Sedevacantism

Sedevacantism is the theological position that the chair of St. Peter is currently vacant. This position has been ridiculed, attacked, and misrepresented for decades since Vatican II. This page aims to clarify the theological position of sedevacantism and show clearly that it is the only logical answer to the crisis in the Church.

Table of Contents

The Sedevacantist Argument in Brief

Quoted from “Sedevacantism: A Quick Primer” by Rev. Anthony Cekada

Officially-sanctioned Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws embody errors and/or promote evil.
Because the Church is indefectible, her teaching cannot change, and because she is infallible, her laws cannot give evil.
It is therefore impossible that the errors and evils officially sanctioned in Vatican II and post-Vatican II teachings and laws could have proceeded from the authority of the Church.
Those who promulgate such errors and evils must somehow lack real authority in the Church.
Canonists and theologians teach that defection from the faith, once it becomes manifest, brings with it automatic loss of ecclesiastical office (authority). They apply this principle even to a pope who, in his personal capacity, somehow becomes a heretic.
Canonists and theologians also teach that a public heretic, by divine law, is incapable of being validly elected pope or obtaining papal authority.
Even popes have acknowledged the possibility that a heretic could one day end up on the throne of Peter. In 1559 Pope Paul IV decreed that the election of a heretic to the papacy would be invalid, and that the man elected would lack all authority.
Since the Church cannot defect, the best explanation for the post-Vatican II errors and evils we repeatedly encounter is that they proceed from individuals who, despite their occupation of the Vatican and of various diocesan cathedrals, publicly defected from the faith, and therefore do not objectively possess canonical authority.

Video Resources

Here are 3 excellent videos explaining the sedevacantist position. For more videos, please see the OLG Chapel YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@OLGChapel/playlists

The Indefectibility of the Church

The definition of the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church is found in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will be preserved unimpaired in 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 theological position of sedevacantism is built upon this dogma. The Church cannot teach heresy or error. It is impossible. Vatican II teaches heresy and error, and therefore did not come from the true Church or a true pope. This is explained in depth in the article “Resistance and Indefectibility” by Most Rev. Donald Sanborn, quoted below:

“The fundamental notion of indefectibility is that the Church must endure until the end of time with the essential nature and qualities with which Christ endowed it at its foundation. In other words, it is impossible that the Catholic Church undergo a substantial change…”

“… her indefectibility is not limited to doctrine, but rather extends to all those things which have been endowed to her by the Divine Founder. We know that Christ endowed the Church with both structure and power. He established the Church as a monarchy, placing all power in the hands of Saint Peter. He also
instituted bishops who, in union with and subject to Saint Peter, would rule the Church in diverse localities. To this structure He endowed the power to teach, to rule, and to sanctify the entire human race. This power derives from the apostolic mission, i.e., the act of being sent by Christ for the purpose of saving souls.
Therefore this structure and this mission to the souls of mankind must endure throughout all ages unchanged. In addition, the Church is endowed with the power of orders, by which human beings are made into supernatural instruments of divine power to effect the supernatural sanctification of men through the sacraments, in particular the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Therefore the Church would defect if:
(a) it ever changed its doctrine;
(b) it ever altered or abandoned a monarchical and hierarchical structure;
(c) it ever lost, substantially changed, or abandoned the apostolic mission of teaching, ruling and sanctifying souls;
(d) it ever lost, substantially changed, or abandoned the
power of orders.“

“The point of departure for the sedevacantist is the principle that there is a substantial difference between the Novus Ordo and the Catholic Faith. This difference is most evident in the virtual word-for-word contradiction between Dignitatis Humanae and Quanta Cura, but is also plain for all to see in the New Mass and sacraments, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the new disciplines, the new catechisms, the new ordinary universal magisterium. These two religions are incompatible, and cannot coexist in the same church. But if the Novus Ordo is substantially different from the Catholic Faith, they reason, then it cannot be Catholic. But if it is not Catholic, they further reason, then it is impossible that such a thing be promulgated by the authority of the Church, since the authority of the Church cannot err in such matters as doctrine, worship, and discipline. Therefore, they conclude, it is impossible that those who promulgate the Novus Ordo have the authority of the Catholic Church. It is therefore impossible that Paul VI, John Paul I, or John Paul II be popes.
These principles which have led to this conclusion are absolutely ironclad. They are supported either by philosophy or the teaching of the Church. They are unassailable, and do logically lead to their conclusion. The indefectibility of the Church is thus saved in this system, since it refuses to associate with the Immaculate Spouse of Christ this abomination of modernism which is the work of the devil.”

Infallibility

Papal Infallibility

The definition of the dogma of papal infallibility is found in Vatican Council I:

“Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.“

The Infallibility of the Church

The Infallibility of the Church can also be found in Vatican Council I:

“All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed.“

In dogmatic theology, there is a primary and secondary object of infallibility, as explained in the article “The Infallibility of the Church” by Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas:

“The object of the Church’s infallibility is two-fold:

a) The primary object of the Church’s infallibility is the formally revealed truths of Christian Doctrine concerning faith and morals.

b) The secondary object of the Church’s infallibility is truths of the Christian teaching on faith and morals, which are not formally revealed, but which are closely connected with the teaching of Revelation.

Included in the secondary object of infallibility are the following:
1) theological conclusions;
2) dogmatic facts
3) the general discipline of the Church;
4) approval of religious orders;
5) canonization of saints”

The Question of a Heretical Pope

De Romano Pontifice

On the question of a heretical pope, St. Robert Bellarmine taught explicitly in “De Romano Pontifice” (Book II Chapter 30) that a manifest heretic automatically loses his office:

“Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction…”

Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio

Pope Paul IV declared the following in his papal bull “Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio“:

“We enact, determine, decree and define: that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.”

1917 Code of Canon Law

The 1917 Code of Canon Law states the following in Canon 188:

“Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:

…

4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith“

Discussions at Vatican Council I

The question of a heretical pope was also discussed in Vatican Council I. Upon his return from the Council, Archbishop John Baptist Purcell explained the following:

“The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

… If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.“

Quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII, p. 241

The Heresies of Vatican II

There are numerous heresies and errors in the documents of Vatican II. Here are a few examples taken from the article “Principle Heresies and Other Errors of Vatican II” by John Daly

(a) The civil right to religious liberty.

“The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person… This right to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right.”² (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 2)

The correct doctrine, which popes have often reiterated, is most authoritatively stated in the following passage from Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura (1864):

“And from this wholly false idea of social organisation they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society… Each and every doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church.”
Theological Censure: HERETICAL.

(b) Revelation was completed at the Crucifixion.

“Finally, He brought His revelation to completion when He accomplished on the Cross the work of redemption by which He achieved salvation and true freedom for men.” (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 11)

This contradicts the traditional and definite Catholic teaching that many truths proposed by the Church as Divinely revealed were not revealed by Our Lord until after His Resurrection. For instance, the Council of Trent (Session 6, chapter 14) taught that “Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance when He said, “Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain they are retained.” These words were pronounced by Our Lord (John 20:23) on the evening of Easter Sunday, more than two full days after His Crucifixion. And of course Catholic tradition contains not the slightest reason to believe that Our Lord had revealed before the Crucifixion His plan to institute the sacrament; and to claim that He did so would therefore be to invent a new dogma never before heard of in the Church. And even then the objection remains that the answers to such questions as exactly who were the ministers of the sacrament could not have been revealed before the Passion, since the apostasy of Judas was kept secret by Our Lord until it took place.
Theological censure: HERETICAL.

(c) Heretical and schismatic sects are means of salvation.

“The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (Decree on Oecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3)

This contradicts a doctrine which has been repeated perhaps more times than any other by the Church and is unquestionably Divinely revealed. Only a single example of the magisterial teaching of the true doctrine is necessary and we select the following from the Council of Florence held under Pope Eugene IV (1441):

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her…”
Theological censure: HERETICAL.

The New Mass

The main problems with the New Mass, or Novus Ordo, quoted from “The Ottaviani Intervention” by Cardinal Ottaviani & Cardinal Bacci:

I History of the Change
The new form of Mass was substantially rejected by the Episcopal Synod, was never submitted to the collegial judgement of the Episcopal Conferences and was never asked for by the people. It has every possibility of satisfying the most modernist of Protestants.

II Definition of the Mass
By a series of equivocations the emphasis is obsessively placed upon the ‘supper’ and the ‘memorial’ instead of on the unbloody renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

III Presentation of the Ends
The three ends of the Mass are altered:- no distinction is allowed to remain between Divine and human sacrifice; bread and wine are only “spiritually” (not substantially) changed.

IV The Essence
The Real Presence of Christ is never alluded to and belief in it is implicitly repudiated.

V The Elements of the Sacrifice
The position of both priest and people is falsified and the Celebrant appears as nothing more than a Protestant minister, while the true nature of the Church is intolerably misrepresented.

VI The Destruction of Unity
The abandonment of Latin sweeps away for good and all unity of worship. This may have its effect on unity of belief and the New Order has no intention of standing for the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent to which the Catholic conscience is bound.

VII: The Alienation of the Orthodox
While pleasing various dissenting groups, the New Order will alienate the East.

VIII The Abandonment of Defences
The New Order teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the purity of the Catholic religion and dismantles all defenses of the deposit of Faith.

The New Rite of Episcopal Consecration

The New Rite of Episcopal Consecration promulgated by Paul VI in 1968 is invalid due to the substantial change to the sacramental form. Therefore, all bishops consecrated in this rite are not valid bishops and cannot bestow holy orders upon the priests they ordain, rendering all priests ordained by said bishops equally invalid. This is proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the article “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void” by Rev. Anthony Cekada, quoted below:

A. General Principles
(1) Each sacrament has a form (essential formula) that produces its sacramental effect. When a substantial change of meaning is introduced into the sacramental form through the corruption or omission of essential words, the sacrament becomes invalid (=does not “work,” or produce the sacramental effect).
(2) Sacramental forms approved for use in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church are sometimes different in wording from the Latin Rite forms. Nevertheless, they are the same in substance, and are valid.
(3) Pius XII declared that the form for Holy Orders (i.e., for diaconate, priesthood and episcopacy) must univocally (=unambiguously) signify the sacramental effects — the power of Order and the grace of the
Holy Ghost.
(4) For conferring the episcopacy, Pius XII designated as the sacramental form a sentence in the traditional Rite of Episcopal Consecration that unequivocally expresses the power of the order that a bishop receives and the grace of the Holy Ghost.

B. Application to the New Form
(1) The new form for episcopal consecration that Paul VI promulgated does not seem to specify the power of the Order supposedly being conferred. Can
it confer the episcopacy? To answer this question, we apply the foregoing principles.
(2) The short Paul VI form for episcopal consecration is not identical to the lengthy Eastern Rite forms, and unlike them, does not mention sacramental powers proper to a bishop alone (e.g., ordaining). The Eastern Rite prayers that the surrounding Paul VI consecration Preface most closely resembles are nonsacramental prayers for the installations of the Maronite and Syrian Patriarchs, who are already bishops when appointed. In sum, one may not argue that the Paul VI form is “in use in two certainly valid Eastern Rites” and therefore valid.
(3) Various ancient texts (Hippolytus, the Apostolic Constitutions, the Testament of Our Lord) which share some common elements with the Paul VI consecration Preface have been “reconstructed,” are of doubtful
provenance, may not represent actual liturgical use, etc. There is no evidence that they were “accepted and used by the Church as such.” Thus they provide no reliable evidence to support for the validity of the Paul VI form.
(4) The key problem in the new form revolves around the term governing Spirit (Spiritus principalis in Latin). Before and after the promulgation of the 1968
Rite of Episcopal Consecration the meaning of this expression provoked concerns about whether it sufficiently signified the sacrament.
(5) Dom Bernard Botte, the principal creator of the new rite, maintained that, for the 3rd-century Christian, governing Spirit connoted the episcopacy, because bishops have “the spirit of authority” as “rulers of the Church.” Spiritus principalis means “the gift of a Spirit proper to a leader.”
(6) This explanation is false and disingenuous. Reference to dictionaries, a Scripture commentary, the Fathers of the Church, a dogmatic treatise, and Eastern Rite non-sacramental investiture ceremonies reveals
that, among a dozen different and sometimes contradictory meanings, governing Spirit does not specifically signify either the episcopacy in general or the fullness of Holy Orders that the bishop possesses.
(7) Before the controversy over it arose, Dom Botte himself even said that he didn’t see how omitting the expression governing Spirit would change the validity of the rite of consecration.
(8) The new form fails to meet two criteria for the form for Holy Orders laid down by Pius XII. (a) Because the term governing Spirit is capable of signifying
many different things and persons, it does not univocally signify the sacramental effect. (b) It lacks any term that even equivocally connotes the power of Order that a bishop possess — the “fullness of the priesthood of
Christ in the episcopal office and order,” or “the fullness or totality of the priestly ministry.”
(9) For these reasons, the new form constitutes a substantial change in the meaning of the sacramental form for conferring the episcopacy.
(10) A substantial change in the meaning of a sacramental form, as we have already demonstrated, renders a sacrament invalid.

C. Conclusion: An Invalid Sacrament
Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, an episcopal consecration conferred with the sacramental form promulgated by Paul VI in 1968 is invalid.