholic should have for a Vicar of Christ. But this latest step in the deCatholicization of the church is merely the fullest flowering yet seen of an erroneous direction taken during the Second Vatican Council.

Those looking to find detailed lists of all the abominable acts and teachings of Jorge Bergoglio or his immediate few predecessors or justly deserved ecclesiastical anathemas heaped upon them will doubtless be disappointed. Rather, the severe theological implications of the Sede Vacante findings are explored and vindicated for the first time in a systematic and complete book form.

In this volume, sixteen doctrinal categories are discussed and reconciled to the historical events in the church since Vatican II, showing the essential role of the Sede Vacante findings in sustaining the churchs supernatural claims.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: May 24, 2017
• ISBN: 9781532023774

Griff Ruby

Born 1958, Griff Ruby found the Faith without the luxury of a religious upbringing, and at a time when Catholicism itself had lost its identity. His writings reflect many years research into Christian history and theology and ecclesiology. Griff Ruby lives with his wife Juliet and son Martin on the Central California coast.

Book preview

Copyright © 2017 Griff Ruby.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

iUniverse

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.iuniverse.com

1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-5320-2376-7 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-5320-2377-4 (e)

iUniverse rev. date: 05/23/2017

Contents

Foreword By John Gregory

Author’s Preface And Protest

Introduction Goals, Rules, And Parameters

Doctrine #1:The Indefectibility Of The Church

Doctrine #2:The Infallibility Of The Pope And Church

Doctrine #3:The Authority Of The Church

Doctrine #4:The Visibility Of The Church

Doctrine #5:The Four Marks Of The Church, As Marks

Doctrine #6:The Attribute And Mark Of Unity

Doctrine #7:The Attribute And Mark Of Holiness

Doctrine #8:The Attribute And Mark Of Catholicity

Doctrine #9:The Attribute And Mark Of Apostolicity

Doctrine #10:The Supernatural Protection Of The Church

Doctrine #11:Rome, The Eternal Diocese

Doctrine #12:The Need For Visible External Actions

Doctrine #13:The Object Of Infallible Ecclesiastical Faith

Doctrine #14:The First See Is Judged By No One

Doctrine #15:The Universal Teaching Of All The Bishops

Doctrine #16:The Church As A Perfect Society

Deductions Section 17: Summary Of All Basic Findings

Deductions Section 18: The Apostolicity Of The Traditional Catholic Bishops

Deductions Section 19: The Ability Of The Church To Provide Herself With A Pope

Deductions Section 20: Miscellanea And Remaining Deductions

Deductions Section 21: Concluding Deductions

Epilogue: Remaining Questions In Need Of A Theory

Table Of Basic Premises, Findings, And Questions

Appendix – The Sources Of Errors Against The Authority Of The Catholic Bishops

Foreword by John Gregory

Does the Catholic Church really have a pope today? The bizarre antics of Pope (?) Francis have raised doubts about that in the minds of many. Consider that in a recent encyclical he teaches that it is morally licit for cohabitating couples and adulterers to receive the Eucharist while being guilty of those sins. Could someone so patently non-Catholic really be nevertheless a pope? And what about when he made it clear that it is not up to him to judge homosexuality, thus admitting his non-papal status? What would it mean to say that he isn’t a pope, and how does that square theologically?

I first encountered Griff and his theory on when the Pope lost his office back around 2004. Some of the questions about Francis today were being raised by me back in the early 2000’s about John Paul II. I first started communicating with Griff after I started writing for Daily Catholic. I found his series about his theory intriguing. I was somewhat surprised that it did not catch on as his theory was a thorough explanation of what he believed happened. The Siri theory in particular has diverted attention from this theory. Reason being, I suppose, is that there is indeed evidence that strange goings on happened in the conclaves of 1958 and 1963 and because conspiracies are much more captivating. Additionally, a proper understanding and possible legitimate solutions to this topic requires a great deal of familiarity with quite a variety of ecclesiological doctrines. But obviously, many other theories have diverted people. Many of us prefer to be entertained rather than informed, as many of us would prefer watching a Soap Opera over instruction on mathematics.

Numerous serious and devout traditional Catholics hold different opinions on precisely how we got to where we are but all sedevacantists are agreed that a valid pope cannot do what the heads, of what most people around the world presently mistake for the Catholic Church, have done since Vatican II. A sedevacantist is a Catholic who believes that the apparent papal claimants ruling from Vatican City in recent years are not truly Successors of the Apostle Peter. Sedevacantists are those who agree that a valid Pope cannot bind the Church to heresy, doubtful Sacraments, and Saints who worshiped in false religions for their entire lives, or be public heretics and apostates. These things were rather obvious in better times. This Novus Ordo Church (a New Order not only of liturgy, but of belief and of a religious society in general) is entirely distinct from the Catholic Church apart from some of the exteriors, such as fake clerical garb, candles, and in some Churches – pews. Our position on the vacancy of the Holy See is based upon sound theological principles, the infallible teaching of Ordinary Universal Magisterium, dogma, and divine law. All sedevacantists are in agreement that since the approval of Vatican II those who have claimed the office of the Papacy are public heretics. The early Church fathers, doctors, saints and popes who have spoken to the issue have all taught that a public heretic cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical office and if a valid pope were to teach heresy he would, by that fact alone, lose that office. They base this teaching upon divine law.

This interesting tidbit is from Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati after his return from the Vatican I Council, as reported on the Novus Ordo Watch website:

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic? It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, I believe in Christ, etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy [And yet, how the Novus Ordo leadership has indeed exploited people’s flawed and limited understanding of infallibility to use it as a cover for heresy – JG]. (Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p.241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago; underlining added.)

What follows is what led to the point of my accepting the sedevacantist finding. This is the record of my encounter with Griff Ruby’s theory on when the papacy was lost, his understanding of where the hierarchy is, and how that resonated with me.

Much like the author of this book, I have always wanted to get to the root cause of problems. Growing up incredibly ignorant and worldly, but sincere, I could not help to notice how unstable families were and how depraved society was. A proximate root cause of this is contraception. The purpose being the prevention of allowing human life coming into existence. Though, gravely evil as this is, often the result is the (unknown) death of the fertilized ovum not being able to attach itself to the uterine wall. This is because chemical contraception makes the uterine wall hostile to implantation. The result of chemical contraception in many cases is not conception prevention, but birth prevention i.e. the death of a child, otherwise known as abortion, which is murder.

The truth about marriage and the evilness of preventing children from coming into existence within that sacred bond led me to seek all the teachings of the Church. The author of this book, like me has a strong desire for truth and for solutions to the most important problems that ail us. Problems pertaining to the soul and where we will end up eternally, and why, as opposed to things pertaining to carbon footprints and the necessity of recycling anything we possibly can. In fact, it was in 2002 that I saw an article by John Galvin in Latin Mass Magazine that did a comparison between the teaching of the Novus Ordo establishment and the Catholic Church on marriage where the stark difference in the realm of clarity between Casti Connubii by Pius XI in 1930 and Humane Vitae by Paul VI in 1968 was shown. Up until this time I read the modernist Church’s documents with a they must be right mentality and would not question them or look at them critically. After reading his article I did my own comparison of the two mentioned documents and found the Catholic document to be very refreshing, especially when compared to the Novus Ordo establishment’s documents I had been reading. I also noticed that in Humane Vitae Paul VI mentioned the spacing of births once and the phrase responsible parenthood seven times. These phrases were not seen in Casti Connubii at all. Paul VI also replaced the primary purpose of marriage, the procreation and education of children, with the unitive aspect. Here is where I stopped assuming that every official teaching of the Novus Ordo enterprise must be true.

That issue is what lead me to take the Catholic Faith more seriously and study it more. During this time, during the 1990’s, I was also sensing trouble with the Novus Ordo establishment from a liturgical perspective. I assumed that the Novus Ordo establishment (lead by John Paul II) I was raised in was the Catholic Church. I used to go to daily Mass and I saw great inconsistencies from one Mass to the next. It seemed to me that the Mass was made in the image and likeness of the particular presider of the day. One presider would not use Eucharistic ministers. Others used them as much as possible. Some did not have the sign of peace, others left the sanctuary and seemed to shake hands with almost all in attendance. Some did not mind when people knelt for Communion, others would yell at people who did so. Some began the Mass with a long personal greeting, others avoided the greeting entirely. Some used the canon where martyrs of the early Church who died for the Faith and the Mass were named (Eucharistic prayer number one), others avoided that entirely. Saint Joseph – added to the canon in 1962 by dubious Pope John XXIII – died before the Church was established. The canon i.e. fixed rule had been established for 1500 years before Pope John decided on this change. Additionally, some presiders seemed to ad lib their way throughout the Mass while others seemed to stick to the script. This made quite an impression on me. Twenty years later I still vividly recall it.

The hunger for truth led me to study and love the Faith more deeply. Church teaching is traditional. You cannot learn Catholic truth without becoming what is labeled today as a traditional Catholic; much as being modest is labeled prudish or the understanding that it is impossible for members of the same gender to be married is labeled old fashioned. I became a true Catholic as I studied Catholic truth. I have read the Bible, the book the Church gave us, cover to cover many times. Further, having learned that the Catholic Church had the answers to questions pertaining morality, and while beginning to understand the differences between the true Mass and the new Mass, I joined a religious order and studied in the seminary for a short time.

Truth is often more effectively learned in the light of objections to that truth. The objections must be raised in the most plausible light possible and then accepted, rejected, or left open, based upon all authoritative and infallible Church teaching on the subject. This book does that in spades.

I have always tended to lean towards what is considered to be conservative in regard to the Mass and my moral beliefs. My beliefs in the morality realm were considered conservative because most in the Novus Ordo establishment managed to convince themselves that contraception was fine regardless of what the Church taught on the issue, as even the Novus Ordo establishment taught in some small handful of their more official documents that it is gravely evil to deliberately prevent conception (apart from Natural Family Planning). But obviously, they seemed to feel no obligation to accept it in practice, and that contraception is considered fully acceptable behavior. Today, their present head, Francis I, seems to be raising doubts as to that official policy formerly upheld, at least in this general area.

I was also considered to be a conservative Catholic because I did not like having Eucharistic ministers and the friendly greeting of the priest at the beginning of Mass, and unlike others I did not feel special if the priest left the sanctuary to shake my hand. I felt angry. He abandons the purported Eucharist on the altar to do this. That is when I began thinking something was wrong with the Novus Ordo establishment. As you can see, there were two main things going on during my conversion process. I was concerned with infallible teaching pertaining to morality and I had a great respect for the liturgy. So, when I started seeing odd or different teaching pertaining to marriage, and that the Mass was becoming more and more like a social enterprise where the duties of the priest where usurped by the laity, both male and female, I became concerned. This is what started me looking more carefully at both the pre-Vatican II teachings of the Church and the teachings of the Novus Ordo enterprise established at Vatican II.

Eventually I needed to know how the Mass was supposed to be offered so I got my hands on The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Monsignor Klaus Gamber with the forward written by Cardinal Ratzinger. Cardinal Ratzinger, like John Paul II, was someone I admired at the time. The book really opened my eyes about the Mass. I learned that the Mass was organically developed and was not intended to be reinvented. I learned that the new Mass was a complete break with tradition. This was actually horrifying to me. Why the need to completely reinvent the Mass?

I started posing questions to my conservative friends and on websites about the true Mass and was informed about the indult. I learned that the indult was an updated version (1962) of the true Mass which the Popes allowed those attached to it to attend where permission was granted by the bishop. I thought it was great that the Catholic pope was decent enough to allow Catholics to go to the Catholic version of the Mass. I couldn’t help but wonder why we needed permission to go the true Mass, as the exception, when it should be the rule. Basically, we were asking the pope permission to be Catholic i.e. worship as Catholics always had. So, I started rotating between the indult rushed through by the Novus Ordo priest who gave rather dull sermons and a Latin version of the Ad orientem (facing liturgical East or God i.e. with his back to the people) new Mass accompanied by polyphony and better sermons. I was rather content with both of these Masses when compared to the typical Novus Ordo service (not Mass because the Body of Christ is not present) throughout the country. These were the exceptions in the Novus Ordo Church that you had to go hunting for.

At this point I had become familiar with The Wanderer, The Remnant and Catholic Family News periodicals and was learning how bad the bishops were from the Wanderer, and how bad the pope was from The Remnant and Catholic Family News. The pope being at the root of the problems was something I had not considered. I truly figured that the pope was some helpless guy in Rome who really could not help what was going on in all the Churches throughout the world.

I mentioned that I like to get to the root cause of problems. By now it was quite obvious to me that there was a problem with the Novus Ordo, both the Church and its Mass. When trying to get to the root cause here, Vatican II kept popping up. Vatican II is when everything changed. Vatican II is where it all went wrong. Vatican II just needs to be properly implemented. It had been thirty years (at the time) since Vatican II closed. How long does it take to properly implement a Council? So, by this point I am learning that things have been done to the Mass that should have not been done and that a Council was approved that should not have been approved. The question arises, who approved these things? The answer is the Pope. Now we get to the Pope question. Can a pope approve such things?

In my studies, I eventually learned that in addition to the Council, which has increasingly come under fire from all truly serious, pious, and knowledgeable Catholics regarding its heretical teachings on ecumenism and religious liberty, and the Mass, which was disemboweled and protestantized, that the Church had changed all of the Sacraments! Who instituted and approved these changes? The pope of course. Now I really start looking at the top, the pope, as the root cause of all the problems. I came to find that all the Sacraments apart from Baptism, Penance and marriage were doubtful or certainly invalid, though the Rites of the still valid Sacraments were changed as well. What was most disconcerting, apart from the Eucharist itself, was that the rite of ordination (of priests) was doubtful and that the rite of consecration (of bishops) was certainly invalid.

This means that any Sacrament performed by a priest ordained in the new rite or ordained by a bishop consecrated in the new rite was invalid (other than Baptism which can be administered by anyone). I knew that a valid pope could be sinful, cowardly, and imprudent, but that the Rock upon which the Church was built could be the same rock which destroys it seemed unlikely at best. Now I was fully convinced that the papacy had been usurped by false claimants.

Here is where I decided that I needed to extricate myself entirely out of the Novus Ordo establishment as this could not possibly be the true Church which was founded by Christ and would be with us until the end of time. I had begun going to a schismatic (schismatic from heretical Rome) Church which offered the true Mass and was offered by a validly ordained priest. What a novel idea. I do hope this valid priest offering a valid Mass idea catches on eventually. In fact, the first time I went to Mass at this Church (shortly before I learned what is related above about the new Sacraments) was the last time I went to any Mass within the Novus Ordo structure including the indult. This was based upon supernatural reasons. It was not long after that I realized that the indult was mostly offered by invalid priests and even if offered by a valid priest he could distribute the Eucharist invalidly consecrated at a Novus Ordo service to the faithful at the Mass, as hosts left over from a previous Novus Ordo service is what is usually distributed to a number of the faithful. Additionally, when you support the Novus Ordo Church, even through attendance at the indult Mass, you are supporting everything the Novus Ordo does, such as wrecking Churches, paying for lawsuits to cover their crimes, and abusing and protestantizing our children.

It was around this time, late 2004, that I shared my views with Michael Cain of Daily Catholic and he asked if I would like my views published. I agreed, and the result was, Legitimate Reasons Why There Are Doubts About the Conciliar Popes, published in Daily Catholic on May 8, 2005.

At that point, merely accepting the sedevacantist finding was a big deal in light of all the opposition against it. I believed that finding itself resolved everything. Finding out why all these things happened to the Mass, Sacraments and Church in general is all I was looking for. The fact that it was not a pope who instituted all these changes answered that. But as I came to find out later, it does not resolve everything. It simply shows why things are the way they are in the Novus Ordo Church and why the true Church is the way it is, scattered and disoriented, as this is what happens when the Shepherd is struck. I did not even consider how the Church would obtain her next pope. Griff believes the pope (Paul VI) visibly lost his office with the promulgation of the documents of Vatican II. My main objections to this pertained to Vatican II itself and how we could accept any of it at all as having come from a legitimate authority; additionally, I believe John XXIII may have taught heresy in the encyclical Pacem in Terris, and further, many other sedevacantists seemed convinced that Pius XII was the last Pope. Despite all this I still believe, thirteen years later, that Griff’s theory on this issue is the most reasonable.

I did not think it was that big a deal whether the Papacy was lost in 1958, 1964, or anywhere in between, and am still open to the Papacy having been lost anytime within that timeframe. Certainly, by the end of Vatican II Paul VI legitimacy was unacceptable to the dogmas of the Church in regard to papal theology. John XXIII and Paul VI (up until the promulgation of Vatican II documents) could properly be regarded as papa dubious (doubtful pope) which – in practice anyway – equals papa nullis, (no pope) even if the Church should subsequently rule otherwise. So, for example, the CMRI (Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae i.e. The Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen) praxis is therefore perfectly obedient in implementing those things imposed by Pius XII and ignoring those things imposed by doubtful popes. This book will go to show that as of Vatican II, Paul VI and his successors ceased to be even doubtful as to papal claims, but positively and officially non-papal.

The most difficult objection against sedevacantism is where is your Church since no one has been around for over fifty years to give the papal mandate? Who has the ability to produce new valid and lawful clerics with Catholic authority? Griff contends that Catholic bishops possess this; others, Novus Ordo and otherwise, contend that heretics possess this, and yet others contend that no one has it.

After reading this book the answer became clear. Then why is so much ink spilled on it? Because so many people refuse to accept that answer. In this book, Griff gives each and every theory to the contrary a full voice. He leaves no stone unturned. I do not think there is an objection possible that he does not raise and respond to in the book. This book comes in two parts. The first part is a detailed crash course in the applicable ecclesiological doctrines, and the second pertains to the theory on where our hierarchy is today. I believe this book, in addition to being a solution to the crisis, will be a great reference book for many years to come. Even if the theory does not to prove out, the first Part of this work remains a vital textbook in Catholic ecclesiology, an essential guide for all seminarians and clergy and other interested parties.

From the beginning of my conversion until now I naturally assumed in my pure and simple piety that the traditional clergy were the hierarchy. But obviously, the location of the hierarchy should be something we can be sure about if possible since the Church is to continue until the end of time. I was shocked to learn how many self-appointed lay experts seem to be absolutely positive that the traditional clergy are not the hierarchy.

When I started discussing the hierarchy with Griff I would go to the traditional Catholic forums and look for manuals and commentary from authoritative sources. There was one forum in particular where there is an abundance of manuals available for perusal. The abundance of anti-traditional clergy postings in regard to them being the legitimate hierarchy was rather disconcerting. So, I would bring these posts to Griff’s attention. I would then post his responses on the forums or post in my own words a summation of what Griff taught me and found that his responses were irrefutable. A person could willfully choose to reject the responses (and with it the whole of sound Catholic ecclesiology), but the almost total lack of any attempt to refute it constitutes a most astonishing evidence that in all likelihood it cannot be refuted. I have not seen anyone other than Griff respond with, what seems to me, a satisfactory answer. Some intelligent sedevacantists simply claim the location of the hierarchy is a mystery. They say this knowing that the Church must be visible and that a hierarchy must exist but claim its location is mystery, perhaps as a polite way of agreeing to ignore the elephant in the room and not talk about things they don’t want to think about, things they have in fact given up on finding any answers to. But the idea that the hierarchy could become such a mystery that it cannot be found or identified by anyone contradicts the dogma of a visible Church.

Other traditional Catholics who are not sedevacantists have preached systematic disobedience to what they mistake for legitimate authority for almost half a century (just another shade of the mystery argument) as a way to claim that the Church must be visible. The incredible irony is that such Catholics end up advocating for an apostate pope. A stranger phenomenon could not be imagined. A valid pope is the unifying head of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Keep in mind that papal theology teaches that a valid pope is the sure norm of Faith and must be submitted to. Systematic disobedience to a pope at all, let alone a string of them all in a row for over half a century, is an incredible contradiction to Catholic papal theology as a valid pope cannot be a public heretic, let alone apostate; and it must be mentioned again that valid popes must be submitted to on all things they bind on the Church, especially councils, sacraments, liturgy, canon law and saints in order for salvation to be possible.

If anyone is familiar with internet forums, you will be quite aware of the lack of charity that is rather prevalent on almost all of them when it comes to controversial topics. I have witnessed Griff defending his thesis on traditional Catholic forums and have never seen him reply in snide manner. Yet his defense of this theory resulted in Griff being permanently banned from one such, not because he could not prove his theory, but because he could.

If the traditional Catholic clergy is not the hierarchy, then who is? The responses, not from Griff, but from the other sedevacantists whom we respect seemed rather strange, ranging from, hidden among the Novus Ordo hierarchy through nobody knows to they don’t exist. Is that the best the sedevacantists have to offer in the place of Catholic ecclesiology? No wonder sedevacantism finds so few takers despite the strength of the finding itself!

Time went on and Griff and I have kept contact throughout with me asking the questions and him giving the answers. I played devil’s advocate to the hilt but he was very patient with the responding to all my objections. Eventually we both started writing for the Four Marks, headed by a wonderful lady by the name of Kathleen Plumb. In this most reputable publication, Griff had an article entitled, The Mystery of the Hierarchy September 2012, which described most briefly each of the four options: Novus Ordo (whether open, resisted, or hidden), unknowns, nonexistent, or traditional clergy. This explained by process of elimination his view that the traditional Catholic clergy have to be the hierarchy.

My discussions with Griff on where the Church was inspired me to continue reading more and more serious theological manuals on ecclesiology. I find Griff’s theory on where the hierarchy is to be a systematic refutation of all the objections. The only thing that kept causing me to doubt and seek to challenge whether it is correct, along with my lack of theological qualification, is the sheer number of serious Catholics (the vocal minority) who haven’t accepted it, though again, they do not make any case in a convincing fashion. I ultimately found the usual sedevacantist explanations on where the hierarchy is inadequate; mainly because the explanation they give is more about where the hierarchy is not rather than where it is. The one other concept that made the most sense to me was the Siri theory as this at least explained how we could have a pope that was not infallible. All these theories are weighed carefully and objectively in this book. In fact, all that I have read from those who object to the theory that the only known Catholic clergy are the hierarchy, has shown me that they do not make a case at all. They always seem to have supposed proofs about where the hierarchy isn’t, but cannot show where precisely, and who, therefore, the hierarchy is. Their proofs have one and all proven unsatisfactory.

Griff wonderfully presents in this book his theory on when precisely the papacy was lost and even more wonderfully where the hierarchy is. I am a firsthand witness of his theory on the hierarchy emerging as something stronger and stronger, and to which no legitimate refutation has even been attempted.

To conclude I will add that one of the things that impressed me most about this book is that the author relies heavily on renowned theologians such as Msgr. G. Van Noort’s great work Dogmatic Theology and many others as well such as Berry, Journet and Ott. Bona fide theologians make clear the Catholic teaching, presenting what has been commonly taught throughout the ages. On the occasion where they present a viable minority opinion they make the readers aware that this opinion is a minority opinion or one’s own opinion. Van Noort as we should expect makes this clarification when necessary. It is important to note that it is the common teachings and the doctrines of the Church which Griff relies on from Van Noort and all the other sources he has referenced. There is nothing dependent upon any minority finding (though some few are discussed), nor does this work pretend to resolve any of the legitimate theological questions existing before the outset of our current situation.

When seeking safe, secure and untainted truth we should all rely on approved Church teaching rather than our own wit. I implore all who would seek to become, or who function as, Catholic clergy, and all other interested parties, to look to the authoritative teachings found in the pre-Vatican II era rather than the current writings of most Catholics which seem to be long on sensationalism but short on sound doctrine, especially in regard to ecclesiology, for the solution to this Crisis. They can start by carefully reading and studying this book. May Almighty God be praised!

Author’s Preface and Protest

The title, Sede Vacante!, was selected for this book so as to bring it right out up front, not beat around the bush, the fact that this study (these two volumes) is about the Sede Vacante circumstance of the Roman Catholic Church since at least as far back as somewhere in Vatican II, and possibly as far back as the election of Roncalli as John XXIII. The Catholic Church, established by our Lord Jesus Christ those nearly two millennia ago, and perpetually meant to be led by the Vicar of Christ, the Apostle Peter and his Successors, has been bereft of the Voice of Peter for over fifty years.

Though that unhappy fact cannot be meaningfully disputed, this work is not a litany of all the doctrinal failures of Montini (Paul VI), Lucian (John Paul I), Wojtyla (John Paul II), Ratzinger (Benedict XVI), and now (as of this writing) Bergoglio (Francis I), of which there are a great many, more than can be counted. I gladly leave that work to others, of which there are many and easily found, and many more such are doubtless sure to arise in the years to come. This work bypasses all of that on the premise that we all know what the symptoms of the problem are. What is not so well known is the root cause, what the solutions are, and what deeper understandings of our present circumstance are needed just to understand those solutions, let alone act on them effectively. There are Catholic doctrines which are themselves at stake which have long been blithely ignored, or even abused and exploited against the interests of the Church, and these too must be presented and applied properly. That is the object of this work.

If it were only a matter of the survival of individual Catholics as such, it would be sufficient merely to find some arrangement by which one will be unmolested by the anti-Catholic direction being imposed by putative Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests, or else to resist such anti-Catholic directions, whenever and wherever encountered, and simply pressing on as all individual Catholics, cleric, religious, and lay, know they must. And certainly, this survival is key and central to the overall solution to be sought. For without there being such actual and living and practicing Catholics at all times, there can be no Catholic Church ever again. The survival and continuance of such individual practicing Catholics, clerical and lay, is therefore essential to the survival of the Catholic Church itself, and the importance of that must never be minimized. But is that enough?

It is one thing to resist the occasional bit of bum advice one may receive from one’s leader, or even some outright anti-Catholic direction and teaching, but the bare fact of having to do this, not merely with some very rare and occasional event, but as a long and consistent, systematic, and uninterrupted pattern of outright anti-Catholic directions, teachings, and mandates, adds up to what is at least in practice an absence of Catholic leadership. And deals made with such purported leaders tend to take on the flavor of deals with the Devil. They come with a heavy spiritual cost, at least potentially fatal, and promises made that are ever and anon broken. And once again one attempts to function in practice as if there is an absence of Catholic leadership. They might be called leaders, but you cannot afford to follow them into their errors.

It is not enough merely for everyone to carry on in that manner. At least some, and especially the clergy, need to lift up their heads, look around, survey the lay of the land, gain one’s bearings, and learn the truth about our present ecclesial circumstance. One of the first and most crucial discoveries to be often made by those who take that step is to realize that the practical absence of Petrine Catholic leadership is caused by an actual absence of Petrine Catholic leadership, i.e. the Church has no Pope. What this further implies is that those who have purported to lead the Church, certainly from the time of Vatican II onward, have obviously therefore not been real Catholic Popes, real successors of Peter, but instead intruders, impostors, antipopes, or most precisely, heresiarchs. This is properly called the Sede Vacante finding, and those who make this discovery or else having considered the case made by those who made this discovery, have come to agree with it themselves, are often referred to as sedevacantists. What I have produced here is an openly and unabashedly sedevacantist study.

The Sede Vacante finding is a major boon to those who embrace it, since it explains much. It explains why we don’t need to follow the recent and current Vatican heresiarchs into their errors and heresies. It explains why we need not concern ourselves with being putatively excommunicated by them or with what they think of us. It explains how they can teach such errors and heresies and have to be resisted and opposed on all levels, and how they could make such a mess of things despite God’s promises. Most importantly (at least to me), the Sede Vacante finding brings in the first bit of real Catholic theology which has ever been brought to bear upon the whole question. It is the teachings of Catholic theology itself which convict the recent and present Vatican leaders, first of heresy in their flagrant contradictions of known and infallible Catholic teachings, abandonment of Catholic discipline, and condemnation of faithful Catholics merely for continuing the Church, and second of not being actual Popes owing to the particular Catholic doctrine that a heretic cannot be a Pope.

Popes, as peccable human beings, can fail us in a great many ways, but where they cannot fail us is in the area of Catholic truth. Even the Pharisees and Sadducees of our Lord’s own day who then sat in the Chair of Moses could be rightly followed as to their advice; it was only their example which was to be eschewed. But today even the advice and teaching (let alone example) of today’s Vatican leadership positively must not be followed if one is to save their soul. Catholic doctrine clearly establishes the parameters within which a Pope is guaranteed to function, come whatever else may. For a purported Pope to function as such outside those parameters can only be evidence to the effect that the man is no Pope, since he is not even a member of the Church.

To some, this finding itself seems shocking; to others it solves all things. While it certainly does solve many things, and especially those relating to the practical needs of individual Catholics, clerical and lay, to carry on faithfully in our times, the fact cannot be ignored that the Sede Vacante finding, while solving one batch of questions, raises another. These new questions were intimidating enough to cause Archbishop Lefebvre to hesitate, as he mused, But can one, practically speaking, maintain the formal heresy of a pope? Who will have the authority for that? Who will give the necessary warnings to the pope that it might be recognized? Furthermore, this line of reasoning in practice ‘puts the Church in an inextricable position.’ Who will tell us where the future pope is? How can he be designated, since there are no cardinals, because the pope is not pope? Some followed Lefebvre in this hesitation while others, embracing the Sede Vacante finding, accepted its solutions, but then simply ceased to explore the doctrinal questions any further than that necessary to convict the Vatican heresiarchs, or at most contenting themselves with only the most unsatisfactory attempts at an answer.

But the same theology which teaches that a heretic cannot be a Pope also teaches us practically everything else we need to know about our present ecclesial circumstance, if only we research it out, discerning what it says, what it means, and how it is to be applied today, a simple enough step which many could and should have taken, but no one ever actually did until now.

One might ask, What review of this study has there been by qualified theologians or active clergy? Drafts of Part One, the Doctrinal portion of this study, have been provided to many of the remaining faithful clergy today of several different stripes, and it can be honestly stated that no negative response has ever been received. However, that said, neither has any positive response been received, nor indeed any response at all, and this is despite all such having had at least a year, and up to two, to make a response or provide some critique. In all justice, I would therefore be excused in taking such a non-response as a sign of implied consent on the part of each and every one of them who has had a draft of it for that substantial period of time. Even a review of a theological work for an Imprimatur or the Nihil Obstat is usually allocated three to six months; an extension would be requested if more time was needed, and no such request for extension has been received, either. Even so, in fairness I must point out that faithful clergy are by far the busiest people on the planet. Never before has the harvest been so due, to the tune of over seven billion living souls at stake, and the workers so pitifully few, about a thousand or so priests worldwide and about a dozen or two real Catholic bishops. It is very easy for things promised to fall into the cracks between other far more immediately pressing obligations.

There is also to be considered the complexity of the issues discussed. A truly Catholic academia no longer exists, with real seminaries having to focus on churning out as many priests as possible before the last of the old timers passes away, and with more academic seminaries formerly held by the Church now all fatally compromised, having everything now taught there predicated on the false positions of Vatican II. One might as well look to even the most highbrow Protestant seminaries for a Catholic academia. It simply doesn’t exist today. It is easy to say, These issues are above my pay grade, but in that sense, they are above everyone’s. It is far too easy, especially in the midst of a frantically busy life, to set aside these studies, to let other concerns pile up on top of this, to defer this for some later and more peaceful time which may never arrive. However, in another sense this is within everyone’s pay grade, that pay being an Eternity right with God. We all have a right to know where the saving Church is.

Though the clerical response to the finished work has been silence, the basic theme and outlook of this work underpins my previous book, The Resurrection of the Roman Catholic Church, which was generally met with favorable reviews. And prior to the outset