Sedevacantist Controversies

There are several issues dividing the sedevacantist camp. Here we present all we found to be relevant.

We start with the so-called Materialiter-formaliter issue. Bp. Guerard des Lauriers claimed that the (first) Vatican two antipopes are not popes formally (formaliter), but they are popes materially (materialiter). In other words, they possess a valid election, but due to their deviation from the Faith, they could not validly accept it. But if they convert, they become popes. The counter-argument is that heretics and apostates are not valid election material, and non-Catholic voters are invalid electors, even if nominated by a true pope. This position is contradicted by the Bull “Cum ex apostolatus officio” of Paul IV, even before it existed. The validly nominated cardinals have since died off. Some of them apostatized before their death, losing their cardinal status. Most of them do not even possess valid holy orders. For example, Ratzinger is not a bishop, and Bergoglio is not even a priest. Therefore, if these “cardinals” and “popes” convert, they can be reconciled merely as laypeople.

The issue of “una cum” essentially relates to whether a priest includes the name of the Vatican two impostors in the Canon of the Mass. Its consequences are the inclusion of the same name in the ferial preces of the Office, the Good Friday preces, and the Paschal praises. We have discussed this issue in other articles on this website.

Where is the Church? Some sedevacantists are not sure whether one should count the “una cum” people as members. Some traditionalists even consider the Novus Ordo people Catholics. The recognize-and-resist camp accepts the official church as Catholic. Even some sedevacantists get confused by these stances.

Opinionism: it’s a sedevacantist (or even pan-traditionalist) ecumenism. It means claiming that the issue of the pope/sedevacantism is merely an issue of opinion. We will get back to this Deo volente since it has many ramifications.

The Thuc issue: some people recognize the validity of the Thuc line while others don’t. Some even recognize some Thuc bishops, but not others. We choose not to engage in this topic right now.

The issue of rubrics: rubrics are instructions to celebrate the Mass and the Office (the former is part of the latter and the readings of the Mass only make perfect sense within the whole context). They relate to the rank of feasts, order of the readings, voice tone, postures, etc. They are usually displayed in red (in the Missal, Breviary, Ritual, Pontifical, etc.), hence the name.

Priests use roughly three rubrics: those of Pope St. Pius X, of Pope Pius XII, and that of antipope Roncalli. I say “roughly” because there are some variations: some who use the rubrics of Pius X accept the Mass that Pius XII mandated after the dogmatic pronouncement of the Assumption, others don’t. Some who use the rubrical prescription of Roncalli have altered the rite for Communion. And there are other examples. Deo volente, we will get back to this issue in another article. We have already sketched this topic in another article.

The so-called home-aloners refuse to frequent valid traditional Masses and Sacraments, claiming that the traditional clergy have no canonical jurisdiction. There are several ways to refute this. Some of us claim that the clergy have regular jurisdiction, others apply the principle of “epikeia” (equity). “Epikeia” refers to the fact that in case of emergency and in cases not foreseen by the Canon Law some rules do not apply. Canon Law contains human law, so the human lawgiver could not foresee everything. In this case, Divine Law still applies, stating that the “highest law is the salvation of souls”. Home-aloners invert this order. As for myself, I prefer to give priority to Divine Law over the human.