From what I picked up from the context I’ve heard it used, I gather that it has somthing to do with believing that the Chair of Peter is unoccupied. What do sedevacantits use to back this claim?
Peace be with you!
Well, this is now on the list of banned topics, so I’ll just give you a quick answer and then a moderator will probably be by to close the thread so no argument starts.
The word means that the See of Peter is vacant and is used to describe the time between popes (after the death of one and up until the next is elected) when the papacy is vacant.
Sedevacantists believe that there hasn’t been a valid pope since Pius XII. The reasoning for this is that they believe that Vatican II was not a valid Church council and that every change to the Mass was some sort of heresy. A claim that John XXIII was a Free Mason has also come up, but it is just a conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up. Some of these sedevacantist groups have taken it upon themselves to elect their own “popes”. A google search should give you more info about these people. But be careful–a lot of their sites have all sorts of “heresies” of VII and post-VII popes listed, so just remember that all former pope quotes are taken out of context and most (if not all; I haven’t seen all these supposed “heresies”) were never ex-cathedra statements.
Technically, a dogma doesn’t HAVE to be defined by an
ex-Cathedra statement. All that is necessary for a teaching to be a dogma of the Catholic faith is that it be taught solemnly even in the encyclical letters of a pope. This is the infallible “ordinary” magisterium. While I can’t take a position on the claims of many SV’s, their objections are much more serious and scholarly than their opponents give them credit for, and, no, most of the quotes of former popes are not taken “out of context” by them.
Given the current situation in the church, I think it is possible for a person to be an SV in good faith and without malice, even if they are mistaken.