Sedevacantism

Since the 1960s, the Catholic Church has been undergoing profound internal transformations and crises. Voices are increasingly calling for a reassessment of traditional aspects of doctrine, pastoral approaches, and forms of religious life. Against the backdrop of these processes, sharp disputes have arisen within the Church—about the boundaries of permissible renewal, about the balance between fidelity to tradition and following the spirit of the times. Some priests have actively become involved in socio-political life, which some see as a natural expression of Christian responsibility, while others view it as a symptom of losing spiritual direction. Even the papal throne has not remained on the sidelines: the main thing remembered about the pontificate of Francis is the numerous discussions and scandals surrounding his words and actions. For some, they have become a symbol of renewal and openness, for others—a cause for criticism and bewilderment.

Although this crisis is not the most severe and large-scale in history, and certainly not insoluble, many people have become disillusioned with the Church and have sought refuge elsewhere. One of the ideas that has developed against this backdrop is sedevacantism. The central idea of this doctrine is the assertion that the seven pontiffs who have led the Church since the opening of the Second Vatican Council, namely John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis, and Leo XIV, are antipopes—usurpers unlawfully occupying the chair of the Apostle Peter. This is how they explain the crisis that began after the Second Vatican Council—if the Church is led by impostors, they will obviously lead the Church in a direction not intended by God. And if they act against God, then they should not be listened to or obeyed. Some sedevacantists have gone even further, believing that the Catholic Church is not just mistaken, but has actually died out, and the Vatican is a false Church.

Before we move directly to sedevacantism, it is worth noting one important point—not everyone who was dissatisfied with the Council's reforms chose the path of sedevacantism. The most famous among them is Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and his Society of St. Pius X (FSSPX), who did not endorse the views and methods of the sedevacantists and preferred to remain in communion with the Holy See. To this day, the overwhelming majority of traditionalists prefer the path of unity with the Pope, engaging in dialogue with him about the extent of permissible compromises. Sedevacantism is a marginal (and therefore intriguing) position, far removed even from the traditionalist mainstream.

Where did this movement come from, what is its current state, and what do its supporters believe? We will explore these questions in this article.

Origins of Sedevacantism

The first thing to note is that sedevacantism is not and has never been an “oppositional” Church existing parallel to the Vatican. We are dealing with an indeterminate number of different groups, often disagreeing with each other on important issues. Therefore, in this article, we will look at the most numerous and/or well-known groups, of which there are four:

• The Palmarian Church. After the Second Vatican Council, one of the Vietnamese Catholic bishops, Ngo Dinh Thuc, found himself in a very dire situation—a military coup took place in his homeland, during which most of his family was killed, the new government did not allow him to return, and Pope Paul VI used this to force him to resign. In deep despair, Thuc came to believe that a double was ruling instead of Paul VI, and that the people who convinced him of this should be made priests and bishops. Later, one of them declared himself the new Pope—Gregory XVII, and the new center of the Church—the city of Palmar in Spain. The Palmarian group exists to this day under the leadership of Antipope Peter III and actively simulates vigorous activity.

• The Society of St. Pius V (Societas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii V, SSPV). Founded in 1983 by nine priests who left the Society of St. Pius X—a less radical group that, while challenging the Council's decisions, never adhered to sedevacantist positions. The SSPV operates only in the USA and Canada.

• The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae, CMRI). Currently the largest and most cohesive sedevacantist organization. Founded in 1967 by Francis Schuckardt. Although Schuckardt was ordained a bishop, he received his ordination from the Old Catholics—a group that split from the Catholic Church in the late 19th century after the First Vatican Council. He was later expelled from his own organization for drug abuse, sexual scandals, and other misconduct. Leadership was taken over by his close ally, Denis Chicoine, but the situation in the organization did not improve. Former members reported being subjected to extremely harsh corporal punishments (such as being forced to crawl on their knees on asphalt), being forbidden to watch television and read the news, and being urged to separate from their spouse if they did not want to join the CMRI.

• The Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM). The smallest, yet the loudest of all existing groups. It is known to consist of only two members—the brothers Peter and Michael Dimond. They live near the town of Fillmore in New York State, in the aforementioned monastery. Despite modest resources, they produce a colossal amount of content. They run the website vaticancatholic.com, a YouTube channel of the same name, and likely the sedevacantist media “Novus Ordo Watch.” The brothers have been active since the 1990s, with the difference that back then they distributed tapes and leaflets. Now, Peter Dimond regularly releases videos “exposing” the Vatican on YouTube. Little is known about Michael—his last photos and videos were taken back in the 1990s, after which we could only hear his voice in videos, and even then rarely. Because of this, many have speculated that he is dead, although there is no evidence of this.

What Do Sedevacantists Believe?

• Like any decentralized movement, sedevacantism does not have a “declaration of principles” or equivalent. However, by listening to various groups and their opinions, three principles can be identified that more or less all sedevacantists adhere to:

• All Popes after Pius XII, namely John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis, and Leo XIV, are antipopes, i.e., they unlawfully occupied their position;

• The Second Vatican Council is an illegitimate council, and its decrees contradict pre-conciliar teaching;

• The ordination formulas for priests and the consecration of bishops established by the Second Vatican Council are erroneous, meaning that all priests and bishops ordained according to them are not actually such.

Different groups of sedevacantists prioritize these three points differently and describe their technical implementation in various ways. But these three principles are present in almost all.

What Are Your Proofs?

To prove their first point—the illegitimacy of all post-conciliar popes—sedevacantists usually point to numerous scandalous actions and statements of different popes. For example:

• John Paul II kissed the Quran;

• John Paul II met and prayed with representatives of other religions;

• Francis supports same-sex marriages;

• Francis brought pagan idols into the Vatican;

• Francis said that all religions are equal.

All this, according to sedevacantists, is a departure from the previous teachings of the Church. And if a person has fallen into heresy and excommunicated themselves from the Church, how can they hold a position within the Church? From this, it is concluded that post-conciliar popes occupied it unlawfully.

Next comes the second argument—the illegitimacy of the Second Vatican Council. Here, excerpts from the documents of this very Council are used, which, according to sedevacantists, can be interpreted in two ways. One of the most popular examples:

“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the Muslims are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.”
Lumen Gentium, 16

Pointing to such passages, sedevacantists conclude, similar to their conclusion about the popes: the Council contradicts previous Church teachings, and therefore it is heretical and illegitimate.

The third argument is the illegitimacy of priestly ordinations. According to sedevacantists, the new ordination formula lacks mention of the sacramental nature of the priesthood, i.e., the duty to offer sacrifices to God. In proof, they refer to Pope Leo XIII, who for the same reason declared Anglican ordinations illegitimate. Accordingly, if this logic is applied consistently, ordinations performed after the Second Vatican Council should be equated with Anglican ones and rejected.

Gaps in Sedevacantism

The first thing a person encounters when trying to familiarize themselves with the sedevacantist position is the chicken-and-egg problem between their two key positions. There can be two options:

• The last seven popes are illegitimate because they approved a heretical Council;

• The Second Vatican Council is illegitimate because it was approved by an antipope.

Both options have obvious flaws. In the first case, the logic is disrupted by the first “antipope” on the sedevacantist list—John XXIII, who convened the Second Vatican Council but died before it made any decisions. In the second case, the key “antipope” becomes the successor of John XXIII, who approved the Council's decisions—Paul VI. There are even more problems with this hypothesis—sedevacantists have to somehow explain the fact that several thousand senior hierarchs of the Catholic Church, most of whom were appointed by Pius XII, simultaneously fell into heresy, elected an Antipope, and then signed the Council's decisions. Even those hierarchs who opposed the reforms were not sedevacantists and did not go into schism.

In an attempt to prove their first argument, sedevacantists often use a tactic known as Gish gallop—overwhelming the listener with a stream of scandalous facts and statements by popes, not allowing for thoughtful consideration of each case. But if these examples are examined individually, it turns out they are not so clear-cut. For example, it is still unclear whether Pope John Paul II knew he was kissing the Quran and not the Bible in Arabic—after all, there were also Catholic hierarchs from Arab countries at that event.

Similarly, when it comes to the Second Vatican Council, sedevacantists often take quotes out of context to support a pre-prepared narrative. In the same Lumen Gentium, which speaks of Muslims, there is another, less frequently cited passage:

“Based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that this pilgrim Church is necessary for salvation... Therefore, those people cannot be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church, founded by God through Jesus Christ, is necessary, nevertheless do not wish to enter it or remain in it.”
Lumen Gentium, 14

This passage completely undermines the thesis that the Council supposedly “canceled the necessity of the Church for salvation.”

Finally, the argument about the “illegitimacy” of the ordination formula simply does not hold up: the new formula contains the words “May Jesus preserve you to sanctify the Christian people and to offer sacrifice to God,” meaning the necessary mention was not removed. To this, sedevacantists respond with nothing but “it doesn't count,” for reasons known only to them.

Conclusions

In conclusion, it should be said that the main problem with sedevacantism is not weak arguments. The movement was doomed to remain marginal due to its radicalism and reactionary nature. On one hand, convincing even a significant portion of Catholics that they have been without a Pope for almost 70 years, that the Church has effectively died, and that there is no problem with this is an impossible task. Even in traditionalist circles, this viewpoint remains marginal, while the majority seek solutions to the current crisis in unity with the Church. On the other hand, sedevacantism is a product of this very crisis and will likely end with it. Ultimately, sedevacantism will be destroyed by what destroys any radical and reactionary movement—the resolution of the crisis by more moderate methods.