8.35. How should Catholics view the Pope’s role as St. Peter’s successor amid Vatican II, the Holy Spirit’s guidance, and the Magisterium’s authority in preserving doctrine and Church unity?
I completely agree that the papacy is a divinely instituted office — the successor of St. Peter, entrusted by Christ to shepherd the Church and preserve the deposit of faith without error. That’s what makes this situation so grave and painful.
However, the question isn't whether the office of the papacy is legitimate or divinely instituted — it is. The question is whether these particular men (John XXIII onward through to Leo XIV) can truly be popes if they have publicly and repeatedly taught errors and heresies that directly contradict prior, infallible Catholic teachings — which they undeniably have.
Consider this: Pope St. Pius X taught that “the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators, but traditionalists.” Yet Vatican II openly promotes religious liberty, a concept explicitly condemned by popes such as Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos) and Pius IX (Quanta Cura) as "insanity" and a "plague."
The Council also teaches that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio and Nostra Aetate), which contradicts the dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation”, solemnly defined by Pope Eugene IV (Council of Florence) and Pope Boniface VIII (Unam Sanctam).
The Catholic Church has always taught that heretics cannot be members of the Church, let alone its head. Pope Leo XIII, in Satis Cognitum, affirms that “it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.” Even St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, held that a heretical pope automatically loses his office.
This isn't about “going away from the pope.” It’s about recognizing that a true pope cannot lead the Church into error, and if someone does, he cannot be pope. That's not rebellion — that’s fidelity to the Catholic Faith.
The idea that we must accept whoever is elected as pope no matter what he teaches reduces the papacy to a blind obedience test rather than a safeguard of truth. If the pope is guaranteed by Christ to confirm the brethren in the faith (Luke 22:32), and yet he teaches error, then either:
Christ broke His promise (impossible), or
the man teaching error is not truly the pope.
Therefore, sedevacantism — the position that the papal seat is currently vacant because the claimants are manifest heretics — is not a rejection of the papacy but a defense of its divine protection from error.
Yes, it’s a difficult and even painful conclusion. But it’s the only one that respects all Catholic teaching consistently — on the papacy, on heresy, on indefectibility, and on obedience.
This is not Protestantism. Protestants reject the papacy as an institution. Sedevacantists uphold it more consistently than anyone else today — because we refuse to follow false claimants who have broken with all prior tradition.
In this storm of confusion, we must anchor ourselves not to human popularity or appearances, but to the unchanging teachings of the true Church. And sadly, that leads us to the inescapable conclusion: the post-Vatican II claimants cannot be true popes, and we must wait and pray for the restoration of a true Catholic hierarchy.