What is A Sedevecantist?
Sedevacantism itself has become a modern word game that asserts that the papal office has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958—or, according to some, since the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council in 1965. The term itself derives from the Latin phrase “sede vacante,” meaning “the seat being vacant.” Sedevacantists contend that recent popes have espoused heresies incompatible with the infallible teachings of the Church, thus invalidating their elections. As a result, they maintain that the current occupants of the Vatican do not legitimately hold the office of the pope, leading sedevacantists to reject the authority of the post-Pius XII or post-Vatican II popes and their teachings. This stance places them at odds with mainstream Catholicism, which recognizes the unbroken succession of popes from Saint Peter to the present.
A Paradoxically Convient Relationship
The sedevacantist movement, often clothed in the solemn garb of tradition, paradoxically harbors a distinctly modernist core, using linguistic acrobatics that would make even the most skilled philologist blush. This article endevers to peel back the layers of these word games to reveal how they serve not merely as linguistic exercises, but as veils for fundamentally modernist objectives.
The essence of Modernism, as condemned by the Church, lies in its subjectivist interpretation of doctrine—an ever-shifting sands approach to unchangeable truths. Sedevacantists, in their relentless parsing of Canon Law and papal pronouncements, often fall into a similar trap. They claim adherence to tradition but often interpret Church documents and teachings in ways that align with their preconceived conclusions about the papacy and Church authority. This is not unlike the modernist tendency to adapt religious sentiment to fit personal experience or bias, rather than submitting personal judgment to the teachings of the Church.
Indeed, this modernist inclination is masked under the guise of a return to a purer, more authentic Church. However, such a stance betrays a foundational modernist error: the belief that truth, particularly religious truth, is subject to personal interpretation and can be remolded to fit contemporary needs or desires. In the sedevacantist case, it is not a reshaping to adapt to the modern world per se, but rather to an idealized past—a past that, in their view, remains uncorrupted by the alleged errors of recent popes.
Modernist Word Games?
In their discourse, modernists often employ linguistic strategies that reflect this fluidity, allowing them to avoid firm commitments to specific doctrinal positions. They might use ambiguous language, make qualified assertions, or frame their arguments in such a way that leaves room for multiple interpretations. This rhetorical flexibility enables them to retreat from or modify their stance when challenged, often asserting, “That’s not what I said,” or “You misunderstood my point.” This approach allows them to navigate the complex landscape of contemporary theological debate without being pinned down to assertions that might later be deemed heretical or controversial by more traditional standards. This can lead to a sense of doctrinal ambiguity and inconsistency, which is at the heart of traditional critiques of Modernism.
True followers of Christ, as taught by the Church from its earliest days, as seen in the Didache, embrace simplicity in their adherence to doctrine. They do not engage in linguistic gymnastics to justify their positions but adhere to the straightforward teaching of the apostles and the magisterium of the Church. They understand, as noted in the Didache, that the way of life requires straightforward adherence to God’s commandments without the need for elaborate justifications or reinterpretations.
The Sedevacantist Falicy
The sedevacantist error is further illuminated by the irony that many of their arguments rely on a modernist tool—the critical, almost skeptical scrutiny of Church authority. They challenge the legitimacy of recent popes on grounds that would be familiar in any modernist critique of authority, viewing the papacy through a lens of suspicion and conspiracy rather than faith and communion.
Thus, while sedevacantists cloak themselves in the language of tradition, their methodology and skepticism towards Church authority reveal a modernist ethos. They seek a Church remade in their image, rather than submitting to the Church as Christ founded it and as the saints and martyrs have preserved it through the ages. This is a far cry from the simple, faithful submission to divine authority that characterizes true adherence to Christ and His Church. True tradition is not a weapon against perceived errors but a living witness to the unchanging truth of Christ’s teaching as maintained by the Church throughout the ages.
A linguistic Comparison
The use of ambiguous language and strategic vagueness is a common tactic among modernists, which allows them to remain flexible and non-committal in their positions. This is quite similar to the methods employed by sedevacantists, although the latter might use such tactics for different ends. Here are some specific examples and comparisons:
1. Ambiguous Use of Key Terms
Modernist Example:
A modernist might use the term “resurrection” to refer not to the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, but to a metaphorical or spiritual rising that symbolizes hope and renewal. This allows them to affirm the term “resurrection” while reinterpreting its traditional meaning.
Sedevacantist Example:
Similarly, sedevacantists might use terms like “true pope” or “legitimate magisterium” in ways that deviate from their common understanding within the Church. They redefine these terms to mean only those popes or teachings that align with their specific criteria, which are often based on pre-Vatican II standards.
2. Qualifying Statements with Vague Conditions
Modernist Example:
Modernists might say, “Doctrine evolves as human understanding grows,” which implies that what was once considered a moral or doctrinal truth could change as society changes. This statement is strategically flexible, allowing room to maneuver or backtrack if challenged.
Sedevacantist Example:
A sedevacantist might argue, “If a pope promulgates teachings against the traditional dogmas of the Church, he may not be a true pope.” This statement includes a conditional (“if”) and a vague criterion (“against traditional dogmas”), allowing sedevacantists to question the legitimacy of current and future popes based on their own interpretation of what constitutes “traditional” teachings.
3. Appealing to Higher, Yet Abstract, Principles
Modernist Example:
A modernist might emphasize the need to “reinterpret religious truths to reflect contemporary understandings,” appealing to the abstract principle of relevancy. This allows them to modify traditional beliefs without explicitly denying them, as they claim their reinterpretations are merely contextual updates.
Sedevacantist Example:
Sedevacantists might argue that “true adherence to the Church requires rejecting modern errors that have infiltrated the Church hierarchy,” appealing to the abstract principles of purity and orthodoxy. This broad and flexible justification supports their rejection of post-Vatican II popes and councils, enabling them to maintain a stance that appears rooted in loyalty to the Church while deviating from its current structure and leadership.
4. Using Historical Revisionism
Modernist Example:
Modernists may reinterpret historical events or Church Fathers’ writings to support their views, suggesting, for instance, that early Christians had diverse beliefs about Christ’s nature, thereby legitimizing modern divergences from established Christological doctrines.
Sedevacantist Example:
Sedevacantists often employ a selective reading of Church history to argue that the post-Vatican II Church has deviated from its true course. They might cite specific moments or figures in history that seem to support their views, while ignoring broader scholarly consensus or other historical interpretations that contradict them.
In both cases, these rhetorical strategies involve a redefinition or nuanced interpretation of traditional terms, the use of conditional language to create escape clauses, and an appeal to abstract principles or selective history to justify deviations from mainstream Catholic thought. These tactics allow both modernists and sedevacantists to maintain a veneer of doctrinal fidelity while substantively altering their adherence to the Church’s teachings.