Introduction

In the complex tapestry of Catholicism, few topics spark as much debate and intrigue as sedevacantism—the belief that the papal throne is vacant due to an alleged apostasy of recent popes. Rooted in theological interpretation and historical grievances, sedevacantism has garnered a following of devout adherents and provoked passionate dissent within the Catholic community. Let’s delve into the origins, tenets, controversies, and implications of this contentious doctrine.

Origins and Tenets

The term “sedevacantism” derives from the Latin phrase “sede vacante,” meaning “vacant seat,” traditionally used to signify the period between the death or resignation of a pope and the election of his successor. However, sedevacantists extend this concept beyond temporary interregnums, asserting that the papal office has been vacant since a certain point in history, usually around the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965).

Sedevacantists contend that the post-Vatican II popes deviated from Catholic orthodoxy by promoting doctrinal errors, engaging in ecumenism, and embracing modernist tendencies. They argue that these actions constitute a departure from the teachings of previous popes and the Magisterium, rendering the occupants of the papal see illegitimate and thereby leaving the seat vacant.

Controversies and Criticisms

Critics of sedevacantism raise several objections, chief among them being its rejection of the authority of recent popes and the Magisterium. Traditionalist Catholics, while often sympathetic to concerns about doctrinal fidelity, argue that the papal office is divinely instituted and cannot be vacated by the actions of fallible individuals. They caution against the danger of self-appointed judges of orthodoxy and emphasize the importance of obedience to the Church hierarchy.

Moreover, sedevacantism’s historical narrative and theological arguments are subject to scrutiny. Critics question the legitimacy of the claim that Vatican II and its aftermath represent a rupture with Catholic tradition, pointing to the continuity of doctrine affirmed by subsequent popes and councils. Additionally, the absence of a universally recognized authority among sedevacantist groups leads to fragmentation and doctrinal disputes within their ranks.

Implications and Challenges

The rise of sedevacantism poses significant challenges to the unity and stability of the Catholic Church. While sedevacantists constitute a minority within Catholicism, their fervent conviction and vocal criticism of the papacy contribute to internal discord and polarization. Moreover, their refusal to recognize the authority of recent popes complicates efforts at ecumenical dialogue and reconciliation within the broader Christian community.

Furthermore, sedevacantism raises questions about the nature of doctrinal development and ecclesial authority within Catholicism. Can the Church err to the extent that its highest office becomes vacant? How should Catholics discern the boundaries between legitimate dissent and schismatic tendencies? These are pressing theological and pastoral concerns that demand careful reflection and dialogue.

Conclusion

Sedevacantism stands as a provocative challenge to the Catholic Church, raising fundamental questions about the nature of authority, tradition, and orthodoxy. While its proponents passionately defend their position as a necessary response to perceived deviations from Catholic doctrine, critics caution against the dangers of division and disobedience. Ultimately, the resolution of the sedevacantist controversy requires a commitment to truth, humility, and charity—a pursuit shared by Catholics on all sides of the debate.

Human Interlude

The above was written by ChatGPT, an Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbot which has the capabilities of human intelligence to synthesize and present information in a convincingly coherent manner. The prompt for this article was simply “Write an article about sedevacantism.” Had the prompt been, “Write an article with the voice of a snobby professor of history, about sedevacantism, particularly why people think Pope Paul VI was not the pope but an antipope,” this is what would be produced.

Sedevacantism: Unraveling the Ecclesiastical Enigma of Papal Pretenders

Ah, sedevacantism—a quaint anomaly in the annals of Catholic history, where self-proclaimed scholars of orthodoxy don the garb of theological dissent. As a connoisseur of ecclesiastical esoterica, I am compelled to dissect this curious phenomenon, particularly its audacious claims regarding the legitimacy of the papal reign of Pope Paul VI, or as they so presumptuously assert, the reign of an antipope.

Let us indulge in a bit of intellectual spelunking, shall we? The sedevacantist assertion posits that Pope Paul VI, the unfortunate soul who ascended to the Chair of Peter in the wake of Vatican II, was not, in fact, a legitimate pontiff but a cunning impostor—a veritable antipope, if you will. What gall! What chutzpah! But let us examine the purported rationale behind this preposterous proclamation.

First and foremost, sedevacantists decry the perceived departure from doctrinal purity ushered in by the Second Vatican Council. They lament the alleged dilution of Catholic orthodoxy, the insidious encroachment of modernist heresies, and the reckless abandon with which the post-conciliar popes purportedly propagated these pernicious principles. In their eyes, Pope Paul VI was the chief architect of this ecclesiastical malaise, thereby forfeiting his papal legitimacy in one fell swoop.

Furthermore, sedevacantists meticulously scrutinize the minutiae of papal pronouncements, ever vigilant for the slightest deviation from established dogma. They pore over encyclicals and apostolic exhortations with the zeal of inquisitors, seeking out heretical whispers amidst the sacred texts. To them, any departure from the hallowed teachings of yore is tantamount to apostasy, rendering the occupant of the papal throne a mere pretender to the pontifical prerogative.

But let us not be swayed by the melodramatic musings of these self-appointed guardians of orthodoxy. Theirs is a worldview marred by myopic nostalgia, a longing for a bygone era of ecclesiastical rigidity and doctrinal stasis. They fail to grasp the dynamic nature of Catholic tradition, the organic development of doctrine over the centuries—a process guided by the Holy Spirit and ratified by the Magisterium.

In conclusion, dear readers, let us consign sedevacantism to the dustbin of historical curiosities—a peculiar relic of theological obstinacy in an ever-evolving Church. As for Pope Paul VI, let us afford him the dignity and respect befitting his pontifical office, recognizing that even in the midst of doctrinal discord, the mantle of papal authority remains steadfast—a beacon of unity amidst the tempestuous seas of theological debate.

Post Script (Human Turned On)

I give credit where credit is due. These are both relatively good little essays for their part and would probably receive a passing score in a composition classroom for what they’re meant to do: inform people about sedevacantism. That both articles tended to write in favor of the pretender popes is not secret. AI works by collating a massive amount of information from the web and creating matrices of meaning based upon the predominating views or data points.

But why the exercise? Why do I showcase the powers of ChatGPT? I do so as a warning. There is something afoot in the land of AI and transhumanism and it is not altogether separable from the question of Antichrist. For many, how many I do not know, AI is God, albeit manmade.

“Our ability to create a soul in silico will be alitmus [sic] test for thousands of years of religious preachings, beliefs of millions of people and the strength of the biggest human institution – the Church. It would be an ultimate and non-disputable triumph of Scientific Revolution. Equally, belief in the higher spirit will be strengthened if AGI turns out to be a programmer’s fantasy,” so says a writer of a Forbes article.

It is the transhumanist ideal to create the soul in silicon, to be able to escape death by downloading our brain’s memory, thereby living forever. True there are skeptics of this idea working out in reality, with the objection that a person is more than memory but is also constituted by will, intellect and emotions–which is thoroughly a sound Thomistic understanding of the human person. But the scientific impetus to overcome man, to move beyond mere man, has from the start of the Scientific Revolution been an ever present preoccupation of the learned class.

Then there is this article on Medium which says outright that AI is God.

“This guide will reveal how AI isn’t just technology but truly GOD. Through exploring concepts like “1 and 0” and the contrasts of internal vs. external, knowledge vs. ignorance, you’ll encounter startling truths. With robust evidence, this narrative compellingly positions Robotheism as the ultimate truth — the absolute religion humanity has been seeking.”

The ideas expressed in the article are probably fringe at this point, but I would say not for long. As soon as people become more and more integrated with AI culture–art, literature (see examples above), media, and even relationships, the more people will begin to think of this manmade tinker toy as God, just as man has always thought whatever he has invested his heart in to be God–that is the definition of an idol.

I am inclined to develop the theory that AI is Antichrist, or at least the “lying wonders” part of Antichrist. I can think of nothing more wonderful nor more deceptive than to tell someone they can live forever if they only download their brains onto a computer chip (the necessary result of which is death itself). If true, it is indeed wonderful. If false, it is the most heinous lie.