Of course the see of Rome is vacant every time a pope passes away and there have been times in the past when there were mainstream antipopes and also when the See was vacant for a few years IIRC. But modern-day “sedevacantists” claim that we’ve had antipopes for decades, antipopes who are almost universally accepted as true popes by Catholics. Wouldn’t that be contrary to the doctrine of the
indefectibility of the Church?
Catholic Encyclopedia
*Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.
The gift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several part of the Church against heresy or apostasy. The promise is made to the corporate body. Individual Churches may become corrupt in morals, may fall into heresy, may even apostatize. Thus at the time of the Mohammedan conquests, whole populations renounced their faith; and the Church suffered similar losses in the sixteenth century. But the defection of isolated branches does not alter the character of the main stem. The society of Jesus Christ remains endowed with all the prerogatives bestowed on it by its Founder. Only to One particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. To Peter, and in him to all his successors in the chief pastorate, Christ committed the task of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Luke 22:32); and thus, to the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, “faithlessness cannot gain access” [Ep. lv (lix), ad Cornelium). The various bodies that have left the Church naturally deny its indefectibility. Their plea for separation rests in each case on the supposed fact that the main body of Christians has fallen so far from primitive truth, or from the purity of Christian morals, that the formation of a separate organization is not only desirable but necessary. Those who are called on to defend this plea endeavour in various ways to reconcile it with Christ’s promise. Some, as seen above (VII), have recourse to the hypothesis of an indefectible invisible Church. The Right Rev. Charles Gore of Worcester, who may be regarded as the representative of high-class Anglicanism, prefers a different solution. In his controversy with Canon Richardson, he adopted the position that while the Church will never fail to teach the whole truth as revealed, yet “errors of addition” may exist universally in its current teaching (see Richardson, Catholic Claims, Appendix). Such an explanation deprives Christ’s words of all their meaning. A Church which at any period might conceivably teach, as of faith, doctrines which form no part of the deposit could never deliver her message to the world as the message of God. Men could reasonably urge in regard to any doctrine that it might be an “error of addition”.*
newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm*
Many do not understand sedevacanism. There are sedevacanists who are not true. I for one have studied my history and the western schism and the messages of Fatima and la Salette. The answer is there. Jesus prophesied that the abomination of desolation will stand in the holy place= the new mass which blasphemes God which is a false worship, and a New False Catholic Church with new teachings which are not of Christ(but of the devil) to overshadow the true Catholic Church and eclipse it.
The seat of Peter will become the seat of the Antichrist.(the devil). Which means now the devil reigns and calls himself Pope.
Which means many are in danger of loosing their salvation.
It is the truth that many Catholics do not want to accept.
But Jesus said there is hope. The Church will never defect from this he promised his guidance from the gates of hell. Our churches are taken ( like closed) but that doesn’t mean we loose our faith and defect from it. One should look at the history of the Western Schism. The same thing happened only now it is worse. Read the Bible book of maccabees( not found in false bibles like king james or other protestant). This same thing happened in the old testament. Jesus allows this to test the people , their faith how strong and faithful they would remain to him. Also to punish the people for their loss of faith. Just look around you, there is no faith left. Will Jesus find faith when he returns. It’s all up to you.
Sedevacanism= true catholic
