The Pope, whoever he may be, will never come to the secret societies. It is for the secret societies to come first to the Church, in the resolve to conquer the two [viz., the Church and pope]. The work which we have undertaken is not the work of a day, nor of a month, nor of a year. It may last many years, a century perhaps, but in our ranks the soldier dies and the fight continues. ...

That which we ought to demand, that which we should seek and expect, as the Jews expected the Messiah, is a Pope according to our wants. ... [With such a pope, we] have the little finger of the successor of St. Peter engaged in the plot, and that little finger is of more value for our crusade than all the Innocents, the Urbans, and the St. Bernards of Christianity. ...

Let the clergy march under your banner in the belief always that they march under the banner of the Apostolic Keys. ... You will have fished up a Revolution in Tiara and Cope, marching with Cross and banner—a Revolution which it will need but to be spurred on a little to put the four quarters of the world on fire.

Quoted from the permanent secret instruction given to the members of the High Lodge (Alta Vendita) dated 1819. An English translation is found in The War of Antichrist with the Church and Christian Civilization, by Msgr. George F. Dillon, New York, Burns and Oates, 1885, pp 66, 67 & 71 (emphasis added and bracketed words added to show context). Pope Pius IX vouched that this Alta Vendita Masonic plan is authentic.

Satan’s master stroke will therefore be to spread the revolutionary principles introduced into the Church by the authority of the Church itself, placing this authority in a situation of incoherence and permanent contradiction; so long as this ambiguity has not been dispersed, disasters will multiply within the Church. ... We must acknowledge that the trick has been well played and that Satan’s lie has been masterfully utilized. The Church will destroy Herself through obedience.

In other words, the Church will be corrupted in Her human element.

... You must obey! Whom or what must we obey? We don’t know exactly. Woe to the man who does not consent. He thereby earns the right to be trampled underfoot, to be calumniated, to be deprived of everything which allowed him to live. He is a heretic, a schismatic; let him die—that is all he deserves.

Satan has really succeeded in pulling off a master stroke: he is succeeding in having those who keep the Catholic Faith condemned by the very people who should be defending and propagating it. ... Satan reigns through ambiguity and incoherence, which are his means of combat, and which deceive men of little Faith. Satan’s master stroke, by which he is bringing about the auto-destruction of the Church, is therefore to use obedience in order to destroy the Faith: authority against Truth.

Quoted from Satan’s Master stroke, by Archbishop Lefebvre, October 13, 1974 (emphasis added).

1. True Obedience is Subordinate to Faith and Must Conform to Faith.
2. We have no duty to “obey” the evil command of a superior.
3. Not only have we no duty to “obey” the evil command of a superior, but we must refuse to “obey”.
4. Not only must we refuse to “obey” the evil command of a superior but we must oppose the accomplishment of that evil command.
5. We must resist the bad command of any superior, including the pope.
6. [Objection:] But shouldn’t we wait for good leaders before resisting the evil command of a superior? [Answer:] No! We must act now!

1. True Obedience is Subordinate to Faith and Must Conform to Faith

2. We have no duty to “obey” the bad commands of a superior.

Obedience to a superior in all that is not directly or indirectly against Faith and Morals is his bounden duty, but it is equally his duty to refuse obedience to anything directly or indirectly in opposition to the integrity of his Faith.

Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism Is a Sin, 1886, reprinted by TAN Books, p.84 (emphasis added).

3. We have a duty to refuse to “obey” the bad command of a superior.

[S]ometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.104, a.5, ad. 3.

Know that evil ought never to be done through obedience, though sometimes something good, which is being done, ought to be discontinued out of obedience.

De Moral., bk. XXXV, §29 (emphasis added).

[T]he nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends; but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God. ...

[W]here a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God.

Libertas Praestantissimum, §§ 11 &13 (emphasis added).

It is necessary to obey God rather than men. Therefore, where the Pope would command something contrary to Sacred Scripture, or to an article of Faith, or to the truth of the Sacraments, or to a command of the Natural Law

The Natural Law is what we know we must do by the light of the natural reason God gave us. One example of the Natural Law is that we must never tell a lie. We naturally know this because we know that the purpose of speech is to convey the truth and so we naturally know that telling a lie is abusing the purpose of speech.

Here is how St. Thomas explains what the Natural Law is:

[L]aw, being a rule and measure, can be in a person in two ways: in one way, as in him that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, in so far as it partakes of the rule or measure. Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above [in Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.1]; it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law.

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.2, respondeo.

or of the Divine Law, he ought not to be obeyed, but such command ought to be despised.

Summa de ecclesia (Venice: M. Tranmezium, 1561). Lib. II, c. 49, p. 163B. This English translation of this statement of Juan de Torquemada is found in Patrick Granfield, The Papacy in Transition (New York: Doubleday, 1980), p.171 (emphasis added).

4. Not only must we refuse to “obey” an evil command of a superior but we have a duty to oppose the accomplishment of that evil command.

In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men .... All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics.

Oh! if I might ask the Divine Redeemer, as the prophet Zachary did in spirit: What are those wounds in the midst of Thy hands? The answer would not be doubtful: With these was I wounded in the house of them that loved Me. I was wounded by My friends, who did nothing to defend Me, and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of My adversaries. And this reproach can be leveled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries.

Pope St. Pius X, Discourse on the Beatification of Joan of Arc, December 13, 1908.

5. We must resist the bad command of any superior, including the pope.

[T]he Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.

Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, §1 (emphasis added).

If [the Pope] lays down an order contrary to right customs one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a good defense.

De Fide, disp. 10, sect. 6, n. 16, in Opera Omnia, Paris, Vives, vol 12.

A Pope must be resisted who publicly destroys the Church. What should be done when the Pope, because of his bad customs, destroys the Church? What should be done if the Pope wanted, without reason, to abrogate Positive Law [i.e., Church Law]?

[Then Fr. Vitoria answers his own question:]

He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension. Consequently, ... if he wanted to destroy the Church or the like, he should not be permitted to act in that fashion, but one would be obliged to resist him. The reason for this is that he does not have the power to destroy. Therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing so, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and actions, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandates prevented.

Obras de Francisco de Vitoria, Dialogus de Potestate Papae, para. 4 (Madrid: BAC, 1960), pp. 486f (emphasis added).

6. [Objection:] But shouldn’t we wait for good leaders before resisting the evil command of a superior? [Answer:] No! We must act now!

If the Faith be in imminent peril, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public. Thus, St. Paul, who was the subject of St. Peter, called him to task in public because of the impending danger of scandal concerning a point of Faith. As St. Augustine’s commentary puts it:

St. Peter himself set an example for those who rule, to the effect that if they ever stray from the straight path, they are not to feel that anyone is unworthy of correcting them, even if such a person be one of their subjects.

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.33, a.4, ad. 2 (emphasis added).

In order to resist and defend oneself no authority is required .... Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order, or above all tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.

De Summo pontifice Book II, ch. 29, in Opera omnia, Neapoli/ Panormi/Paris: Pedone Lauriel, 1871, vol. I, p. 418.

St. Thomas explains the reason for this distinction St. Robert Bellarmine makes, viz., that we are right to resist (i.e., to correct) the pope or other superior, but we cannot punish or depose him:

A subordinate is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment. But the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction.

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.33, a. 4, respondeo.

The sedevacantists err by denying St. Thomas’ distinction. They depose the pope, by declaring and seeking to persuade others that he is not pope.

On Christmas Day, 428, Nestorius (Patriarch of Constantinople), profiting from the immense crowd assembled to celebrate the birth of the Divine Child to Our Lady uttered this blasphemy from his Episcopal throne: "Mary did not give birth to God; her son was only a man, the instrument of God."

At these words a tremor of horror passed through the multitude. The general indignation was voiced by Eusebius, a layman, who stood up in the crowd and protested. Soon a more detailed protest was drafted in the name of the members of the abandoned Church, and numerous copies spread far and wide, declaring anathema on whoever should dare to say that He Who was born of the Virgin Mary was other than the only begotten Son of God. This attitude not only safeguarded the Faith of the Eastern Church, but was praised alike by Popes and Councils.

When the shepherd turns into a wolf the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. As a general rule, doctrine comes from the bishops to the faithful, and it is not for the faithful, who are subjects in the order of Faith, to pass judgment on their superiors. But every Christian, by virtue of his title to the name Christian, has not only the necessary knowledge of the essentials of the treasure of Revelation, but also the duty of safeguarding them. The principle is the same, whether it is a matter of belief or conduct, that is of dogma or morals. Treachery such as that of Nestorius is rare in the Church; but it can happen that, for one reason or another, pastors remain silent on essential matters of faith. The true children of Holy Church at such times are those who walk by the light of their baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions which are neither necessary nor desirable.

The Liturgical Year, Vol. IV, Dom Guéranger; Feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria, February 9th (emphasis added).

Conclusion