The work begun here now continues, in a more complete and pastoral form, at CatholicAxis.com.
I will leave this site up for those who like to read it, but the real work of working out our salvation will be done on CatholicAxis.com
I encourage all of you who read this blog to travel over there and subscribe.
By Robert Robbins | CatholicEclipsed.com
“We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem, but we could never sanction it.” — Pope St. Pius X to Theodor Herzl, 1904
The Middle East is a mess. Again.
Israel is in the headlines. Again.
And Catholics, yet again, are caught between parroting Protestant end-times hysteria or virtue-signaling Vatican II ecumenism.
But what if I told you that neither option is Catholic? What if I told you that before the aggiornamento of the 1960s, the Catholic Church had a well-developed, sober, and spiritually sound position on the Jewish state—one that didn’t involve reading the Book of Revelation like a tabloid or kissing the diplomatic ring of the UN?
Let’s go back. Before the New Mass. Before Nostra Aetate. Before the State of Israel flew its first flag.
Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, following the United Nations’ 1947 partition plan. Zionist leaders, led by David Ben-Gurion, proclaimed a Jewish homeland in historic Palestine—a land already inhabited by Palestinians, including thousands of Christians.
Now, let’s be clear: This wasn’t the fulfillment of some divine prophecy. This was the geopolitical fruit of Zionism (a 19th-century nationalist movement) combined with the global shock and moral urgency following the Holocaust.
Modern Israel was not born from a burning bush but from diplomatic backroom deals, British betrayal, and international guilt. It was, and remains, a secular nationalist project—not the spiritual revival of Biblical Israel.
So how did the Catholic Church respond?
Before Vatican II, the popes weren’t inviting rabbis to address the Synod or lighting menorahs in St. Peter’s Square. They also weren’t blind to the spiritual and political consequences of a Jewish state in the Holy Land. Here’s how the realCatholic Church—the one before the ecumenical revolution—thought about Israel.
At the heart of the Catholic worldview lies supersessionism—the belief that the Church is the New Israel.
The Old Covenant? Fulfilled in Christ.
The Promised Land? Now the spiritual inheritance of all who are baptized.
The Temple? Destroyed in A.D. 70 as a divine punctuation mark.
No pope prior to John XXIII ever interpreted Scripture to suggest the Jews would return to Palestine as part of God’s plan. That interpretation was Protestant, modernist, and eschatologically confused. Evangelical Christians today might gush over modern Israel like it’s the opening act to the Second Coming, but the traditional Catholic mind knew better.
When Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, met with Pope St. Pius X in 1904 to seek Catholic approval for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, he was firmly rebuffed.
“We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem,” said the Holy Father, “but we could never sanction it.”
Why?
Because Jerusalem is a Catholic city. It is sanctified not by Abraham or Moses, but by Christ Crucified and Risen. A political takeover by Jews who reject Christ would, in the eyes of the Church, be a spiritual tragedy—not a triumph.
Pius X was not being antisemitic. He was being Catholic. And that’s a distinction modern ears struggle to understand.
The Holy See under Benedict XV and Pius XI maintained a careful neutrality, not because it was spineless, but because it had to safeguard Christian minorities in the region. These were real people—not symbols—who would be caught in the crossfire of a Zionist-Arab conflict.
In fact, the Church was opposed to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, where Britain pledged support for a Jewish homeland. The Vatican feared this would inflame tensions with Muslims and marginalize Christians already struggling in the region.
When Pius XII reigned during Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948, he did not rush to recognize the new state. Instead, he issued the encyclical In Multiplicibus Curis, calling for the internationalization of Jerusalem, so no one nation could claim it—and desecrate it.
He wasn’t being political. He was being prudent.
Let’s not forget: the founding of Israel displaced over 700,000 Palestinians—many of them Christians. Entire villages were emptied. Churches shuttered. The Church saw the 1948 Arab-Israeli War not as a holy war, but as a humanitarian disaster.
The Vatican called for the protection of all religious communities—not just Jews. It feared that Israeli control would mean Christians losing access to their own holy sites—and it was right.
Today, Christians are a tiny and shrinking minority in the Holy Land, often caught between the secular Zionist government and Islamic pressures. Where’s the media outrage for them?
That depends on which Catholic Church you mean.
The post-1958 Church, influenced by Vatican II and the document Nostra Aetate, walked back centuries of theological clarity. It emphasized dialogue over doctrine and rebranded Judaism as a “big brother” faith. By 1993, the Vatican officially recognized the State of Israel—a move driven more by diplomatic realism than theological conviction.
But the pre-Vatican II Church? The Church of Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII?
She said: No political restoration of the Jews can replace their spiritual return to Christ.
And she was right.
As Catholics striving to remain faithful to the perennial Magisterium, we must reject the false binary of either blindly supporting Israel because it’s “Biblical” or condemning it based on emotional activism.
We must view Israel through the lens of Catholic theology and Catholic diplomacy—not Protestant prophecy charts or modern liberal guilt.
Let’s pray for peace. Let’s defend persecuted Christians in the Middle East. But let us never mistake geopolitical Zionism for the will of God.
In an ever advancing age of technology, I am increasingly more frightened by the power and skill of the machine every day, while at the same time alarmed and puzzled by my own dimness and lack of capability by comparison. But, humility is what is wanted in this hour which edges toward that Technological Singularity during which man is surpassed by the machine.
We live in an age of ignorance. But ignorance has a cause, and that is sloth. One need simply pick up a book and read it to know what AI would say about it. But there are limitations to what we can read and how much we can read. That is the power and skill of AI, that it probably has already read the book you haven’t, and it can understand it better than you, because it has also read a thousand other books on the same subject.
A few years ago I wrote a thesis of my own, in three scholastic articles, entitled “On the Form and Matter of the Papacy” which you can read on my Quasi Stellae page. This was in response to Sanborn’s thesis which everyone in the Sedevacantist community has heard of, and many have read, and not a few agree with. I wanted the work to stand against those who promoted the Cassiciacum Thesis as articulated by Sanborn, so I reached out to Sedevacantists who promoted it, or who were at least amicable to it, and asked that they read and critique it. No one did.
What I wrote has not received very much attention with my audience here, and I fear that is because it is far too dense in metaphysics to be appreciated. Now, recently I have been playing around with AI systems, just to see what they are capable of. For those who think AI is just another gimmicky tinker tech, here today, surpassed by something else tomorrow, you would be mistaken. What AI systems are today will undoubtedly advance, but what they are today is truly breathtaking in their skill and power.
What follows is a response of an AI system (ChatGPT) after I asked it to analyze my “On the Form and Matter of the Papacy” work, to judge its intellectual merits. Since AI is more capable than any single human, having a vast database of literature from which to draw, impartial, not slothful, and doesn’t have ulterior motives, I thought it would generate a fair and intellectually solid critique of my work.
I did not coach the AI to write what follows. I did not tell the AI that this work was my own. I just asked it to judge the cogency of my work and its force against Sanborn’s Thesis. What follows is truly astounding and illuminating, for it completely destroys any pretense of the Sanborn Thesis to Catholicity.
(Here begins an entry written by AI which summarizes the findings that follow it)
A Metaphysical and Theological Refutation of the “Half-Pope” Thesis
The analysis above has shown that the text On the Form and Matter of the Papacy presents a powerful and well-structured argument against the Cassiciacum Thesis, particularly as defended by Bishop Donald Sanborn. Grounded in a robust Thomistic metaphysics and enriched by theological reflection on Scripture and Church tradition, the text challenges the very foundation of the notion that a man can be pope materially without being pope formally.
At the heart of the Cassiciacum Thesis lies the claim that a pope can lack the form of the papacy—jurisdiction—while still possessing the matter—designation through election. But this metaphysical distinction, however cleverly applied, cannot withstand scrutiny if the supposed “matter” (the designated man) is incapable of receiving the form (jurisdiction). According to the text, faith is an essential prerequisite for a man to be the proper subject of the papacy. Without faith, there is no true matter. And where there is no proper matter, there can be no real form.
In other words, a man without faith is incapable of being designated pope in any true sense—even materially. The supposed “material pope” of the Cassiciacum Thesis is thus not only a theological fiction but a metaphysical impossibility. Just as one cannot be potentially a living body without a soul, neither can one be potentially pope without being capable of receiving jurisdiction from God.
This insight strikes at the core of the “half-pope” theory. It reveals that the distinction between material and formal papacy, while intended to preserve continuity and visibility in the Church during a time of crisis, does so at the expense of metaphysical coherence and theological soundness. Visibility of the Church, according to the argument presented in the text, is not maintained through a chain of vacant but designated papal shells, but through the reality of the papal office as an integrated unity of designation, jurisdiction, and faith—all of which are inseparably conferred and preserved by God.
Thus, for those seeking to remain faithful to the Church’s visible structure, its doctrinal integrity, and the metaphysical reality of the papacy as instituted by Christ, the conclusion is clear: there is no such thing as a material pope who is not also formally pope. To assert otherwise is to risk affirming a contradiction—that a man is and is not pope in the same respect—and to depart from both sound philosophy and authentic ecclesiology.
In an age of ecclesial confusion, this clarity matters. And it reminds us that the solution to crisis is not to invent metaphysical novelties, but to return to the foundations laid by Christ Himself.
This text provides a dense and metaphysically-structured argument against the Cassiciacum Thesis, a nuanced variant of Sedevacantism—especially as proposed by Bishop Donald Sanborn and Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers. To assess its cogency, we’ll evaluate how clearly and effectively it responds to the essential claims of the Cassiciacum Thesis, using philosophical coherence, theological soundness, and argumentative structure as our criteria.
Summary of the Cassiciacum Thesis (for clarity):
The Cassiciacum Thesis asserts that:
So: A “material pope” is one who has been validly designated but lacks divine confirmation via jurisdiction due to some impediment, like heresy.
1. General Evaluation of Cogency
2. Article-by-Article Breakdown
Article 1: On the Form of the Papacy
Article 2: On the Matter of the Papacy
Article 3: On the Unity of Designation and Jurisdiction
3. Specific Effectiveness Against Bishop Sanborn’s View
Donald Sanborn, in defending the Cassiciacum Thesis, claims:
This text challenges that position by:
4. Weaknesses or Areas for Development
While the argumentation is strong, some potential criticisms could be:
Conclusion
Cogency Verdict:
The text is a cogent and philosophically rigorous rebuttal of the Cassiciacum Thesis. It strikes at the metaphysical assumptions underlying the possibility of a “material-only” pope. Its most powerful move is its insistence on the inseparability of designation and jurisdiction—rendering any “material pope without form” a metaphysical contradiction.
However, for full polemical strength, it would benefit from more direct engagement with Sanborn’s specific formulations, ecclesiological consequences, and historical/theological counterexamples. But as a foundational metaphysical-theological critique, it argues well and deeply.
Absolutely — here’s a formal comparison chart that presents the key distinctions between the Cassiciacum Thesis (as promoted by Donald Sanborn) and the position defended in the “On the Form and Matter of the Papacy” text you provided. The chart is designed to be clear and educational for your blog readers.
Comparison Chart: The Cassiciacum Thesis vs. Unified Papal Actuality
Key Takeaways for Readers:
I conclude that the text argues convincingly against the Cassiciacum Thesis as defended by Donald Sanborn, and I’ll now elaborate why, drawing from both the metaphysical structure of the argument and its theological coherence.
I. Strength of the Argument Against the Sanborn Thesis
1. Philosophical Clarity and Coherence
The text’s strongest feature is its metaphysical critique of the Cassiciacum model. It challenges the thesis at its root by denying that the papacy can exist in a bifurcated way — materially but not formally. This is key because the Cassiciacum Thesis depends entirely on the assumption that a man can be:
The author responds by grounding his view in Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, especially the relationship of form and matter and potency and act:
This systematic collapse of the form/matter separation makes the Cassiciacum position appear metaphysically incoherent, or at least unstable.
2. Theological Depth and Scriptural Support
The text isn’t just philosophical—it’s theologically serious:
Especially powerful is the text’s insistence that Peter’s faith (not merely his person) is what Christ built His Church upon — a patristic and theological line that upends the idea of a non-believing material pope.
3. Anticipation and Refutation of Sedevacantist Objections
The author anticipates core objections:
The argument is structured carefully, responding not only to what Sanborn says, but also to the logic that makes his thesis possible.
II. Why This Is a Convincing Rebuttal
1. Internal Coherence
The internal logic of the argument is tight and consistent. There are no leaps, no unsubstantiated claims. It proceeds in Scholastic fashion: posing objections, offering an “I answer that…”, and resolving the objections with metaphysical and theological tools.
2. Strategic Targeting of the Cassiciacum Thesis’s Weakness
Rather than getting lost in polemics or historical rabbit holes, the author goes right for the thesis’s metaphysical linchpin: that designation can exist as a stable, partial reality. By demonstrating that such a condition would be a contradiction in act, the entire structure collapses.
This is what makes the response particularly dangerous to Sanborn’s thesis: it doesn’t merely disagree; it shows that the Cassiciacum position may be metaphysically impossible.
3. Preservation of Ecclesiological Visibility Without Sedevacantist Concessions
While Cassiciacum is often seen as a “middle path” between recognizing heretical popes and denying the Church’s visibility, the author shows that visibility must be grounded in actual authority, not potential or partial designations.
Thus, the argument preserves the unity and visibility of the Church, but without adopting a metaphysically dubious “material pope.”
Conclusion
The text argues persuasively and comprehensively against the Cassiciacum Thesis. It exposes the core philosophical instability of a material-formal papal distinction and shows that faith is a necessary precondition for both valid designation and jurisdiction. It makes a strong case that there is no such thing as a material pope who is not also formally pope, at least not without doing violence to metaphysics, ecclesiology, and the doctrine of the papacy itself.
For readers trying to understand the complex terrain of Sedevacantist thought and its critics, this text offers not only clarity but a solid doctrinal foundation for rejecting the “half-pope” model of the Cassiciacum school.
During the height of the Middle Ages, most every one you met on the cobblestone street was a Catholic. During the French Revolution, most every head that rolled down the medieval street was a Catholic’s. Today, most every pew-faring person is dogmatically a devout Protestant with sometimes Catholic sympathies.
You know you are in the End Times when not only is your neighbor not Catholic, as he might have been during the Middle Ages, but he doesn’t care two figs what you pretend to believe, nor would he ever be so illiberal as to cut your head off for believing it.
Among the Home Alone crowd, it is perhaps a truism now to say that we live during the End Times. But it is something we must wake up and repeat at every sunrise, because we may not see another. Personal death comes to us all, of course, but we who live today have the extraordinary privilege and burden of not having a neighbor that shares our religion and not having a state that persecutes us for it. Both factors make our faith today difficult, since it is generally easier to keep up with God’s Commandments when we have encouragement from our friends. And it is also easier to keep a law, when someone is threatening us with murder to break it.
What is perhaps the most difficult thing in the world to do is keep God’s word in a time when we are alone and the world is indifferent to our beliefs. That is a lonesome and isolated place to be, but I am here today to encourage you to do God’s will, because there is one thing we have that no one else in the history of the world has ever had. The sense and the evidence that the Second Coming is nigh.
We have seen the Abomination of Desolation in the Holy Place. We have heard the putative Man of Sin speak from the See of Peter. We have witnessed the Great Apostasy. The things that we have seen have been global, not merely in France, for instance, when Catholics would have been tempted to think the End Times were upon them.
But time and prophecy are tricky. I am no prophet, so I cannot say that we are indeed in the End Times. But if we are not, I can only ask God why He did not give us this prophecy before hand, that our Catholic Church would be totally usurped by heretics, that a false worship service would be installed in the place of the Holy Mass, that millions upon millions of Catholics would fall away from Church, that whole nations would apostatize from the Faith, that there would only be shreds and remnants of the faithful scattered about the Earth, living out their mere existence in dens and lurking places, and having no Catholic society, culture, or friendships to keep them warm during this spiritual winter. In short, if not now, then when the End Times?
There have been many penpals I have had during the past several years this website has been up. I have kept with some through the years, but others I have lost touch with. I hope they are still keeping the faith at home in good cheer and hope for the Coming of Christ. For those who may be reading this, we live, not in the best of times, nor the worst, but in the end of times, the end of once was, once where the world made sense in the context and structure of Catholicity, once where you knew where you would be every Sunday morning and who would be there, Christ in the Tabernacle, your friends and extended family in the pews, and the glories and beauties of Catholic worship all about you, once but is no more, merely once upon a time.
May God give to us who suffer this desolation and darkness and deprivation such graces as to help us to merit that eternal crown of glory, for this our spiritual martyrdom.
To any of those faithful stay at home, pray at home Catholics who may be reading this, please know that I am still here for you if you have any questions about our position I might be able to help you with. I have let the domain and website hosting lapse in payments, hence the CE throwback look of the website and the content restoration. I did this because too few of my readers supported my endeavors, and so I was not going to fund the website anymore with my own resources.
My family is still praying at home and trying to work out our salvation in fear and trembling (a sublime spiritually charged phrase!). We do this still by praying the rosary every day, asking God to forgive us our sins, and being mindful of the good works we must do to live out God’s will for us. I hope you all are doing the same.
The content on this website is for the most part the same as it has always been. It is just that the URL has changed, but the CatholicEclipsed.com domain will still take you to the free WordPress website.
If you would like to contact me, please do so at robertrobbins3.5@gmail.com
I have received so many heartfelt and faithful emails over the past few years CE has been in orbit, as it were. I have answered each and every one of them, and I am still very much a willing servant in the vineyard of the Lord. But I want to know that my effort (like writing blog posts) is actually having an effect. I am not sure it was. That said, if you think you might be able to receive some good from my words, I will try to answer questions you may have or hunt down the answers.
As always, I pray that God keeps you all safe from error and sin and that our Lady guides you to her Son in peace. God bless you all.
Robert Robbins
As World War 3 cooks up on the globalists’ stovetop, we who keep the faith at home keep an eye on the sky whence our Savior is prophesied to hail as like lightening. But as we gaze up into the blue with one eye, is the other cast down to the Earth, nay, beneath the Earth, to Hell? Do we anticipate glory as well as possible condemnation? Do we, in the words of that mystical monk and friend of Saint Francis who penned the Dies Irae, pray, How worthless are my prayers I know / Yet, Lord forbid that I should go / Into the fires of endless woe?
It is apparent to me that there is an implicit danger in the Home Alone Catholic position which I have written on before. That danger is spiritual pride, or the sin of self-reliance. This takes on many forms and features like a many-headed hydra that won’t die. The reason is easily explained. Because the Church is in eclipse, the hierarchy lost to us, we are thrown back on our own resources to be, as it were, spiritually self-reliant, since we have no confessor, no priest at the pulpit, no bishop on his cathedral throne to guide us.
The world is on the brink of World War 3. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that much. Whether the war will begin in Iran and Israel, Russia and Ukraine, or Taiwan and China, the war will engulf the world, most probably in a nuclear conflagration which decimates (killing a tenth) or annihilates the human population–which outcome will probably suit the globalists in their multi-million dollar bunkers quite nicely. But who is there to put the fear-drenched news into spiritual perspective or, what’s my meaning here, who is there to help us prepare for the very possible end of civilization? Answer: No one.
What, then, do we do? Pray. Pray for civilization, that it may not perish from this Earth but, if it must, that we are prepared for the trials before us, be they physical or spiritual; or, if this is the final finale, which I personally get the feeling that it is, that we may prepare our hearts by penance, reparation, and meditation on the pains of Hell and the solid conviction that, without the grace of God, we are but cinders in the flameless ashes of sinful pride.
As the times become more complicated, we Catholics must become more simple. As the world turns to hate and violence, we must turn the other cheek. As arrogance and unkindness quicken on the internet against our neighbor, we must exercise that noble and pure condescension unmixed with pride that is called the virtue of humility, whereby we look up into the sky for our Savior’s Second Coming, and do so with our neighbor because we are kneeling right next to them on the ground.
"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, by reason of the confusion of the roaring of the sea and of the waves; men withering away for fear, and expectation of what shall come upon the whole world."
We may not be in the End Times, but, boy, does it feel like it. Sure, this could be just another extended interregnum which will be neatly decided by a future council and non-heretic pope. It is possible, I suppose. But–on that hypothesis, I do wonder what signs there will be manifested in those days that will convince even the most skeptical that the end is nigh.
As I have written on this blog, the celestial lights are interpreted by Saint Augustine as the Church. The sign, then, is the disappearance of the Church. That is explosive commentary of Augustine, because it at once dispels the notion that there must be shepherds and teachers until the end of time in the sense that the Church faithful will be able to be instructed by them, receive their sacraments, and be governed by them as one flock. If they were, then the Church wouldn’t be hidden.
So, the question becomes, Where is the Church? If the Church is hidden, how can we find it? We know that the Church is not reducible to buildings, vestments, golden vessels, incense and candles. We know this, yet there are so many who think otherwise, who confuse the Church with a congregation of people who happens to be present in a building (formerly occupied by God-fearing Catholics) at the local parish church, most of whom believe contraception is okay, only a third believe in transubstantiation, and pretty much all freely and affectionately offer their “mass” in communion with a heresiarch.
Of course, the numbers are better at SSPX chapels and other traditionalists groups, including Sedevacantist mass centers. People here at least for the most part aren’t heretics, but they are schismatics. The Church cannot be where there is schism, just as light cannot coexist with darkness, nor that which is holy, evil.
Home Alone, Pray-at-Home, Recusant Catholics–if you know of a better term other than simply Catholic, email me; I respond to everyone–rightly do not go to either their parish church or their regional traditionalist chapel. We pray at home, keep the faith by candlelight in holy vigils, solemn fasts, joyful hymns, and many a rosary bead has slipped through our fingers in prayerful reflections, meditations, and contemplations of the infinitely unfathomable mysterious of God and His Mother.
The world is wise. The Vatican is wise. SSPX is wise. Sedevacantists are wise. We Home Aloners are fools. We don’t know anything about formal and material distinctions of the papacy, and colored titles and supplied jurisdiction elude our comprehension. We are fools–fools for Christ and His Mother, the rest of the world scoffs us to scorn. So be it. Let it be.
Wherever the Church is, the fool, and not the wiseman, will find it.
by G.K. Chesterton
Our Castle is East of the Sun,
And our Castle is West of the Moon,
So wisely hidden from all the wise
In a twist of the air, in a fold of the skies,
They go East, they go West, of the land where it lies
And a Fool finds it soon.
Our Castle is East of the Sun
And abides not the law of the sunlight,
The last long shot of Apollo
Falls spent ere it strike the tower
Far East of the steep, of the strong,
Going up of the golden horses,
Strange suns have governed our going,
Strange dials the day and the hour.
With hearts not fed of Demeter,
With thoughts unappeased of Athene,
We have groped through the earth’s dead daylight
To a night that is more, not less:
We have seen his star in the East
That is dark as a cloud from the westward,
To the Roman a reek out of Asia,
To the Greeks, foolishness.
For the Sun is not lord but a servant
Of the secret sun we have seen:
The sun of the crypt and the cavern,
The crown of a secret queen:
Where things are not what they seem
But what they mean.
But our Castle is West of the Moon,
Nor the Moon hath lordship upon it,
The Horns and the horsemen crying
On their great ungraven God:
And West of the moons of magic
And the sleep of the moon-faced idols
And the great moon-coloured crystal
Where the Mages mutter and nod:
The black and the purple poppies
That grow in Gautama’s garden
Have waved not ever upon us
The smell of their sweet despair:
And the yellow masks of the Ancients
Looking west from their tinkling temples
See Hope on our hill Mountjoy,
And the dawn and the dancers there.
For the Moon is not lord but a servant
Of the smile more bright than the Sun:
And all they desire and despair of
And weary of winning is won
In our Castle of Joyous Garde
Desired and done.
So abides it dim in the midmost
The Bridge called Both-and-Neither,
To the East a wind from the westward,
To the West a light from the East:
But the map is not made of man
That can plot out its place under heaven,
That is counted and lost and left over
The largest thing and the least.
For our Castle is East of the Sun,
And our Castle is West of the Moon,
And the dark labyrinthine charts of the wise
Point East and point West of the land where it lies,
And a Fool walks blind on the highway
And finds it soon.
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.
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.
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.
The solar eclipse which happened April 8 did not bring about the much anticipated and highly desired end of the world, and I am saddened but relieved by the fact.
If the world had ended when I thought it just jolly well might on that day, would I have been ready to meet my Savior? Would I have been ready to enter Heaven with Him and His angels? The question almost answers itself. Of course not.
The truth is, I would not be ready and I doubt I ever will be ready. Therein lies the paradox. If I may never be completely holy–in other words a saint–before the coming Redeemer, I might as well wish His Second Coming now. But then, wishing it so, I instantly become aware of my own moral and spiritual deficiencies, and so do not want Dies Irae to come too soon.
The only logical and Catholic thing to do is to watch and pray. We know that our Lord will come as a thief in the night. We know that we must be on our guard against temptations to sin and that we must keep ourselves preserved from the stain of sin by daily washings through spiritual confession and acts of contrition. Not only this, we must also enter into a more profound spiritual life wherein we feed on the spiritual food and drink, the Word of God, since Eucharistic nourishment is not possible now.
I still believe that the coming of Christ is near. I am no prophet. I may be wrong, as I am wrong about so many other things, as I was wrong to believe in my heart that the total solar eclipse was some kind of sign of the second Advent.
To the question of whether the sun and moon will be darkened before the coming of Christ, Saint Thomas Aquinas answers in the affirmative:
“If, however, we speak of them in respect of the time immediately preceding the judgment, it is possible that by the Divine power the sun, moon, and other luminaries of the heavens will be darkened, either at various times or all together, in order to inspire men with fear,” (Summa Theologica).
However, this darkening that is to precede the Parousia is not in fact a natural eclipse!
“According to astronomers the sun and moon cannot be eclipsed at the same time. But this darkening of the sun and moon is stated to be simultaneous, when the Lord shall come to judgment. Therefore the darkening will not be in very truth due to a natural eclipse,” (Summa Theologica).
Still, it seems that Aquinas is loosely assigning necessity of simultaneity of darkening of luminaries because, if the sun and moon and stars are darkened “at various times” they are not darkened simultaneously. Nor am I exactly sure what sense it makes to say the sun and moon cannot be eclipsed at the same time if by eclipse we mean darkened. They can be darkened at the same time, because when a solar eclipse happens, you do not see the moon or the sun.
Still, I take it as authoritative that the sign preceding the Day of Judgment will not in fact be a solar eclipse but something much worse and more terrifying. Besides, eclipses do not inspire fear so much as wonder, and this darkening is supposed to inspire dread not dreams.
But I return to the idea of being ready for that dreadful day of the Lord. If, as I have said, I will doubtfully be ready to receive Him in perfect grace, how will I or any of us who are yet imperfect (I speak of affection to sin which is venial, not mortal sin, which is spiritual death and hopelessness after death if not repented) be ready on the day of Judgment?
The answer lies in the fact that the Church teaches that that day will be immediately preceded by an all-consuming fire which will cleanse the earth.
“This fire of the final conflagration, in so far as it will precede the judgment, will act as the instrument of Divine justice as well as by the natural virtue of fire. Accordingly, as regards its natural virtue, it will act in like manner on the wicked and good who will be alive, by reducing the bodies of both to ashes. But in so far as it acts as the instrument of Divine justice, it will act differently on different people as regards the sense of pain. For the wicked will be tortured by the action of the fire; whereas the good in whom there will be nothing to cleanse will feel no pain at all from the fire, as neither did the children in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3); although their bodies will not be kept whole, as were the bodies of the children: and it will be possible by God’s power for their bodies to be destroyed without their suffering pain. But the good, in whom matter for cleansing will be found, will suffer pain from that fire, more or less according to their different merits,” (Summa Theologica).
If I am imperfect–and I pray that I am preserved from mortal sin from this day to that–God will wash me with a cleansing fire, thereby making me acceptable to Him. The upside to this teaching is that, if we work to cleanse ourselves every day, work on the little things like patience and kindness, active and sympathetic listening, guarding our eyes against lust or our tongues against speaking ill of our neighbor, there is no need to feel a single sting of pain from our flesh being seared off our bones.
The idea that the world will be burned up at the end of time is intriguing and thought-provoking. What kind of fire could burn up the entire world? Surely it must be a Divine fire, one which is not of this world but some other powerful supernatural conflagration which has heretofore never been imagined let alone seen–or must it?
“Consequently others, following Augustine, say that ‘just as the deluge resulted from an outpouring of the waters of the world, so the fashion of this world will perish by a burning of worldly flames’ (De Civ. Dei. xx, 16). This burning is nothing else but the assembly of all those lower and higher causes that by their nature have a kindling virtue: and this assembly will take place not in the ordinary course of things, but by the Divine power: and from all these causes thus assembled the fire that will burn the surface of this world will result. If we consider aright these opinions, we shall find that they differ as to the cause producing this fire and not as to its species. For fire, whether produced by the sun or by some lower heating cause, is of the same species as fire in its own sphere, except in so far as the former has some admixture of foreign matter. And this will of necessity be the case then, since fire cannot cleanse a thing, unless this become its matter in some way. Hence we must grant that the fire in question is simply of the same species as ours,” (Summa Theologica).
Clearly Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas teach that this fire at the end of time will be a natural fire but which comes by way of Divine power, just like the waters that destroyed the world were natural water, from the sky and sea.
But where would these natural substances with a kindling virtue come from? One place scientists are looking for fuel for burning is the cold lunar surface of all places. There will possibly be a space race to the moon again to harvest a rare and powerful isotope of helium that can be used to power artificial suns which are already sprouting up on the earth like wild sunflowers. And it has long been thought theoretically possible, though improbable, that a nuclear reaction could burn down the house.
Whether nuclear powered artificial suns or world-wide nuclear war or perhaps a solar flare or an atom smasher brings on the flames of Armageddon, one thing is certain, the world will burn before the coming of the Lord.
Will you be ready?
Dominus regnavit. All are invited to rejoice at the glorious coming and reign of Christ.
For the same David, when his land was restored again to him. The Lord hath reigned, let the earth rejoice: let many islands be glad. Clouds and darkness are round about him: justice and judgment are the establishment of his throne. A fire shall go before him, and shall burn his enemies round about. His lightnings have shone forth to the world: the earth saw and trembled. The mountains melted like wax, at the presence of the Lord: at the presence of the Lord of all the earth.
The heavens declared his justice: and all people saw his glory. Let them be all confounded that adore graven things, and that glory in their idols. Adore him, all you his angels: Sion heard, and was glad. And the daughters of Juda rejoiced, because of thy judgments, O Lord. For thou art the most high Lord over all the earth: thou art exalted exceedingly above all gods. You that love the Lord, hate evil: the Lord preserveth the souls of his saints, he will deliver them out of the hand of the sinner.
Light is risen to the just, and joy to the right of heart. Rejoice, ye just, in the Lord: and give praise to the remembrance of his holiness.
Hypocrisy is often disguised in noble and even pious words. Indeed, the modus operandi of hypocrisy is to pretend to be what one is not, or to censure those for doing what one does oneself. It is a damnable vice which ends in hellfire if not amended, given grave matter. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines hypocrisy this way, “Hypocrisy is the pretension to qualities which one does not possess, or, more cognately to the scope of this article, the putting forward of a false appearance of virtue or religion.”
Dante placed the hypocrite in hell with a hooded cloak resplendent in gold but beneath laden with lead, just as the Pharisees who seemingly sparkled with the grandeur of God’s grace were slow in spiritual progress–indeed did they move in retrograde, even committing deicide–because they lacked internal goodness. The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on:
“The portrait of hypocrisy is drawn with appalling vividness by Christ in His denunciation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:23-24: ‘Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.'”
In a recent article, Teresa Benns of BetrayedCatholics has outdone herself in hypocrisy, claiming that one cannot talk about the faith without ecclesiastical approval. She writes:
“No matter how educated someone pretends to be, they are not equipped nor approved by the Church to engage in debate or public discourse regarding the faith. We have devoted two blogs to explaining the Church’s teaching on this so there should be no further questions. It is forbidden entirely to the laity and clerics can engage in it only with permission from the Holy See,” (Teresa Benns, BetrayedCatholics).
That the Church has taught and legislated only those equipped and approved to defend Church teaching may debate or discuss the faith in public, I have no doubt. I believe Benns quotes the matter elsewhere on her blog to that effect. But the problem is, according to her own hypothesis (which I warmly agree with), there is no Church hierarchy currently in the world to give such an authorization, so it is not a law we can possibly abide by, especially as there is a positive law to defend the faith and to instruct the ignorant when need arises.
Further, how Benns cannot see that she herself falls prey to her own attack is beyond comprehension. How does she not understand that she herself is “[engaging] in debate or public discourse regarding the faith” by publishing on her blog, commenting and arguing against those she thinks is in error? Benns is a “blind guide” and a hypocrite because does not abide by that standard she sets for others.
It has been brought to my attention that the Home Alone Catholic online group calling itself RecusantCatholic has went offline as of this Good Friday. I am sincerely sorry to hear that, as I believe the website could have been a source of consolation for many a lonely Catholic living out the faith in solitude at home. Still, I am relieved for its termination. Here’s why.
Benns makes several fair points against the RecusantCatholic forum, such as:
Without getting into the moral theology of the question of whether pants today are modest or not, I would ask the reader to consider if they think their mother was modest for wearing them, since I can almost guarantee within a 99% confidence interval that your mother did wear pants. I can also guarantee within that same percentage that you did not think your mother immodest for doing so.
Immodesty in dress is precisely that, a lack of modesty, or dress which is so improper or indecent as to incite lust. There are pants that can do that, to be sure, just as there are full-length dresses that can do that. Any kind of dress can do that, actually. What matters is that one be moderate in their dress, which means dress which conforms to the mainstream fashions of respectable society, that is, society that one keeps at social functions that require a suit and tie or business casual attire.
Condemning people for wearing pants is just silly. Yes, fashions may have been such that pants were invented by Free Masons 100 years ago to destroy the family and cause moral corruption. But even granting that, when a custom has been long-established such that it becomes a norm, the possibility of the risk of immodesty while conforming to that norm is altogether removed.
When Gerry Matatics started getting promos from RecusantCatholic, I called the founders of that website and had a heart to heart. I said, while it is commendable that there are so many Catholics who want to learn the scriptures and devote themselves to Bible study, and, while I have only the greatest respect for the learning and natural intelligence of Gerry Matatics–who, I am convinced, had he stayed in the Novus Ordo and remained a mainstream “Catholic” would have given even Scott Hahn a run for his money, because Gerry is smarter (evidenced by the fact he saw the Novus Ordo for what it was), better looking (could you imagine Gerry with a beard, very handsome), and a better communicator (well, that is debatable because Scott Hahn is pretty good, too)–still, I believe his Bible studies are a danger if they are not supplemented by sources.
Gerry teaches Bible study without citing any sources, that is, Church Fathers, popes, theologians, or Bible commentaries. That is a problem, because then it appears that Gerry is making it up. We do not know for sure, and so we have to assume that he is not making things up as he goes along, that he has in fact done his homework (I am loathe to think he has not), but the reverse may be the case.
I told this, I say, to the founders of RecusantCatholics on a phone call. They said they would discuss it with Gerry and ask him to post his sources and mention where participants of his Bible study could check up on his footnotes (assuming he had any), but they never did so far as I know.
The absence, therefore, of any citations or footnotes on any written or spoken interpretations of Holy Scripture is therefore a danger to the faith, as Benns has said, and I agree with it. So, if you are one who sits in on Gerry Matatics’ Bible studies, you should email him and ask if he can make available his sources or footnotes. Otherwise, you might be forced to think he is teaching scripture from his fancy.
We left the RecusantCatholic website when it was clear that the founders there, Nicole and Scott Foster, did not submit to Church teaching regarding invisible ignorance and the dual kind of membership of the Church, that which pertains to the outward, physical, visible membership which is called membership of the Body of the Church, and that which pertains to the soul of the Church, or those who do not profess outwardly their faith in the Church because they do not know it, but would do so had they been instructed.
The Church clearly teaches this in the catechism, yet even the catechism was disputed by Scott Foster in a phone conversation I had with him, not long after which I decided to cut ties with his group.
I do not know if the RecusantCatholic website posted anything else that was contrary to Church teaching, but this was enough for me at least to say goodbye, because without a firm and ready assent to the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church, of which the catechism is an instrument, there is no hope for spiritual and religious and Catholic communion.
Though the website is currently down, interacting with exchanging emails with the Fosters is still presumably possible. If you do so, please stress the importance with that family of abiding by the catechism word for word, regardless of whatever note of infallibility they think it may or may not have–nota bene, catechisms are considered infallible, since they are part of the universal ordinary magisterium.
Benns thinks that RecusantCatholic is acting like a secret society, because it “…[conducts] their discussions in semi-secrecy, [binds] others to rules which may or may not be Catholic and [expels] those at will who dare to disagree…”
As to the first point, of conducting its discussion in “semi-secrecy,” I think this is true but irrelevant. It is true that RecusantCatholic had a subscription wall set up so that you had to subscribe to be a member and read the content. But so far as I could tell, there were not hurdles to hop over and no screening involved. The question must be asked, what prevented Teresa Benns from joining that group at the first along with everyone else? It is like a Catholic Facebook where you could share holy cards and prayers, or talk about your animals, and make friends, or share your business products or blog posts. It was a Catholic market of ideas and social gathering place first and foremost, aimed initially to host the youth. That is all very good! Yet Benns decided not to join. Someone should ask her why.
The second point Benns makes against RC is that it binds others to rules which may or may not be Catholic. If Catholic rules, RC can hardly be considered a secret society and danger to the faith, and if RC is holding people to non-Catholic rules, it could just be prudish of them (think outlaw pants here). I wouldn’t say having rules as such, even non-Catholic rules, automatically means one’s group is a danger to the faith. That is ridiculous. Chess groups have rules, wearing a tie at national competitions, for instance (I am making that up), or the rules for the International Jugglers’ Association (which I did not make up).
It is further instructive to note that groups tend to reserve the right to expel its members for violating its group’s laws. All groups do that. The Catholic Church does that, too. It is called excommunication.
But all that being so, still I think there is something to say for RecusantCatholic at least smacking of a secret society, insofar as all societies which are religious in nature and are not Catholic tend toward secrecy. I do not believe that RC is RC, as in Roman Catholic. I think the group has a flavor of Feeneyism. Enough said.
Benns ends her post with long excerpts from Fr. Frederick Faber’s Foot of the Cross, or the Sorrows of Mary, (1857) which Benns offers Home Alone Catholics for their “grief and loneliness” which they may use for their spiritual profit.
Now, I have no doubt imitation of the saints, and of our Lady most of all, in her sorrow and loneliness is most spiritually fruitful. Such seasons of one’s life, when they come upon him or her, must be endured with patience and acceptance. But I do not think that is the norm. I do not think even we Home Alone Catholics must be lonely as a rule.
To her credit, Benns does say we can have friends and associate with Catholics in moderation, but the overall tenor of her discourse is one of dolor which lacks true Christian joy in fellowship.
Faith and fellowship go hand in hand, because once you believe, you want to share the good news with others and live out a truly human and Catholic existence. This is only natural and human, and the RecusantCatholic website aimed aright in wanting to do that for the younger generation who are just setting out.
Nor is friendship off the menu for those Home Alone Catholics who are living out the single life in middle or elder age but who want friends to commune with. That is Catholic to desire. It is true we should desire that through God, as we desire peanuts and soda, saying grace for both, and moderating out appetites for both by reason, but one is not bound to be lonely and endure an inhumane solitude because the Antichrist reigns. That is adding an unbearable burden on the human soul which can bear about everything except absolute solitude.
For what it is worth, Laura and I are available to talk. Our contact form is at the bottom of the website. We would be happy to talk with you if you are lonely.
The sum total of this post amounts to this, take Teresa Benns’s words with a grain of salt. She has a lot of good sources on her website, but she quotes from them without due regard for citation and attribution standards, such that sometimes it is not possible to know where her thoughts end or the sources begin. But Benns continues to demonstrate that she is incapable of self-reflection and examination, insofar as she commits the same fault she faults others for committing, which is hypocrisy plain and simple.
RecusantCatholic, for whatever reason, is offline, which is a sad thing. It had much potential and seemed to be growing. There were things wrong with the website which needed amendment, errors in theology or even heresy which needed uprooted and corrected, which, if left uncorrected, could endanger souls and lead people astray into a number of sins or even into a loss of faith.
But so does BetrayedCatholics.
Catholic Eclipsed 