I’m generally interested in sedevacantism and what it mean for Catholics…like: Who believes in it? When did they believe in it? And why do sedes think those who came into the Church after Vatican II aren’t Catholics? There may be more questions than what’s above, so please chime in!
NOTE: Please be kind in your answers and charitable when speaking on this topic.
1 Like
There is a sedevacantism Traditional Catholic Church in West Chester, Ohio (Cincinnati). Their website would explain their beliefs better than I could. Also, the deceased Father Anthony Cekada wrote pamphlets on their beliefs which should be on-line.
Wow this one hasn’t gotten much attention. My best friend is presently sedevacantist, and has been in that position for over a year. He believes that the last valid pope was sometime before the 1950s (or about then), and that none of the Vatican priests today have a valid ordination and so they cannot baptize anyone.
The moral issue with this position is not that it cannot be true, but rather that those who assert it’s truth do so without the proper prerequisite knowledge–their sin is pride to a grave degree. I admit readily to my friend that I find everything he believes to be believable, but that without clear evidence it would be a grave sin for me to speak of it as though it were fact. If it is true that we have not had a valid pope in over 50 years, my faith demands that I trust that God will “lift the veil” and make it knowable, and that I should not say that I know it when I do not know it yet. We don’t know that Mary was immaculately conceived because of a “preponderance of evidence,” rather we know this because of clear and traceable reason. I have yet to receive such clarity regarding sedevacantism, leaving me to conclude that either (a) we will never have such clarity because it is false, or (b) the lack of clarity we have is how God wishes to test us and to show faith we should hold out for proof.
1 Like
The term he likes to use for popes since the (allegedly) last valid pope is “anti-pope.” Where him and I notably diverge is that I find it entirely plausible that we have valid popes that are also anti-popes, but my friend believes that an enemy of the church cannot hold an office in the church. That is where the discussion actually gets interesting, the notion that a heretic cannot be pope. My take is that the pope cannot be a heretic, even if he wants to be and tries to be. My friend’s take is that his own subjective opinion that the pope is heretical is itself evidence that he has no validity to his title. The fact that my friend has not taken the time to put together a proof that any one pope is heretical is itself evidence to me that my friend is motivated by pride, not faith.
I hope this is helpful to anyone interested in the topic, and if you want me to ask my friend anything just let me know. It is my hope that he will abandon his position.
1 Like