Any former sedevacantists, conclavists or SSPX supporters?

A personal friend of mine who subscribes to the sedevacantist thesis says that, provided all the other conditions are satisfied, the episcopal appointments of a widely-recognized but invalid Pope would be covered by supplied jurisdiction.

I see problems with this answer, but it’s an answer nonetheless.

1 Like

Me too :popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:


One near us says that someone can become a Priest with them after 9 months of study . Excuse me that’s not even “wetting their toes” of the Faith. Nope sadly they need our prayers because it is a false Catholicism.


The permission was extended indefinitely by Pope Francis.


Oof I kinda started watching them lately. Well I admit I watched some anti-Vatican2 ones but I mostly watched for debate with Calvinists and “Bible proves Papacy” etc. They honestly make so much sense in everything it’s frightening but I do think sedevacantist position would be inconvenient for the Church and God would not allow it. I did not see them talk about any of other things you mentioned such as baptism of desire as of now- and I don’t intend to.

I do think recent Popes did this or that thing weirdly or sometimes even seems like wrongly but it is not my call whether they are or aren’t Popes. Maybe I would have same issues with fully valid Popes in middle ages if I lived back then. And then again there’s no sedevacantist Church near me at all so if God really wanted me to be sedevacantist, I would probably actually have an option for that.

And then the fact they deny validity of Novus Ordo and all sacraments in OF… I mean denying licidity is one thing (not that I would agree with it), but denying validity of OF while accepting validity of Orthodox sacraments is hypocritical.

Arians made sense for some people, and deceived them.
Nestorians made sense for some people, and deceived them.
Protestants made sense for some people, and deceived them.
Lollards and Hussites made sense for some people, and deceived them.
Old Catholics made sense for some people, and deceived them.
The point is, some can have good arguments, but that doesn’t mean they are right. If their arguments were weak, do you think people would have became Arians, Protestants, Old Catholics, Nestorians, etc… But knowledge, wisdom and the power of God was required to overcome their deception. Isn’t this the same with sedevacantism?
So many sects, cults, organizations, and so many groups claiming the fulness of truth, amd that they are the remnant throughout history and now, yet, the Church was never destroyed. The Church has been attacked, and is attacked, outside, but also from the inside by misleading, bad-intentioned or deceived people.
Let us trust in God and in His Church, let us have faith, and let us repent and pray, for the Judgement will come one day.
God be with us all, let us not leave the flock, but let us stay faithful, even though the storm and wind may exhaust us exceedingly.


Stop! Yes, they have some good videos, but that can lead you to watching some of their VERY, VERY BAD ones. AVOID ALTOGETHER!! The devil can be very subtle.

1 Like

Thank you. I suppose I will. I was mostly interested in their anti-Protestant debates (though I did watch some others too) but even in those videos, some jabs at Vatican II and current Church are present. I was kinda shaken by some of their anti-Vatican videos so when you said they are full of misinformation presented out of context, I was very glad to hear that is the case- and that is enough for me. Thank you for that.

Thank you. I really needed to hear (see? read?) this.

1 Like

I still had very much an undue suspicion of the Church leaders of today until I had a read of apologist Dave Armstrong and his writings against the reactionary mindset…helped me to have a change of attitude/heart. Really, very much freeing.
Maybe it can help you or others.


In the past, I there was a period of 3 years or so between popes. I believe it was just before Pope Gregory the Great, but I could be wrong. During that time of no pope, new bishops were consecrated without papal approval and were assigned roles. When the new pope was elected, he approved the consecrations and said the church did the right thing. When no pope is present. Jurisdiction comes from Holy Mother Church.

Many sedevacantists turn to the principle of epikeia which essentially states that laws are for the benefit of the people and that a law that ceases to benefit the people becomes invalid. Therefore, according to them, a law that says a Catholic bishop needs something that is impossible for him to get (due to a lack of pope), that law becomes invalid otherwise the church will end.

Former sedevacantist here. All it takes is prayer and faith to come out of that heresy.

What about the position do you find as heretical?

That all popes after a certain time are invalid and therefore the Church is without a Holy Father.

I have a response for this, but I fear it would get deleted or my account suspended. Would you be interested in continuing this discussion over PM?

That is one thing that I do not like about this forum. Civility and decency are not the only things required. The actual content of posts is regulated, which limits discussion. I think that if someone says the Church has erred, or even says something outright heretical, it should be allowed. What is the point of a forum where only certain opinions are allowed?

DISCLAIMER: I think Sedevacantists are wrong and am not one myself.

1 Like

It seems unfair to group SSPX supporters with sedevacantists and conclavists. The SSPX is in full communion with the See of Peter, while sedevacantists and conclavists are not. I myself am, to an extent, an SSPX supporter. I would not hesitate to go to an SSPX mass. However, I would not go to a sedevacantist or conclavist mass.


To be clear: until Vatican I, the pope’s role in selection of bishops was close to non-existent outside of Italy and the America’s.

Also, these long vacancies are what created conclaves. “con clave” is latin for “with key”, and is quite literal: the angry people of Rome gathered up the Cardinals who were happily living it up in Rome, and locked them in a building, sending in only bread, water, and wine until they elected a pope . . . (I have daydreams of doing that with a Pope and Orthodox Patriarchs . . . :stuck_out_tongue:
. . . "You can come out after you concelebrate the Eucharist . . .)


I second the motion! Hear Hear! And the crowd goes wild! :laughing:

1 Like

Which community was this? What was its name? :open_mouth:

In that case, due to the lack of a pope, the bishops would have exercised their functions with supplied jurisdiction and later been given ordinary jurisdiction by the new pope; however, that situation is not comparable to today’s situation, since in the space of those three years, there were still bishops remaining from the previous papacy that did have ordinary jurisdiction.

It isn’t the length of time itself that is problematic if we have had no pope since 1958, but the fact that if no bishops appointed by Pius XII are still living, all ordinary jurisdiction has disappeared, and consequently, the entire Ecclesia docens has disappeared. Cdl. Manning, a Father at Vatican I, wrote, “Even though a number of bishops should fall away, as in the Arian and Nestorian heresies, yet the Episcopate could never fall away."

Even if there were still one bishop with ordinary jurisdiction appointed by Pius XII left living, sedevacantism would still be a plausible theory, but alas, this is not the case. While not dogma proper, the belief that ordinary jurisdiction is an essential attribute of the Church and thus cannot cease to exist at any time is at least theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens) due to its intrinsic connection with revealed truths concerning the nature of the Church.

Many sedevacantists turn to the principle of epikeia which essentially states that laws are for the benefit of the people and that a law that ceases to benefit the people becomes invalid.

That’s not quite what the principle of epikeia (equity) means; it refers to “the benign application of the law according to what is good and equitable, which decides that the lawgiver does not intend that, because of exceptional circumstances, some particular case be included under his general law.” —D. Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis (Barcelona: Herder 1949) 1:231.

St. Thomas Aquinas states that laws that are intrinsically unjust are not valid laws (Summa I-II, q. 96, art. 4), but this is distinct from the situation in which laws that are per se just (in principle) can be applied unjustly (in practice). As an SSPX supporter, I would apply this in the case of the 1988 consecrations; while canon 1013 of the Code of Canon Law, which prohibits episcopal consecrations without papal mandate, is in itself just, its application would become unjust in the extraordinary circumstances Abp. Lefebvre found himself in, and thus could be set aside.

The extraordinary circumstances did not make the law invalid, but only permitted temporarily setting it aside as, despite being per se a just law, the strict application of its letter would become unjust under the circumstances. This is what the Code of Canon Law refers to as a lacuna legis, where due to extraordinary circumstances, it becomes unclear how a law should be applied, so we ought to apply the law with “canonical equity” by following its spirit rather than the letter.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit