Sedevacantism is the belief that, at very least since 1958--upon the death of Pope Pius XII--that every Pontiff of the Catholic Church has been, and is, an "antipope." However this is the tip of the iceberg. There are as many different versions of sedevacantism as there are sedevacantists! There are some I have encountered who claim that Pope Pius XII was a heretic and therefore an anti-pope. Still there are even those whom claim that we may not have had a valid Pontiff since Pope Pius IX. As mentioned prior, there are as many versions of sedevacantism as there are sedevacantists. In a word, adherents to sedevacantes position are divided over what constitutes a valid Pontiff, and with most of them claiming to be laypersons of the Catholic Church it is very easy to see that they have read a handful of erroneous propaganda and have developed a disordered point of view of the Church.
Similar to them, and just as problematic, are the conclavists, however I will not address them at this juncture. I should now address a brief history of sedevacantism as far as it relates to our modern history. I will show the brief history vis a vis the crazed time frame that occurred after the Second Vatican Council (hereafter Vatican II).
It all began when nine Priests, now formerly of the Society of St. Pius X, brought up objections to the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre during the late 1970s. The controversial Archbishop was having difficulty among many prelates within the Church, however was still allowed to teach and form those Seminarians who desired to be taught by him. The nine Priests objected to Abp. Lefebvre maintaining not only ties with the Vatican but also fidelity to Pope Paul VI who was the Supreme Pontiff (e.g. the Pope) until 1977. Abp. Lefebvre maintained that as he was a Bishop of the Catholic Church, as he had sworn fidelity to the Holy Father when we was consecrated a Bishop, and would continue to do so. This did not sit very well with these nine Priests and so they began teaching those under them to resist the instructions of Abp. Lefebvre. Circa 1983 the late Archbishop expelled those nine Priests, who in turn took with them their own students, some of whom waited to be ordained by Abp. Lefebvre prior to leaving the SSPX. Those who left, or were expelled, formed together to found the schismatic Society of St. Pius V (SSPV). Thus sedevacantism is a split from the Church.
In my personal point of view these nine Priest committed an act of schism by refusing the guidance of their superior and therefore the Church. Their schism de facto cut them off from communion with the Church, and therefore they cannot be considered Catholic.
Let us flash forward 36 years. What began as nine Priests acting in disobedience has spiraled into several splinter groups. It could be argued that SSPX did not seem traditional enough, and so the sedevacantists severed ties with Rome; similar to how Martin Luther did in 1517 when he thought that the Church could not meet his personal standards. From SSPV there are others who split because SSPV was not traditional enough because they held that Pius XII was a valid Pontiff. This spiral continues similar to how John Calvin thought that Luther was too Catholic and promulgated his own brand of bad theology that one is predestined to Heaven or Hell arbitrarily because somehow the mercy of God is void and favoritism is the name of the game.
Today there exists sedevacantists who claim to be from a Catholic monastery in New York state. These effectively are taught that SSPX, the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest (ICRSS), and other communities that use exclusively the liturgical books of 1962 are not Catholic and say invalid Masses. This of course is not true! One can observe from their style of ad hominem attacks, quoting of obscure situations from the recesses of Church history, and at times even antisemitic stances that they are only interested in one thing: showing how their version of Jesus is better than the next person's, and so on. I have seen this before in the vitriol preached from the pulpits of some protestant sects who claim wrongly the usual objections of the Catholic faith (i.e. the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints, the Pope, the Eucharist, etc.). So one can ask themselves, "How are sedevacantists different from mainstream Protestants?" The short answer is that they are no different, and in some ways just as extremist as the Westboro Baptist Church.
But cannot their arguments be verified? This is where it can be easy to get wrapped up in their arguments and be fooled into thinking that they're correct in their position. Recently, in a discussion I was having with a sedevacantist I proposed that Christ promised that "the gates of the Hell shall not prevail" (Matthew 16:18) against the Church. In response I was given the counter argument, citing Pope St. Leo IX as the source, "The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter... because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome." Taken at face value this would seem to indicate that when a Pontiff states something that is contrary to what the Church has always taught that it immediately invalidates the Papacy and the one who is Pope fails to be the Pope.
In the same conversation it was claimed that I am "rejecting Christ's words that the gates of hell will never prevail because [I am] effectively saying that the 'gates of hell' are sitting at the VERY TOP of His Church." This is an absurd take, because it essentially states that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has no power to protect His Church against Her very Bishops and Pontiff! That is as the first Pope, St. Peter, defines in his second epistle (letter) as a "personal interpretation." (2 Peter 1:16-20) I could give more examples, but we would be here all day.
What is contained in the very eloquently stated arguments and talking points is something nefarious. Hiding beneath the facade of appearances of zealous devotion to the Church and Her teaching are superfluous arguments, circular logic, and a twisting of what the Church teaches to satisfy a hidden desire to deceive all who are unprepared into believing that they are correct. For any who do not know their faith well enough they will be easily taken into the charm of their claims. Simply put their claims address the overwhelming crisis in the Church by manipulating the emotions of those who at the moment, and for good reason, feel that the Church is falling apart. And what an opportunity the sedevacantists have chosen. That they have chosen to capitalize on the crisis in the Church by taking to social media to promote their deception is the only thing I can say is a point in their favor.
What makes sedevacantism so appealing is that it appears to solve a crisis in the Church. But at what cost? Accepting the sedevacantist position means falling into a similar error that unfortunately many who took and ran with the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" fell.
Ultramontanism is the error that everything that falls from the mouth of the Pope is infallible and therefore to be taken, believed, and acted upon with immediate effect. This is not true. The First Vatican Council discussed Papal infallibility in these words, "For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation of the deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles." From this we know that the infallibility of the Pope is only when speaking of faith and morals. It is well worth it to research, in depth, the documents of Vatican I because in no way does it make out the Pope to be some sort of super king with a hyper infallibility. Yet this is what both sedevacantists and some who adhere to the craziness of the 1970s "spirit of Vatican II" conflate Papal infallibility to mean, which is contrary to Vatican I!
To conclude, the problem with sedevacantism goes much deeper than one can write about in brief. Sedevacantism is a misappropriation of Church teaching and is therefore a true poison to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Once you have backed them into a corner, and they run out of arguments, they return ad hominem attacks, and if you're Catholic claim that you are excommunicated. These "excommunications" are not valid, nor should they ever be treated with more than a good laugh, since only a Bishop (including the Pope) can excommunicate someone, so really it just takes on the appearance of an overzealous "citizen arrest" situation that just goes to further demonstrate that truly, no matter what they claim, they are just as knowledgeable about what the Catholic Church actually teaches as someone who listens to a protestant pastor drone on about the alleged heresies of the Roman Catholic Church.
