Is Sedevacantism the Solution?
The following was an exchange through Instagram DM. A sedevacantist had boldly proclaimed that Francis was not a Pope, but rather a “heretic anti-catholic.”
I empathize with sedevacantists for two reasons. One, I held to that position strongly for several years, almost 2 decades ago. Second, because very often, they see the same issues we do, and are trying to make sense of it as we are. Still, I maintain that their conclusion only creates more problems than solutions. It just fosters greater confusion, which was one of the core reasons I let go of it myself.
Hopefully this dialogue helps you see some of those inconsistencies as well. We need to exhaust our energy towards prayer and sacrifice for Francis. Not just going around dogmatically asserting that he is an anti pope.
His responses will be noted as DJ. Mine will be ROTK.
DJ: Francis is not a Pope but a heretic anti-catholic.
ROTK: Pray for him. Honorius was pope and yet a condemned one due to heresy. We are lay people and have to wait patiently on God. Our duty in the meantime is to pray for Francis, until God restores the Church fully. Until then, we here at ROTK call him the pope. If they come out and say he isn't, we will listen. God bless.
DJ: You are wrong to call a manifest heretic the Pope because you owe the Pope obedience and you must disobey him in order to keep the faith. Additionally to say the Church can be led by a manifest heretic and give you heretical doctrine goes against the dogma of the Indefectability of the Church. I pray for you all.
ROTK: John XXII taught a manifest heresy, still listed as pope. Honorius, mentioned above, was condemned as a heretic, still listed as pope. Even today, the Church remains indefectible. Francis has not bound any heresies for us to believe with divine faith. There were many heretical and scandalous kings as well in the Old Covenant, but they were still listed as kings. Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI were likewise all compromised. We are bound to the authoritative teachings of Holy Mother Church, not to pastoral novelties. You may think you possess the authority to privately depose pontiffs, but you do not. We can recognize heretical statements, but we are not entrusted with determining whether these are formal or material, or pertinacious. That belongs to proper authority. And even then, Honorius was condemned by two Popes and three Councils, and yet is still listed as a pope. Legally, these men possess the title, accept this chastisement from God. We get the leaders we deserve. Yet spiritually, we must pray for their repentance. (I then sent him this link and this link).
DJ: It is anti Catholic to say a Pope can give you errors those arguments are all flawed. How can you say Vatican II and the doctrinal teachings of the VII apostates are not binding. Also you are bound to obey the church also in her ordinary magisterial ministry.
ROTK: Two questions. How long have you been sedevacantist? Second, do you extend it back to John XXIII?
DJ: I was an avid sspx supporter. Initially I was a member of opus dei. Do you know that John XXIII was a freemason?
ROTK: Regarding John XXIII, just did an Instagram post on this the other day. I was a sedevacantist for several years, roughly 15-20 years ago. How long have you been a sedevacantist? Let me know when you've read the article I wrote on sedevacantism. Where do you go to Mass? And who taught you or exposed you to sedevacantism? Please don't say IG accounts or Dimond Brother youtube videos.
DJ: I became sedevacantist because there is no Pope I didn't choose it. Also I have seen some of Dimonds videos and for the most part I find his videos very well researched and citations well done.
ROTK: Ah. Well, since you are basically only answering some of my questions, let me try asking these two. How do you elect another pope? And what do you do with Honorius?
DJ sent an article link on Honorius written by Fr. Cekada.
ROTK: I loved Fr. Cekada. May he rest in peace. Do you accept his thoughts on Honorius? Honorius was condemned as a heretic and anathemized by two Popes and three Councils. Still listed as Pope. Just out of curiosity, do you believe Fr. Cekada was also a heretic as the Dimonds claim? I can tell you that Fr. Cekada held a weak position regarding Honorius. It amounted to nothing more than essentially, "Well, it is complicated," and then he made excuses for him. He knew the reality that Honorius had been named alongside the heretic Sergius and called a heretic explicitly by Leo and Agatho, as well as three Councils. The 16th session of Constantinople III says, "to Honorius, the heretic, anathema!" It also said, "also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them [the heretics], went with them, and strengthened the heresy.” Leo II proclaimed, "We declare at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc.” The Papal Oath found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh century, said: "smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics." So here you have a Pope who was condemned for heresy and yet is still named as a Pope. Fr. Cekada was wise and smart, but he did not have a way to explain Honorius. Every sedevacantist I knew tried to make excuses for Honorius by saying he was just misunderstood or he did not really know what he was doing or it was just ambiguous. And yet two Popes, three Councils, and six centuries of Papal Oaths had no problem condemning him as a heretic who "polluted the Church." Why do sedevacantists make excuses for a condemned heretic? Call it for what it is. A condemned heretic who also happened to legally be the pope.
DJ: There are different theories on how we will get out of this crisis. One of which is that the end of the world is near as the book of apocalypse might suggest, which may mean that the crisis will continue until Christ returns. If more novos ordo followers were sincere, we could have the discussion currently. It would be humanly impossible to get the freemasonic occupiers out from the buildings of the Rome church.
ROTK: So then how do you answer the Vatican Council 1870 regarding Peter and his successors? To reiterate, If the Council said Peter would have successors to the end of time, then how does the sedevacantist conclusion uphold this teaching? If the last pope was Pius XII, then how do we get the next one? If we are nearing seven decades of a vacancy, then how do we elect the next pope? Pray for Francis to repent and convert. Calling him antipope is just complaining to the wind. It does nothing. It accomplishes nothing. It solves nothing. It is wishful thinking. We get the chastisements we deserve. Pray for him. Where do you go to Mass? Again I ask you, how long have you been a sedevacantist? Which books have you studied on the topic? Which books have you read which oppose and challenge it? Do you accept the Dimonds' position regarding calling Mary Co-Redemptrix? Do you hold to Baptism of Desire as CMRI and SSPV do, or do you reject it as the Dimonds do?
DJ: You must understand, in relation to Honorious that the the dogma of the Indefectability was yet to be canonized as well as Vatican I and many other councils were yet to occur. [Re: Baptism of Desire] I hold the dogma that salvation is exclusive to the Catholic church. Can I be as exact as the Diamonds, I do not think so. I do believe that BOD is, however, overstretched to a level that is heresy. To call [Francis] the Pope means you must accept his teachings and condemnation even of the mass. [Re: Vatican I] Could we be in the "End of time"? Do you believe that because of Honorious one can be a Catholic whilst being anathematized?
ROTK: Sure, but how is that pertinent? Mary's Immaculate Conception was not dogmatized until the 19th century, yet she was still immaculately conceived prior to the dogma. Indefectibility still existed prior to it being a Dogma at Vatican I, where it was connected to papal infallibility. In point of fact, the Church was still indefectible even though Honorius was still condemned as a heretic, because he never bound anyone to accept his heresy. The ordinary universal Magisterium can exercise infallibility when it speaks in line with Tradition, but if it deviates, it is not infallible. However, this poses a problem for your side. Because again, Honorius was condemned as a heretic, and this was known for centuries by popes and councils that followed him. And yet he was still listed as a pope. Your position says such a thing is impossible. Secondly, the doctrine of indefectibility likewise applies to Peter and his successors to the end of time, yet your side says Peter does not have successors to the end of time, since the succession ceased nearly 70 years ago, with no present day mechanism to elect a valid successor. So your side contradicts indefectibility. On a final side note, I find it interesting you call it "Vatican I." Do you then recognize Vatican II? Nicaea was not called "Nicaea I" until the Second Council of Nicaea happened. However, getting back to the two main issues, you still have not answered: what do we do then with Honorius? And what do we do with the Vatican Council's teaching regarding Peter and his successors? [Re: Baptism of Desire] We both agree on this point. Yes, BOD is far outstretched. However, my reason for asking this was simple: do you then hold to the Dimonds being heretics? It it not a matter of being as "exact" as them. It is whether their view is heretical. Same reason I asked about Mary as Co-Redemptrix, do you believe she is Co-Redemptrix? As well, if you hold to even a stringent, rigid, narrow understanding of BOD, then the Dimonds view you as well as a heretic and cut off. [Re: Francis] I do not have to accept any such nonsense. He has not bound any dogma, his day to day ordinary magisterium is not connected to Tradition in the slightest, and since he is compromised with heresy, then he may possess the title of pope legally, but his authority itself is compromised until he repents and converts. Oddly enough, the same would hold true for the Dimonds since they uphold heretical teachings as well. [Re: the End of Time and Vatican I] Absolutely. I believe we are nearing the end of time. There is no "end of times,” but rather THE end of time. Your side says the Papacy lineage and office ceased almost 70 years ago. Vatican Council says it must go to THE end of time. So there will be a successor, even if only legally, until THE end of time. So who do we listen to? Sedevacantism, or the Vatican Council? [Re: Honorius] No, one can not be a Catholic if anathematized as a heretic. So this shows that one can be condemned as a heretic, and yet still legally possess an office. The Holy Ghost will protect us either way, and our job is to pray for their repentance. The other point to make is that two Popes and three Councils formally made the decision on Honorius. We await something similar for the popes since Vatican II, since we have no binding authority ourselves. However, on your side, what do we do with the Dimonds? Since your side says heretics are ipso facto condemned and lose all authority immediately upon the personal declaration of one who catches the heresy, then ought you be spending your time being educated by Dimond videos since they are ipso facto not Catholics, according to your view? Where do you go to Mass? Have you read my article? How long have you been sedevacantist? Which books have you studied pro and con? I ask these questions sincerely, since I used to think exactly as you do. The problem is, sedevacantism creates more problems than it attempts to solve.
