Sedevacantism

Sedevacantism is a theological position of those traditional catholics who most certainly believe in the papacy, papal infallibilty and the primacy of Roman Pontiff, and yet do not recognize the last popes as true popes. The word sedevacantism is a compose of two latin words which together mean "the chair is vacant".
The sedevacantist position is founded on the Catholic doctrines and on the theological of St. Robert Bellarmine.
Other sedevacantist positions is founded in the Bible (Acts) (?)
These are the opinions of them. I'd like to know the opinions of other traditional Catholics of this site.

[Milesian]

I'll reply later when I have a little more time.
It's easy for many Catholics to dismiss Sedevacantists as Protestants, but in actual fact their position isn't without some logic and does carry some theological weight. However, I consider it as a very last resort.
There are many problems inherent in Sedevacantism, and if the Sedevacantist is wrong then they are in a state of schism, which will result in the greatest of penalties as far as a the Catholic is concerned.

I toyed with Sedevacantism for a while but in the end I could not make that leap.
I remain a Traditional Catholic, but I do recognise the legitimacy of the post-Vatican II Popes even if I don't necessarily agree with them in certain areas.

[Siegmund]

Originally Posted by imperator

Sedevacantism is a theological position of those traditional catholics who most certainly believe in the papacy, papal infallibilty and the primacy of Roman Pontiff, and yet do not recognize the last popes as true popes. The word sedevacantism is a compose of two latin words which together mean "the chair is vacant".

The sedevacantist position is founded on the Catholic doctrines and on the theological of St. Robert Bellarmine.

Other sedevacantist positions is founded in the Bible (Acts) (?)

These are the opinions of them. I'd like to know the opinions of other traditional Catholics of this site.

The Wikipedia article is fascinating for a change, with some interesting links as well. An excerpt:

The precise origins of sedevacantism are unclear, but a major impetus for the development of the movement was the publication in August 1971 of the book The New Montinian Church, in which Fr. Joaquin Saenz Arriaga, a Mexican Jesuit, put forward the thesis that Pope Paul VI had founded a new religion distinct from traditional Roman Catholicism. In 1973, Fr. Saenz published a second book, Sede Vacante, in which he claimed explicitly that Paul VI had forfeited his papal authority by reason of his public and manifest heresy. Saenz's writings gave rise to the sedevacantist movement in Mexico, led by Frs. Saenz, Moises Carmona and Adolfo Zamora; in the United States, led by Fathers Francis E. Fenton and Burton Fraser; and in France, led by Guerard des Lauriers.

As with Traditionalist Catholicism in general, sedevacantism owes its origins to the rejection of the theological and disciplinary reforms that were carried out in the Catholic Church by and following the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Traditionalist Catholics reject the Council primarily because of its teachings on religious liberty and ecumenism, which they feel contradict the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church and deny the unique status of Catholicism as the one true religion revealed by God. In addition, Traditionalist Catholics reject new disciplinary norms such as the new rite of the Mass, which they feel undermine or conflict with the historic Catholic faith.

Sedevacantists conclude that the true teaching authority of the church could not decree the reforms of Vatican II and therefore, those who did issue them were not acting with the authority of the true Catholic Church and therefore were usurpers of valid ecclesiastical authority. Pope Paul VI and his successors had forfeited the true Church and consequently any legitimate authority within the same Church.

The point about Vatican II is one that's difficult to dispute. My parents suffered greatly when they saw the teachings of the church turned inside out. Good Roman Catholics they remain, but the pride was beaten out of them long ago as they witnessed church doctrine subverted by liberation theology and other modern day aberrations.

Famous sedevacantists and antipopes:

Michael I, Pious XIII (Lucien Pullvenbacher), Gregor XVII and bishop Pivarunas, fom Omaha.

[Milesian]

The problem with these Sedevacantist "Popes" is that they have to first appoint their own cardinals (which they have no authority to do), their Cardinals then vote for the priest/monk/bishop in question to be Pope, and then declare themselves to be a validly elected Pope. It doesn't take a genius to see that doesn't really work.

Gregory XVII has the added disadvantage of being stark raving mad...and the others are even worse by being American j/k

[Menydh]

Gregor XVII? Wasn't that the one who had the see not far from Seville?

LOL! I'm not sure if he was a lunatic or a crook. I heared stories of him having sold some land in Heaven to someone to have a better house built once there.

I believe that he was deported to America. Ok, maybe not, but he should have been.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Gregor XVII? Wasn't that the one who had the see not far from Seville?

I think that is the case, yes. Allegedly he was obsessed with some Marian apparition site before deciding to declare himself Pope.
Wish I had though of that first

[Menydh]

I heared a few other stories. We had much fun with that at the time.


P.S. Why would you want to be Pope? As my favourite peripheral A-M I will make you Grand Inquisitor of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and ... England! Much more fun!

P.P.S. on second thoughts, Wales and Cornwall should not fall under your domains. I don't trust you that much.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

P.S. Why would you want to be Pope?

Why? Because I rule and it's about time people realised that

As my favourite peripheral A-M I will make you Grand Inquisitor of Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and ... England! Much more fun!

Don't get me wrong, I can surely see the attraction there!

P.P.S. on second thoughts, Wales and Cornwall should not fall under your domains. I don't trust you that much.

Are you still harbouring malice just because we Gaels enjoyed a historical period of raiding & plundering Cymru, Alba, Sassana and Gaul? It was a long time ago. We've changed, honest. Can't you just forgive and forget?

[Carnyx]

Well, when I see such things, I understand sedevacantists. Don't you?

[Milesian]

I understand their disgust, but Sedevacantism bases itself on theology and cannon law, not just emotion.

That picture partly explains why I'm a Traditional Catholic, but it has little to say on Sedevacantism. Sedevacantism rests on the premise that a bad Pope can't be a real Pope. On the contrary, the Church itself acknowledges (and always has done) that there have been bad Popes but nowhere did it ever claim that mean they weren't real Popes. The only Anti-Popes have historically been those who were not validly elected, not anything relient on their personal character.
I believe either Bellarmine or Suarez stated that for a Pope to lose his office, he would have to be found to have been a public heretic before his Papal election to stand any chance of invalidating his position.

The problem with Sedevacantism is that it relies on the fallible laeity judging the Pope and deposing him as we see fit. To start with, the Church does not recognise the laeity to possess anything like that kind of authority.
Thus, we are led into the doctine of Private Interpretation - a heresy based on rejecting the Church's authority and which was seen as one of the prime heresies driving the Reformation (in fact, it was an old heresy revived by Luther out of necessity due to the logical outcome of his rejecting Church authority and tradition). Sedevacantism walks a very dangerous line.
I'm all for an end to liberal Novus Ordo "Catholicism", but I'm extremely reluctant to start giving myself supreme ecclesiastical authority and begin deposing Popes as I personally see fit.

[Ederico]

Cannon Law? Hehe, Canon Law!

By the way, ever heard of the Cardinal Siri affair? Apparently he had been elected validly as a Pope but was somewhat coerced to resign. He already had accepted the Papacy with the name of Gregory XVII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Siri

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Ederico Figallo

Cannon Law? Hehe, Canon Law!

Meh, what's a letter between friends

By the way, ever heard of the Cardinal Siri affair? Apparently he had been elected validly as a Pope but was somewhat coerced to resign. He already had accepted the Papacy with the name of Gregory XVII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Siri

Yes, I've heard of The Siri Thesis.
It's intruiging but it's also pure conjecture. Furthermore, if true it presents a real problem for Catholicism (the same one that Sedevacantism ends up creating).
In fact, so serious a problem is it that it means no less than the end of the Catholic Church.

Basically, if Siri was the true Pope but was then forced to resign and have Roncalli take his place then that would mean that all the Cardinals since then will have been invalidly created, and thus they will not be true Cardinals. Eventually all the Cardinals created before Roncalli's illegitimate pontificate (ie. authentic Cardinals) will die and we will be left with a false Pope and false Cardinals. In such a situation, Apostolic Succession breaks down. Once Apostolic Succession breaks down, there is no more Catholic Church.

However, a Catholic cannot believe such an event is possible.
Christ said that His Church would be around until the end of time and that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church.
Now if the Siri Thesis is correct, it would mean that Christ was wrong. And if Christ was wrong, then Christ was also a liar. And thus Christianity itself woud be a sham.

Thus, one can believe in Catholicism or the Siri Thesis.....but not both at the same time.

[Ederico]

Maybe Christ is here then, and we're at the end of the world? LOL

Joke apart, your reasoning makes sense, hadn't thought about it before.

[Siegmund]

Originally Posted by Milesian

Sedevacantism rests on the premise that a bad Pope can't be a real Pope. On the contrary, the Church itself acknowledges (and always has done) that there have been bad Popes but nowhere did it ever claim that mean they weren't real Popes. The only Anti-Popes have historically been those who were not validly elected, not anything relient on their personal character.

[...]

The problem with Sedevacantism is that it relies on the fallible laeity judging the Pope and deposing him as we see fit. To start with, the Church does not recognise the laeity to possess anything like that kind of authority.

Thus, we are led into the doctine of Private Interpretation - a heresy based on rejecting the Church's authority and which was seen as one of the prime heresies driving the Reformation (in fact, it was an old heresy revived by Luther out of necessity due to the logical outcome of his rejecting Church authority and tradition). Sedevacantism walks a very dangerous line.

Very insightful. For if such were not the case, then why draw the line with the modern period? Certainly, a case (however speculative) can be made for immorality against the Borgias and diabolism against Honorius III - yet valid Popes they remain.

Papal history is genuinely fascinating stuff. Even more so is the theology behind the papacy, some of which you stated here. The claim to absolute moral authority while at the same time in effect exempting the beneficiaries of that claim to the very morality they are supposed to embody has always struck me as one of the most interesting wrinkles.