Do any Catholics (or non-Catholics) on here have an opinion on sedevacantism?

Jacob Robinson

There are no independent Catholic Churches, or SSPX chapels, etc., within a hundred miles of me, so to an extent it is a moot point to me, and I suspect also for many people who do not live in a heavily populated area.

But I would encourage people not to think of the current magisterium as one would think of a secular government, where there is an incoming administration that sets about reversing what it did not like about past administrations and then moves on to make entirely new laws. The Church is different--there is no chronological bigotry in it. It is never "out with the old, and in with the new" but rather the old can never go away, and anything new must be a logical extension of that old.

It is like the the law of conservation of mass in physics (i.e., matter can not be created or destroyed). Church teachings can not be created or destroyed either, but only developed. As John Henry Newman pointed out, that development is along the lines of an oak sapling developing into a large oak tree. Doctrine is the logical extension of the deposit of faith, and not an invention or a contradiction of it. The logic part is where the (past at least) enthusiasm for Aristotle in the Church came from. It does not matter who says what, if someone presents an egg plant as the development of an oak sapling, they are either insane or a heretic.

The holy Bishops, Doctors of the Church, Saints, Martyrs, et al, in the Church Triumphant are the vast majority of the Church. The Bishop of Rome in the Church Militant is a tiny fraction of that. One of the original twelve apostles decided to toss aside the Kingdom of God for a shot at fixing things via temporal politics, and maybe that was a warning to us. I wish we did not have to live through these dreadful times, but here we are.


This is the talk that the based black Fr. Linus Clovus gave on the Church and the anti-Church. While it's a bit long at around 50 minutes, it's good background listening material. He touches on Fatima, too, and its connections to our present situation.

"It is self-evident that the Catholic Church and the anti-Church currently co-exist in the same sacramental, liturgical and juridical space. The latter, having grown stronger, is now attempting to pass itself off as the true Church, all the better to induct, or coerce, the faithful into becoming adherents, promoters and defenders of a secular ideology. Should the anti-Church succeed in commandeering all the space of the true Church, the rights of man will supplant the rights of God through the desecration of the sacraments, the sacrilege of the sanctuary, and the abuse of apostolic power."
Hope this can be of some help. Note that I'm not a sedevacantist. I believe the resignation of Benedict to be invalid and Bergoglio (aka "Francis") to be an anti-pope.


and Benedict is unaware that his resignation is invalid despite all his formal training ?
I don't know his motives. There is so much that I don't know about what goes on inside the Vatican that all I can do is recognize that the form of his recognition was invalid. Some suggest that he [faux-]attempted to bifurcate the papacy (an ontological impossibility) (the Barnhardt Hypothesis), whereas some suggest that he has attempted to pull the Vicarship of Christ from the Bishop of Rome (the Mazza Hypothesis). You are probably aware of these arguments already, so I won't hash them out on here.
I sometimes wonder if it has anything to do with what we don't know about Fatima. On a side note, I think I'll open up a thread on Fatima. I would really be interested to hear how sedevacantists interpret all of that as well.