The Sedevacantist Position

[Dee_S]

“Sedevacantism owes its origins to the rejection of the theological and disciplinary changes implemented following the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965).[8] Sedevacantists reject this Council… Accordingly, they hold that Pope Paul VI and his successors left the true Catholic Church and thus lost legitimate authority in the Church”

“Sedevacantists base their claim to be the remnant Roman Catholic Church on what they see as the presence in them of these four “marks”, absent, they say, in the Church since the Second Vatican Council. Their critics counter that sedevacantists are not one, forming numerous splinter groups, each of them in disagreement with the rest.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism

**What Is It with the Antipopes?
**by Jimmy Akin

I have a very open friending policy over on Facebook. I accept friend requests from almost everyone. The only exceptions are those who seem to be up to no good (e.g., anti-Catholics who want to friend me so they can access my list of friends and spew anti-Catholic stuff; or that Middle Eastern guy with the suicide-bomber-looking stuff on his profile).
But some of the most unusual friend requests I’ve had are from antipopes. So far I’ve received friend requests from not one but two antipopes.
jimmyakin.com/2010/10/what-is-it-with-the-antipopes.html

 

[jbeck43]

These groups believe in an erroneous idea that the Catholic Church has fallen away from the truth and has embraced error.** It’s weirdly kind of like the apostasy that the Mormons claim happened right after the death of the last apostle John.

If the sedevacantist position is correct, then it would mean that the church that Christ Himself established could not withstand the adversity the world beset upon it.

So if a wise man builds his house upon a rock,* (Matt 7:24,25), and the house of God IS His Church (1 Tim 3:15), and that church was built upon Peter the Rock (Matt 16:18), and it still fell, wouldn’t that mean that Christ was an unwise builder?* Of course it would–if you were a sedevacantist.* This aberration in rational thinking honesty stems from a sense of pride,* and primarily from a lack of obedience to legitimate authority.* It’s akin to you suspecting your own mother of a hidden evil, and think by doing so, you’re actually serving God, when in actuality you’re really just slapping Her in the face.

Consider also their main fallback position is that of an extra long inter regnum, or time between the death of a pope (or abdication), and when the conclave picks a new one.* But if the last legitimate Pope that they usually agree on was Pius XII, then the conclave, with no “legitimate” electors, since the cardinals in place now have since replaced any cardinal electors created by Pius XII, the path to a truly elected Pope would have under their logic, long since passed.* There road back to a legitimate Church hierarchy is therefore permanently broken.* When asked about this obvious impasse, their usual band of stalwarts provides a vague, God will provide, sort of befuddled non-answer.* And this answer is nothing more than an admission of a lack of faith in Christ as a wise builder.

Just as others have said here, if Christ was a truly wise builder, and built His Church upon Peter the Rock who was and is the firm foundation, and promised us that the gates of Hell won’t prevail against it–well, who are you going to believe?* Christ, or a bunch of bums who would slap their own mother in the face?

 

[Tsuwano]

Thank you, that makes sense, so the problem is Vatican II and not the validity of the Pope?

Vatican Council II is not a problem. It is a legitimate council of the Church and should be recognized as such. There may be problems with the way people have interpreted or enacted parts of the Council, but that doesn’t mean the Council itself is a problem.

 

[Darryl_B]

Vatican Council II is not a problem. It is a legitimate council of the Church and should be recognized as such. There may be problems with the way people have interpreted or enacted parts of the Council, but that doesn’t mean the Council itself is a problem.

You are right. I do not have a problem with Vatican II. My only problem is I can’t see any good reason for division from the Catholic Church.

I am trying to get my head around modern schools of thought that might help me understand the rationale of the original protestant movement.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I agree with the poster who said sedevacantists are a sliver of a sliver of formerly Catholic people.

Possibly the largest one is the SSPV (Society of St. Pius V), though it has had splits within it too. Once a group turns dissident, there’s no end to it, apparently.

My son, for awhile, had a girlfriend who was SSPV. It was kind of funny. He kept trying to convert her to Catholicism while she (much more subtly) tried to convert him to the SSPV. But their exchanges were interesting. My son discussed a number of their arguments with me. She would send him a whole laundry list of SSPV arguments, which he would duly bat down. Then she would send another.

If you dig very far into the movements, you find some really disconcerting things. They purport to have apostolic succession. One from a Filipino bishop and one from (I think) a Mexican bishop. It is very doubtful that either knew what he was doing, and it’s doubtful that the events even took place. One faction claims the other faction’s bishop was demented with Alzheimer’s while the other claims the others hoked up a consecration of a successor bishop by moving the hands of a bishop who was dead.

Very disreputable stuff at the very best. One sliver of a sliver of a sliver (perhaps more now) claims to have their own “Pope”.

Their arguments, if you dig into them, don’t hold water. Their “theologians” even make things up. They are an extraordinarily angry group.

Anyway, my son broke up with the girl after she claimed to have converted to true Catholicism, but he found out she still went to SSPV “masses”. What’s that Latin saying “falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus”??? (false in one thing, false in everything)

Just to clarify. SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) is NOT sedevacantist. They acknowlege the pope even though they are not in communion with the Church. Their priests are real and so are their bishops. Their sacraments are illicit, but valid.

None of that is true with the sedevacantists. One should not confuse SSPX with them.

Nor should one confuse them with “traditionalists”. They’re not traditionalists, they’re protestants under the skin.

 

[Michael_M]

If you dig very far into the movements, you find some really disconcerting things. They purport to have apostolic succession. One from a Filipino bishop and one from (I think) a Mexican bishop. It is very doubtful that either knew what he was doing, and it’s doubtful that the events even took place.

I’m pretty sure that canon law dictates that if a bishop consecrates another bishop without a papal mandate, both incur an automatic excommunication. So at this point, all their bishops and priests, and sacraments, would be null and void, which is extremely ironic given that they claim their purpose is to preserve the holy sacrifice of the mass.

Also, interesting story about your son.

 

[Elizium23]

I’m pretty sure that canon law dictates that if a bishop consecrates another bishop without a papal mandate, both incur an automatic excommunication. So at this point, all their bishops and priests, and sacraments, would be null and void, which is extremely ironic given that they claim their purpose is to preserve the holy sacrifice of the mass.

Also, interesting story about your son.

Excommunication does not result in all the sacraments becoming invalid. In particular, the Eucharist is valid, as long as there are valid priests to confect it.

 

[Michael_M]

Excommunication does not result in all the sacraments becoming invalid. In particular, the Eucharist is valid, as long as there are valid priests to confect it.

But if an invalid bishop ordains an invalid priest, then all the sacraments performed by that invalid priest would be ipso facto invalid.

 

[chimo]

I recently found this website: (Removed link as per CAF policy)

Basically, the sedevacantists believe that Vatican II is heretical, that we don’t have a valid Pope and haven’t since Vat II, and that the sacraments are now invalid and everyone who participates in the invalid sacraments and in the Novus Ordo mass are going to hell.

I read a bit from this website, and it has me a bit concerned. Can anyone reassure me that I am actually a real catholic, and not a hell-bound heretic?

Who made these guys to be an authority in the Church? Whoever listens to them. Ignore them and look to the Pope and the Church he is guiding as one you can listen to.

 

[Elizium23]

But if an invalid bishop ordains an invalid priest, then all the sacraments performed by that invalid priest would be ipso facto invalid.

The situation you describe does not involve invalid ordinations. Many, many Catholic splinter groups with illicit episcopal consecrations in their history have valid apostolic succession and valid priesthood. Just look at the Old Catholics, the PNCC, the SSPX and the SSPV. The Thuc-line bishops are especially prolific.

 

[devoutchristian]

Some people are smart, some people are sedes.