Sedevacantism is the belief that the seat of Peter is “vacant” – that we do not have a pope. Lead Catholic Truth blogger, Martin Blackshaw comments on the rise of this heresy in our times and the key question for discussion has to be: can those who adhere to the heresy of sedevacantism be saved?
Martin Blackshaw writes…
The more I study sedevacantism and correspond with people who subscribe to it, the more I realise just how seriously poisonous this error is.
Like the liberalism of the Second Vatican Council (‘Conciliar’ liberalism), sedevacantism is a fairly new beast to the Catholic world in that nothing quite like it is recorded in the two-thousand-year history of the Church. The sedevacantists argue that this is so because it is, in fact, a unique immune reaction of the Mystical Body to conciliar liberalism, and, indeed, the antidote to the source of the sickness itself – the Anti-Pope.
When considering such an argument in parallel with how a human body’s immune system reacts to sickness, however, one is immediately struck by the similarity not with a normal immune reaction, but with an aggressive over-reaction that invariably results in death.
The usual reaction of the body’s immune system to sickness is one of combating a foreign invader without harming what is normal and necessary to the body’s function and health. In terms of the Mystical Body this can be compared to a traditional Catholic group which, while resisting and combating the present plague of liberalism in the Church, refrains from assault on that which is necessary to the survival of the body, in this case the Petrine succession.
This is not to say that the Conciliar Popes have not been infected with liberalism to the point of material (e.g., not wilful) heresy, and that each and every one has not required the application of the balm of our prayers, our example and our respectful upbraiding in the hope of his recovery. What it is saying is that despite modern Papal errors, it has never been more imperative that the faithful adhere rigidly to the Catholic principle of condemning the sin but not the sinner, because “where Peter is, there is the Church.” Vatican Council 1.
Sedevacantists, on the contrary, insist that the Popes from John XXIII to the present incumbent of the See of Peter are usurpers, evil men bent on the destruction of Christ’s Church. They accuse these Popes of formal (e.g., wilful) heresy, thereby assuming to themselves that which is reserved to God alone – the judgment of souls. “Judge not, that you may not be judged.” Matthew 7:1.
If we accept, as indeed we must if we are to remain Catholic, that the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church are ever present only in and through the Petrine succession by Our Lord’s own declaration: “Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” Matthew 16:18, then how is it possible, as the sedevacantists propose, that the Petrine succession could have ended with the death of Pius XII without harm to this truth?
Does not such a mentality, in fact, succeed only in vindicating the Protestant claim that the Catholic Church and its Papacy are not of divine foundation? Is it not the same as saying that the gates of hell have prevailed?
Even on a practical level if we consider that John Paul II elevated 99% of the Cardinals who voted in conclave to elect Benedict XVI Pope, then according to sedevacantism none of these Cardinals are Cardinals, having been elevated by an Anti-Pope and therefore not elevated at all, and so not competent to elect a Pope, and so Benedict is not Pope and there is now no official body left to elect a Pope. See how deadly sedevacantism is? The devil is clever indeed.
Consider this example. In his book, The sword of Christendom, Fr Stephen DeLallo (SSPX) illustrates how Communism and modern unrestricted Capitalism, while appearing diametrically opposed one to the other, in fact, share the same architects and the same end, which is the leading of souls away from God through materialism.
I would argue that the same comparison can be drawn between Conciliar liberalism and its apparent arch-enemy sedevacantism. Both undermine the Papacy, albeit by different methods, ultimately leading Catholic souls into Protestantism. Is this accidental? I think not.
There is also another similarity between Conciliar liberalism and sedevacantism that one only notices through extensive dealings with both. Their adherents always begin a defence of their position with a friendly smile, a few quotes from this or that speculator of the past and a few modern day example arguments. This quickly changes to outright aggression, however, when one quotes back at them with sound doctrine. I have personally heard some of these people refer to the supreme Pontiff in a manner that makes the blood run cold.
This brings me back to that aggressive over-reaction that I referred to at the beginning of this article and a reminder of the words of St. James: “The anger of man worketh not the justice of God.” James 1:20.
How can one not see the sin of pride in all of this? It shows itself in the Conciliar revolution in those who thought, and still think, themselves worthy to replace the sound teaching of the Saints of twenty centuries with their own novel ideas. It also shows itself in those who, rather than thanking God for granting them the grace of the traditional Catholic Faith, and praying that others also might receive that grace, instead condemn without mercy even Christ’s Vicar on earth.
Therefore, let us understand that just as liberal Catholicism has departed from the Faith of two thousand years, so, too, is sedevacantism truly schismatic.
Vatican Council I makes this clear in the following statement: “Therefore if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself that Blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of St. Peter in this primacy, let him be anathema.”
It was perhaps this statement that led the late Fr. Malachi Martin to declare that the sedevacantist would never see the face of God.
What is most worrying for the traditional Catholic cause is that while most traditional Catholics vigorously resist Conciliar novelty, they see nothing worthy of serious concern in the sedevacantist position.
Hence, we have a scenario in which traditional Catholics will shake their heads in disgust at the liberal who undermines Church authority, yet sympathise with the sedevacantist who outrightly denies the legitimacy of the Pope. Why? Because the sedevacantist errs in the name of tradition.
If there was some kind of spiritual benefit to be gained from sedevacantism, then one could perhaps understand why people might be inclined to put their souls on the line for it. But the fact is there is nothing beneficial or useful about being sedevacantist, not a single thing.
On the contrary, this treacherous error lures well meaning souls into an angry, divisive, name-calling mentality, the only fruits of which, to date, have been the end of many a friendship, the loss of good Catholic writers and orators from the cause of upholding the Faith, and a serious undermining of the strength of traditional Catholic resistance to Conciliar liberalism.
And here is another interesting statistic about sedevacantism. Every now and then a liberal may be won back to tradition, but when has it ever been heard that a sedevacantist has recanted his/her entrenched view of the modern Papacy? Why should this be?
Well, there are two reasons for this phenomenon it seems to me. The first is the pride that leads the sedevacantist to make a forbidden and unwarranted judgment on the soul of the Pope. One does not easily escape from such an arrogant disposition. The other is that traditional Catholics have been quite prepared to allow their neighbour to fall into this error, believing that it is less harmful than liberalism and quite understandable in the circumstances.
The danger with this second example is that some traditional Catholics have succumbed to sedevacantism, thinking it an acceptable position in tradition, who might otherwise have avoided the sin had traditional Catholic clerics spoken out as they should have done.
An example of this is the Society of Saint Pius X, in which the official line on sedevacantism is that it is an extreme, schismatic position. Yet, I am aware that even the SSPX has within its ranks a few sedevacantist priests who hold their error covertly so as not to be discovered and expelled.
And expelled they would most certainly be, since Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1979 written directive states clearly: “ the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope.”
The Archbishop expelled nine priests and seminarians from the SSPX for holding this great error, most of whom have since fallen further into sin by allowing truly schismatic bishops to raise them to the episcopate. All are now united in only one mission to declare against the Holy Father and to declare against the SSPX. One sin just leads to another with these bitter unfortunates.
So here is a final thought for all who declare themselves Traditional Catholics. It is as much a sin by consent before God to remain silent in the face of sedevacantism, as it is to remain silent in the face of Conciliar liberalism. We Catholics have a duty of charity towards all erring souls. True charity is not selective.
