Proving in Seven Logical Steps That Most Traditional Catholics Are Crypto-Sedevacantists

How accepting the fundamental Traditionalist critique of the postconciliar church, makes sedevacantism necessary.

One of my greatest frustrations, to the point of being infuriated, is that many otherwise sane and intelligent Traditional Catholics can, with great intellectual prowess and precision, diagnose the problems in the Church, but when it comes to drawing the Catholic conclusion, some mysterious short-circuit apparently takes place.

I believe that this is one of the many tools God uses to increase the virtues of charity and patience in me, because Our Lord knows I struggle with this phenomenon.

So this week, in my ongoing attempt to come at the same problem from different angles, I want to prove to those Traditional Catholics who experience a blackout of reason at the most crucial point of their own argument, that they already hold the position that the See is empty, that Leo and Bergoglio and the rest of them are/ were not true popes, and that the religion that has been advanced from Rome since Vatican II is not Catholicism.

And that it is okay to hold this position because it is Catholic.

Do know that I am doing this from a place of charity, and because I desire for all those who want to practice the true Catholic faith to purge themselves of the wicked errors of which they are, to a large degree, victims.

So, here we go.

Almost all, if not all, so-called Traditional Catholics, whether they are “indult,” “Ecclesia Dei,” SSPX, SSPX Resistance, sedeprivationists, or one of the many hues of sedevacantism, agree that Vatican II was a disaster, that the Council introduced ideas incompatible with Catholic Tradition, that the postconciliar Church embraced religious liberty and ecumenism in ways previous popes had condemned, and that the New Mass is, at best, deeply deficient, evil, or positively harmful to the Catholic faith.

The big difference comes when many, if not most, would, right after admitting all of this, still add: “But the Pope is still the Pope.”

I hope to show those who undermine the truth of Catholicism by coming to this tragic conclusion that if you accept the fundamental Traditionalist critique of the postconciliar Church that we said all Trads agree on, you have already accepted much of the reasoning that makes sedevacantism necessary.

So let us make the argument as simple as possible.

1. Catholic Tradition Cannot Contradict Itself

If you are Catholic, you have no choice but to agree that Catholic Tradition cannot contradict itself. In simple terms, this means that one pope cannot teach something as Catholic doctrine which a pope prior to him condemned or taught the opposite of. This is for the simple logical reason that two opposing propositions cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense.

The Church is not permitted to contradict the faith she received from Christ and the Apostles.

We can therefore conclude from this Catholic principle that the Catholic faith is the standard by which theological claims are judged.

So far, so good.

2. Vatican II Contains Teachings Contrary to Tradition

We can also agree that the teachings of Vatican II contradict or depart from the previous teaching of the Catholic Church. If you do not agree on this point, I can unfortunately not help you. Not agreeing with this point, and I say this in all charity, means you have been duped into believing a false religion is Catholicism. I recommend you study more.

There are many of these false teachings or deviations, but the most commonly cited by Traditional Catholics are religious liberty, ecumenism, the relationship between the Catholic Church and other religions, and the understanding of the Church’s relationship with the modern world. The terminology we use to describe these anti-Catholic teachings might differ, but in principle we agree that they oppose prior Catholic teaching.

See what you have done?

You have judged a council associated with a pope by a standard that existed before the council in question and came to the conclusion that there are real doctrinal problems in Vatican II.

This means that you rightly understand that Tradition came first and therefore the conciliar teachings must be measured against it.

Congratulations. We are both still in agreement.

3. The New Mass Is Seriously Deficient

Now we need to address the other extremely important part of our Catholic faith, namely worship.

Although hippie guitar music, vernacular languages, modern architecture, and clownish liturgical practices are terrible in themselves, they are not the main reason we as Traditionalists reject the Novus Ordo Mass.

We reject it and mark it as unsafe for our souls because it does not express the Catholic doctrines regarding the Sacrifice of the Mass, the priesthood, the Real Presence, and the nature of Catholic worship. The Novus Ordo is intrinsically a neo-Protestant rite that is defective, dangerous, ambiguous, and seriously harmful to our faith. Its fruits over the past 60-odd years have proven this beyond reasonable doubt.

When we thus reach the important conclusion that the conciliar liturgical reform was not a legitimate development of Catholic worship and that something went seriously wrong, it is important to ask the next simple but crucial question:

Who promulgated the Novus Ordo Mass?

The answer is, of course, Paul VI, who by doing so claimed to exercise the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

And this is where it gets sticky and where your honesty is going to get tested.

Don’t give up now.

4. Who Had the Authority to Do These Things?

If you say that Vatican II taught errors and that Paul VI promulgated the Novus Ordo Mass, then the problem goes beyond just a few bad-apple theologians, priests, and bishops who were “naughty” and got it wrong. It reaches the highest level of ecclesiastical authority.

This is why you are now in territory that demands great and courageous honesty, as you can no longer just say that “Vatican II was wrong.” You now must answer: How could the supreme authority of the Catholic Church impose something contrary to Catholic Tradition upon the universal Church?

You will also have to ask the same question about the liturgy. How could the man claiming to be the true pope promulgate a liturgical reform that seriously damages and compromises Catholic faith?

This is where looking into the abyss becomes too much for many, because there are only a few possible answers.

Either Vatican II was actually Catholic, and the New Mass is not defective, or Catholicism and all its claims are not true, or, God forbid, the man claiming to be the pope was not actually the pope.

If you need to pour yourself a strong one at this point, go ahead. I understand.

5. Realize That You Are Already Using the Sedevacantist Standard

If you find yourself outside your comfort zone, brace yourself. It is about to get even more uncomfortable, but that is the nature of truth.

If you say that you reject this or that teaching because it contradicts Catholic Tradition, then you have already accepted the fundamental method of analysis employed by the S***********s.

You are now acting like a true Catholic, because you are saying that the man claiming supreme authority can be confronted with a higher standard, which is the Catholic faith itself!

See, you cannot be a Catholic and claim, “I recognize the Pope, but I reject his errors,” because if he teaches what is contrary to the Catholic faith, he cannot, according to Catholic teaching, still be the Pope.

To merely try to explain it by saying the “pope made a mistake” would be seriously dishonest and insufficient, as it is demonstrably provable that there has been a systematic crisis involving councils, doctrine, liturgy, ecumenism, religious liberty, catechesis, and the entire direction of the Church. Therefore, the question of papal authority can no longer be avoided.

6. Follow the Argument to Its Logical Conclusion

Now we are going to use the healthy brains and faculties of reason which God has gifted us to put everything together.

If you believe Catholic Tradition cannot contradict itself, that Vatican II contains teachings incompatible with that Tradition, that the postconciliar reforms seriously departed from Catholic worship, that the New Mass is objectively harmful or deficient, that these changes were imposed by men claiming to exercise papal authority, and that a true pope cannot use the supreme authority of the Catholic Church to impose a religion contrary to the Catholic faith, then what is left?

You might have to pour another strong one, and make it a double, because now you are at a crossroads of sorts.

Either you must revise your judgment about Vatican II and the New Mass and gaslight yourself into believing that it is all Catholic, as a certain famous Catholic influencer recently started doing, or you must explain how the men who imposed them possessed the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

You can’t. It is impossible.

Which means there is only one answer that guarantees the integrity of the Catholic faith while also explaining the crisis: they didn’t, and still do not, have papal authority.

I know you don’t like that answer, and if you want to pour another one, I will call you an Uber.

Go ahead.

7. The Inescapable Questions

As I have explained many times, I hate labels, and I especially do not like being called a sedevacantist, so indulge me for a moment and put all labels aside.

Let’s forget for a moment that we are “Traditionalists” or “Sedevacantists.” Let’s also forget all our debates over chapels, bishops, liturgical customs, and internet arguments, and ask some unavoidable questions.

If these men were truly Catholic popes, how could they have done these things?

How could the true pope promulgate a council containing teachings contrary to Catholic Tradition? How could the true pope impose a liturgical reform that gravely damages Catholic worship? How could the supreme authority established by Christ become the source of teachings and practices that Traditionalists themselves tell Catholics they must reject?

If you have answered that they couldn’t, and you are right, because Catholic teaching tells us that a true pope can do none of those things, then you are obligated to answer the next question:

Were they really popes?

The Difficult but Liberating Conclusion

If you have said that “this teaching is not Catholic,” and “this liturgical reform is not Catholic,” and “this contradicts what the Church has taught before the Council,” and “Catholics cannot accept these errors,” you, my friend, are 100 per cent correct.

But then you have no choice but to ask: “Who imposed them?”

You know, and I know, the answer is “the Pope.”

But we both also know that a true pope could not do that.

If you decide to answer, “Yes, a true pope can do that,” then you have to accept that all these errors, and the Novus Ordo Mass which is destroying the Church, are indeed Catholic.

That would make the Catholic Church’s claims about itself and the papacy false, and therefore Catholicism would not be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that Christ founded, but just another denomination.

But if your answer is “No,” congratulations: you have used Catholic Tradition to come to a Catholic answer.

If the Catholic faith could not have produced what emerged from the postconciliar Church, then the men who produced it did not possess the authority of the Catholic Church. If Vatican II is not Catholic, if the New Mass is not Catholic, then these things were not imposed upon the faithful by the supposed supreme authorities of the Church.

See, the road to this conclusion does not start with the words “the See is vacant,” but with words much simpler:

“This is not Catholic.”

And if it isn’t Catholic, then a true pope could not have imposed it, then…

I don’t have to tell you the last part…

Our Lady, Co-redemptrix, pray for us…

Our Lady, Mediatrix of all Graces, pray for us…

Viva Christo Rey!

ALSO READ:

The Devil is “Imaginary” and We Should Rather Exorcise Homophobia and Racism, Says Bishop

Synodal Bishop Publicly Boasts How He Undermines Rome

How Leo XIV’s Appointments Continue to Contradict the Synodal Apologists’ Wishful-Thinking Restoration Myth

Why the Synodal Church Should Completely Outlaw the TLM Sooner Rather than Later

“Bishop” Publicly States Rainbow Sin Is “Natural” and “Not a Sin”