#sedevacantism

Charlotte Kilpatrick at TNR:

In the 2024 film Conclave, the dean of the College of Cardinals, played by Ralph Fiennes, addresses the assembly of spiritual leaders who have gathered in Rome to elect a new pope by quoting St Paul to the Ephesians: “Be subject to one another out of reverence to Christ.” The dean interprets this quote as a reminder that what gives the Catholic Church its great strength is its variety. He continues by saying the one sin he has come to fear above all others is certainty—which he calls the great enemy of unity and tolerance. “Our faith is a living thing because it walks hand in hand with doubt, and if there is no doubt, there would be no mystery.” He concludes his homily by asking the cardinals to pray for a pope who doubts, and sins—and asks for forgiveness.

It was this great sin of certainty that was on full display this week in Trump’s now-deleted Truth Social post in which he lambasted Pope Leo XIV, accusing the pontiff of being “weak” on crime and “terrible on foreign policy.” The president claimed the only reason Pope Leo was named head of the Catholic Church was because the church thought that would be the best way to deal with Trump, stating, “If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.” The rant was accompanied by an AI-generated image of Trump appearing as Jesus Christ, surrounded by an American flag, bald eagles, the Statue of Liberty, and figures resembling … Power Rangers? Facing fierce backlash, Trump has since claimed the image was not meant to depict him as Jesus but as a doctor in biblical robes because, in his words, “I do make people better. I make people a lot better.” Trump’s rant was a reaction to Leo’s condemnation of his administration’s recent military misadventures, which have included a genocidal threat to wipe out Iran’s civilization. It’s not hard to imagine this catching Leo’s attention. Indeed, during his Palm Sunday homily the pope declared, “God does not listen” to the prayers of those who wage war. His homily was in reference to rhetoric from Trump and his Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who have claimed the war in Iran has been carried out “under the protection of divine providence.” But as crazy as Trump’s Jesus-like grandeur may be, it was his administration’s reported behavior earlier this year that gives real pause for concern. In January, Cardinal Christophe Pierre, then papal nuncio—the Vatican’s ambassador to the U.S.—was invited to the Pentagon for a meeting with Elbridge Colby, the U.S. undersecretary of war for policy. The invite was a response to the pope’s then-fresh comments lamenting the growing use of force to resolve diplomatic disputes. The meeting turned tense after Colby appealed to the papal nuncio to align the Vatican with Washington’s policies. When the cardinal declared that Pope Leo would continue to follow his own course guided by church values, a Pentagon official invoked the Avignon papacy of the fourteenth century, when the French king appointed his own “antipope” in reaction to Rome. The invocation was read as a clear threat: If Leo did not start toeing the Trump line, the president might be forced to appoint his own rival pope.

Like many threats from the Trump administration, one to appoint a pontiff was not well thought through. Like all holy leaders, popes strive to be living allegories of their faith. Many throughout history have fallen short, but one spiritual responsibility of the pope is to serve as a unifying spiritual figure for over 1.3 billion believers for the Catholic Church. What sets the pope apart from other Christian leaders is that Catholics believe in papal infallibility; that when he speaks ex cathedra on doctrines of faith and morals, his words are inspired directly by God (JD Vance, take notice). Following this same logic, any Trump-appointed Mar-a-Lago pope residing in palatial poolside splendor would not answer to God but to the president’s own godlike pretensions. Trump would no longer be a mere leader of men but a mortal who assumes all the celestial authority of a deity. In contrast to a pope elected to inspire all the teachings of Christ, a Floridian pope would encapsulate everything that embodies the spiritual rot of the MAGA movement.

Yes, but not just because Benedictus abdicated. It's a perfectly valid process that people do accept, but due to the fact there was some poorly translated Latin in Benedict's resignation letter, some people didn't consider it valid and that he didn't actually resign.

Those people were a small minority but they do exist. With both former popes dead, I expect them to accept the new pope as real pope.

Well, let's get the boring answer out of the way; I think that an event that ends the line of Apostolic Succession would most probably be an event that ends the Cosmos itself. :P

But bracketing that for now, I imagine one way around this would be to go the route that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints did: have an event that somehow "rekindles" Apostolic Succession. The church claims that Joseph Smith was ordained by the Apostles Peter, John, and James sometime around 1830, and definitely no later than 1835, in order to revive the priesthood, which had hithertofor gone extinct. (Adherents of many Sufi orders make similar claims about how their spiritual lineages started with Muhammad visiting their founders in dreams and initiating them into mystical brotherhoods that the founder then transmitted to others).

Now, of course, the question becomes: would people be convinced by such a claim? (I'll leave the truth value of the claim aside). I think that people who don't pay much attention to the hierarchy in the first place may accept it without question, if things remain more or less in continuity on the ground level. But this may be an opportunity for Protestants and (assuming their bishops weren't also wiped out) Orthodox to make some major inroads on what remains of the Catholic lay faithful, since I really do think this would really destroy the credibility of Catholic truth claims.

Instead of the "rekindling" approach, it's also possible that surviving lay faithful may take up positions similar to Sedevacantists today, placing heavier emphasis on para-liturgical celebrations and devotions; the Rosary could become the central communal act of worship, for example. For those who want sacraments (and again, this is assuming other lineages of Apostolic Succession survive), perhaps members of this remnant community may join communities of Orthodox Christians, either truly assimilating or becoming crypto-Catholics.

THE DESTRUCTION OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

2. Ecumenism in the Rite.

On this count, the revisers either downplayed or eliminated certain elements in the Mass that offended non-Catholics, and then consciously adopted other elements that were consonant with non-Catholic beliefs or liturgical practices.

(a) Intial Rites.

The liturgical antecedents for the new congregational penitential rite were Protestant, the reformation-Protestants introduced such a rite at the beginning of their communion services in order to proclaim 'the priesthood of all believers'. Veneration of the saints in this part of the new rite was reduced by eliminating (1) names of specific saints, (2) a prayer mentioning the relics and the merits of the saints, and (3) the Gloria on nearly all saint's feasts where it had previously been prescribed.

(b) Orations.

The new Missal radically reduced the number of mandatory feasts of the saints, and hence also the accompanying orations. The Missal of Paul VI completely or in large part eliminated from the orations (1) the merits of the saints (a concept particularly offensive to Protestant theology.) (2) negative language about heretics, schismatics, pagans and Jews, and (3) language alluding to papal supremacy, the true faith, repelling error, the Church Militant and subjection to Christ the King.

(c) Litugy of the Word.

The New Mass abolished the former distinction between the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful, substituting 'Liturgy of the Word' and 'Liturgy of the Eucharist', this follows the Protestant equation of 'word and sacrament'.

(d) Preparation of Gifts.

The revisers changed the label 'Offertory', a term offensive to Protestants, to 'Preparation of the Gifts.' Sacrificial language, likewise offensive to Protestants, was removed from the fixed prayers for the new ceremony.

(e) Eucharistic Prayers.

The New Mass rendered optional the text of the hated Roman Canon, which is filled with ideas utterly inimical to ecumenism.

(f) Communion Rite.

The phrase for the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours, now and forever, a formula exclusively associated in the West with Protestantism, was introduced into the Communion Rite.

My best guess: Rigorism is the rejection of the decisions made by a given church's hierarchs in favour of an apparently or actually more conservative option (a lot of these groups have "old" or "ancient" in their names), manifesting as contempt towards the hierarchs in question or outright splitting from them. I'm not sure if this is an essential element, but they usually revolve around issues of practice that seem laughably trivial to outsiders; you'll see calendars pop up quite a bit here. Examples, with the issue they split over in brackets, include:

The Essenes in Second Temple Judaism (asceticism, the use of the Enochic calendar and the legitimacy of the Second Temple)

The Donatists and Novatians in Patristic Christianity (readmission of repentant apostates)

Old Calendarists in Greek Orthodoxy (the Gregorian or Julian year for the calendar)

Old Believers in Russian Orthodoxy (icon styles and how to make the sign of the cross)

The Ancient Church of the East in the Church of the East (the Gregorian or Julian year for the calendar)

The Old Catholic Church and Sedevacantism in Roman Catholicism (papal infallibility and the liturgical reforms of Vatican II respectively)

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Mormonism (polygamy and the Adam-God doctrine)