Twelve Questions for Sedevacantists ​

​

Aimed chiefly at the “hardline” non-una-cum brand of sedevacantist, some of the following questions will nonetheless apply and could well be asked of sedevacansitsts generally...

1. Sedevacantism does not appear to have been anywhere in evidence until the early 1970s, and we are unaware of there having been one single priest who thought that Paul VI was not Pope until around 1970, or possibly the late 1960s at the very earliest. We are unaware of a single example of a priest charging John XXIII with being an anti-Pope while he was alive or leaving his name out of the Mass. At the same time we are told that Mass offered “una cum” an anti-Pope is not pleasing to God. If it is true that the last true Pope was Pius XII, does that mean there no was true sacrifice being offered in a way pleasing to God for some 10 to 15 years? Did God really leave the entire earth bereft of this true sacrifice for ten or more years?

2. If sedevacantism is not just a theory, but is a binding conclusion, why do we not hear about it in the decades/centuries before the council? If on the other hand it is a theory, is it not in one sense yet another previously unheard - of, post - conciliar novelty?

3. If sedevacantism is merely a question of applying Catholic principles (Sanborn) or merely a simple matter of logic, something that you just have to think about clearly enough (Cekada), why aren’t we all sedevacantists? Why aren’t we almost all, or even mostly all? Is it reasonable (or Catholic?) to propose or even to imply that everyone who is not a sedevacantist is either ignorant or of bad will?

4. If sedevacantism is a probable or reasonable conclusion, how can it be that virtually no sedevacantists agree with one another, even about non-theological matters? Why is it that even those who have not fallen out with each other and who work together (e.g. Cekada & Sanborn) nevertheless do not agree (e.g. ‘pure’ sedevacantism vs. sede - privationism; “CMRI can be collaborated with” (Cekada) vs. “CMRI should be disbanded” (Sanborn), etc.)

5. If “Do-not-attend-non-sedevacantist-Masses!” is an obvious or reasonable proposition, why is it that its main proponents previously mocked this very same proposition, calling it “Follow me or die!” Catholicism?

6. If it is so clear and obvious that the whole Church has been ruled by anti-Popes for fifty-plus years, with no possibility of relief anywhere to be seen, why no mention of this at Fatima? Why no mention of it at Quito? Why did Padre Pio have nothing to say on the subject: did he think it not important enough? Why not one single “old-guard” Cardinal (Siri, Stickler, Oddi, etc.), bishop or even Vatican Monsignor to have admitted as much on his death-bed or in his posthumously-published memoires?

7. If the matter is not quite as absolutely black-and-white or clear cut as we are led to believe, is it not both prudent and reasonable to hold on only to what is known and can be trusted, what has been tried and tested from before the Council, and exclude any novelty; to leave the fascinating theoretical questions on hold until better times when we may examine them at leisure?

8. What are the fruits of sedevacantism? Where are the sedevacantist soup kitchens? Where is the Sedevacantist League for the Kingship of Christ? Where are all the sedevacantist distributists? Why are Sedevacantist chapels generally filled with supporters of democracy and capitalism, who hear nothing from their priest with which they could disagree? Where are the fruits of forty years of sedevacantist missionary activity in third-world countries all over the world?

9. If everything was 100% perfect in the Church right up until 1958, how do we account for the revolution of Vatican II apparently coming out of nowhere? Did it really have no roots, no precursors, no avant-garde? If, on the other hand, the rot does go back beyond Vatican II, and if in fact things were not entirely as they ought to have been in the decades before the council, does this not seem to indicate that Gloriously Reigning Popes can make errors of judgment, scandalous decisions, cause large numbers of souls to lose the Faith and deny our Lord like St. Peter? How do we explain Pius XI giving his full and enthusiastic support to the League of Nations and sending a personal note of congratulation to the second Spanish Republic? How do we explain the failure of the 19th century Popes to use their full authority to comprehensively condemn Charles Darwin and his ideas? How do we account for the Church’s teaching on usury not being taught or enforced for some 200 years? Or the condemnation of Galileo being secretly ignored and, to all practical purposes, overturned?

10. Why is there no unanimous opinion among theologians on the question of a heretical Pope? Why is there not one example in the history of the Church of a Pope leaning towards heresy being threatened with the loss of his office, and why does Sacred Scripture uphold so strongly the keeping of office by heretical Sovereign Pontiffs of the Old Testament?

11. In Hell, those responsible for the damnation of so many souls because of their elevated office will burn as Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests. This is called the Principle of Au-thority or responsibility. Our ancestors used to represent hell with a lot of clergy in it, why should it be different now, as the damage caused by them is far greater than the mostly mor-al scandal that they were giving in the past? “Eveque, c'est par toi que je meurs” said St. Joan of Arc to Bishop Cauchon. “Bishop it is by thee that I die”. God ascribes a precise culprit for whatever damage is done, as showed in the prophets of the Old Testament or in Matthew XXIII. If pope Francis is just a charlatan, if he is just a con man, a joker, a clown, but not really responsible, he would get just a clowny spank. If he and his six predecessors do not really bear the burden of responsibility of the Apostasy of Nations, since they are not really true Popes, who does bear this responsibility?

12. Is it not the case that the general idea of sedevacantism has a certain appeal, it is easier to summarise to non-Catholic or non-Traditional friends and relations, and that it appears to offer a simple response to the whole painful crisis? Ought this not to put us on our guard, knowing what we do about human nature? Equally, does not experience show that for both laity and priests, “becoming a sedevacantist” is not infrequently followed by a slackening of morals, standards of dress or behaviour, a weakening of general fervour and in particular a weakening of the counter-cultural and apostolic spirit? Once again, ought this not to put us on our guard?


Source: The Recusant, Issue 23, Jan./Feb. 2015, page 9