By now, most readers of this space have heard about the Unam Sanctam initiative that was established by Bishop Pierre Roy. (See post dated April 22 HERE for more, including a link to an extensive interview with His Excellency.)
The following, taken from a statement on the homepage of the Unam Sactam website, summarizes its purpose:
It is the aim of the Unam Sanctam organisation to work for the convocation of an Imperfect General Council to discuss this matter and to consider how the present crisis that affects the head of the Church might be resolved.
As of this writing, 12 bishops, 53 priests, and 84 religious have registered their approval of the effort.
From its inception, Bishop Roy has repeatedly insisted that the first order of business for Unam Sanctam is not the immediate convocation of an Imperfect Council, but rather for all bishops (and others of note) who recognize that the present ecclesial crisis centers around the Office of Peter to come together for intense discussion aimed at determining how the crisis at hand may best be understood and resolved.
The basic premise as it concerns the papacy, as Bishop Roy articulates it, is very simple:
The Church’s indefectibility is such that she will always have what she needs in order to provide, for herself and for her children, a Roman Pontiff, a Vicar of Christ with the supreme authority to serve as our father, our teacher, and our guide.
This being so, Bishop Roy argues, sitting back and waiting, even if prayerfully so, for Our Lord to intervene directly in order to right the Barque of Peter is not enough, in fact, it is a dereliction of duty.
Though Our Lord is most certainly capable of intervening in an extraordinary manner, it is quite clear that He has endowed His Bride with all of the proximate provisions necessary to meet her own needs, and more to the point, He positively wills that His reign and His rule should continue in the Church, not to be exercised by Himself directly, but rather through her sacred ministers, most notably, the Roman Pontiff.
As Pope Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corporis, “Our Savior does not rule the Church directly in a visible manner.” (cf Art. 44)
With regard to the papacy specifically, the Holy Father continues:
Since He was all wise, He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ’s Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. (ibid., Art. 40)
These words of Pope Pius XII demonstrate just how untenable it is to suppose that Divine intervention is the only possible remedy to the present crisis as this would be tantamount to suggesting that Our Lord somehow failed to endow His Church with all that is necessary in order to accomplish His will.
This brings me to the Roman Catholic Institute (RCI) under the direction of Bishop Donald Sanborn.
The RCI’s view of the present crisis rests on the Thesis of Cassiciacum, the proponents of which passionately insist that the Church’s ability to elect a pope was, in fact, validly exercised in the election of Robert Prevost as well as each of the post-conciliar characters that preceded him.
As the Thesis has it, the cardinal electors, having exercised their duty in the conclaves of the past sixty-plus years, provided the Church in each case with a “pope-elect,” at which point that man took material possession of the Office of Peter. According to RCI:
“Vatican II popes” are popes materially (materialiter) but not formally (formaliter).
In other words, by way of their vote, the cardinals merely designated the man who alone is able to receive papal authority from Christ, thus becoming pope formally.
When, according to the Thesis, would the man elected become pope formally?
As soon as he accepts the papacy with the right intention, an intention that was lacking on the part of the men elected in recent post-conciliar conclaves.
You see, the men elected accepted the papacy, according to the Thesis, but not to do what popes do, rather, their intent in accepting was to promote the conciliar religion, i.e., they accepted their election “in order to preach a dogma-less humanism which is in total opposition to the Catholic religion.” (See Seventh Article: Did the Vatican II Popes Lack the Proper Intention?, Roman Catholic Institute)
On this note regarding the intent of Robert Prevost and his immediate predecessors, the Thesis is right on target. With this in mind, I propose that we carefully and soberly consider what actually took place in these most recent conclaves.
Despite the secrecy of the proceedings themselves, the reality concerning what took place behind the locked doors of the Sistine Chapel has been made manifest moving forward in the words and deeds of the participants, up to and including the man that emerged as “pope.” The RCI evidently agrees insofar as they are confident in their own assessment of the hidden intention of the so-called “Vatican II popes.”
Borrowing a phrase from the RCI, what happened in conclave 2025, for example, as well as in every other post-conciliar conclave, was that a moral unanimity of the cardinals designated a man to preach and to propagate a dogma-less humanism that stands in total opposition to the Catholic religion.
This being so, can it really be said that the conclave designated a man to be “pope,” or that they produced a “pope-elect”?
Of course not, what they actually did, and with deliberate intent at that, was to designate a man to oppose the Catholic faith!
In response to being designated to carry out this task, it is entirely evident that Prevost and his conciliar predecessors accepted the position precisely as it was offered, fully aware of what that acceptance entails, namely, continuing the conciliar rebellion against the Holy Catholic faith.
Long story short, the entire affair, soup to nuts, was not and never was intended to be ordered toward producing a Roman Pontiff.
This being so, is it logically consistent from a Catholic perspective to suppose that the man who was designated specifically to oppose the Catholic religion has taken, and continues to hold, material possession of the Office that was established by Our Lord to provide His Church with a proximate head to rule on His behalf as Vicar?
To respond in the affirmative is to suggest that Our Lord was not as solicitous for the needs of His Bride and her children as He might have been, rather, He left her unprotected from the possibility that an enemy of His Church might one day gain entry into the household of God only to take the Petrine Office materially hostage, and all of this under the cover of validity!
Does this sound like the Good Shepherd to you? Anyone?
One doesn’t need a doctorate in sacred theology to grasp what actually took place at conclave 2025 (and 2013, 2006, 1978, etc.): A group of rebellious men that collectively oppose the Catholic religion came together in a closed-door meeting for the purpose of choosing a leader for their cause. That’s it. Full stop.
The Thesis, however, posits that those rebels in red were Princes of the Holy Roman Catholic Church; that they assembled in conclave, called to discern the will of the Holy Ghost as they set about validly electing a man to serve as the Vicar of Christ.
Moreover, the Thesis imagines that the man they elected (most recently, Leo, who now has material possession of the papal office) is effectively preventing the Church from electing a true Roman Pontiff, a situation that can change in just one of four ways. Either:
– Leo dies
– Leo renounces his material possession of the papacy
– Leo converts to the Catholic faith and accepts the duties of the papacy, or
– The cardinals (or even a cardinal) convert to the true faith and is moved to rescind the designation that made Leo pope-elect
Interestingly, the latter two possibilities rest on the implicit acknowledgement that neither the cardinals nor the man they elected are actually Catholic.
Consider the following Q&A with Bishop Sanborn discussing, at that time, the situation involving Benedict XVI:
Q. What solution to the Church’s problem does the Thesis offer?
A. There are many possible solutions. (1) Ratzinger converts to the Catholic Faith, repudiates Vatican II and its reforms, and receives the jurisdiction to rule, and becomes the pope. (2) Some cardinals (even one would be sufficient) convert, repudiate Vatican II, and publicly declare the See vacant, and call for a new conclave. This act would remove from Ratzinger the title of valid election.
Bishop Sanborn’s response seems to make three claims with which practically every sedevacantist agrees, namely, neither the Council, nor the conciliar “popes,” nor the conciliar religion itself, are Catholic.
Thesis holders will argue, however, that until a man is legally declared to be outside the Church by the competent ecclesial authority, he remains a Catholic, i.e., he retains the status of a member of the one true Church of Christ, despite his persistent and public opposition to the Church. And if that’s not enough, that same man might one day be validly elected pope!
I fully accept that many persons who hold the Thesis to be true do so in goodwill. The more I examine the Thesis, however, the more untenable and illogical it appears to be.
In the previous post, I suggested that logical inconsistency isn’t the only, nor the most troubling thing, that the Roman Catholic Institute and the SSPX have in common.
So, what is this most troubling thing?
At present, Bishop Sanborn has taken a hardline stance against the Unam Sanctam initiative, saying that it “will go down in flames as a total absurdity.”
This is coming from someone who insists that a man who is determined to propagate “a dogma-less humanism which is in total opposition to the Catholic religion” – total opposition! – somehow enjoys material possession of the Church’s highest office.
Stone, meet glass house.
In this same interview, Bishop Sanborn vowed to dismiss either of the RCI’s other two bishops should they decide to attend an Unam Sanctam gathering to state their case in person.
Really? He will dismiss them for standing up for what they believe to be Catholic truth?
Now, bear in mind that Bishop Roy has been exceedingly clear in saying, “It is not our intention to push for the election of the pope no matter what.”
Unam Sanctam, at this point, is merely calling for “traditionalist” bishops – including those who hold opposing views on grave matters of importance – to meet in order to explore what can be done in order to address the present ecclesial crisis, one that all concerned recognize as involving the Council and the papacy.
The initial Unam Sanctam meetings, as Bishop Roy envisions them, will take up a number of important questions. For example, he states:
The doctrines of Vatican II will have to be carefully studied, and conclusions will have to be reached, on what is the censure that should be given to such false doctrines. Are they heresy? Are they proximate to heresy, etc.
This strikes me (and I would dare say even many not-so-traditional persons) as an extremely worthy effort. Bishop Roy continues:
And depending on the gravity of these errors, obviously, the question will arise on how is it possible, how is it compatible with Catholic doctrine, that these errors against the faith were embraced and promulgated by people who claim to be the Roman Pontiffs?
It’s rather evident that the Thesis and its proponents, Bishop Sanborn chief among them, believe that they have quite a bit to offer in response to these questions.
So why not offer it directly, in person, in a sincere effort to shine the light of truth on an otherwise perplexing subject?
That he is utterly unwilling to do so moves one to wonder why Bishop Sanborn is so adamant in rejecting out of hand the mere suggestion of meeting with other bishops in person to discuss these important issues?
I don’t know the answer to this question, but I do know this much:
The implication that those who don’t “get it” lack the theological chops to digest the deep insights that make the Thesis irrefutable won’t fly with this group. This, incidentally, is precisely the sort of attitude that I and others have encountered (not from Bishop Sanborn, by the way) when seeking answers to our own reasonable questions.
At this, many persons of good will are looking at Unam Sanctam, they are considering the agenda described by Bishop Roy, and they are left to wonder:
What is Bishop Sanborn so afraid of? Is it possible that he’s concerned that the Thesis cannot stand up to the scrutiny of fellow bishops who are well versed in sacred theology?
Only he can say for sure.
This brings me to the common ground upon which the SSPX and the RCI appear to stand:
The leaders of both groups give the impression, either rightly or wrongly, that protecting their own turf is priority number one.
Whatever the case may be, I think we can all agree that when those who posture as if they are in full and exclusive possession of the truth surrounding the current crisis in the papacy refuse to enter into good faith discussions with sincere persons who hold opposing views, something is dreadfully wrong.
With regard to Unam Sanctam and RCI, Bishop Sanborn can right that wrong very swiftly if he so chooses.
Here’s hoping that he will.
