The "doctrine" of the empty papal chair: The world of sedisvacantism

If traditionalist blogs are to be believed, the movement of pope deniers gained a prominent new member not long ago: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former US nuncio and one of the most vocal radical conservative critics of Pope Francis and his administration in recent years, is said to have joined the so-called sedisvacantists. Richard Williamson, who was expelled from the Society of St Pius X, is said to have re-ordained him as a bishop "sub conditione". If this is true, Viganò apparently assumes that his episcopal consecration by Pope John Paul II in 1992 could have been invalid. Why invalid? On the one hand, because it was conferred by a pope of the "conciliar church" who was not a real pope. And on the other hand, because the ordination rite has not been valid since the liturgical reform following the Second Vatican Council.

These two lines of argument provide the central theses of ultratraditionalist groups who hold the view that the chair (Latin sedes) of Peter is vacant - hence the term "sedisvacantism". A period of vacancy is nothing unusual in the Church: it occurs after the death or resignation of a pope or bishop. In the case of the pope, the cardinal electors elect a new pontiff within a certain period of time. If the new pontiff accepts the election, the period of sede vacante is over. Sedisvacantism, on the other hand, means that the pope's chair is empty, even though someone is sitting in it. The person in the chair is not only an illegitimate pope, but a "false pope".

Against liturgical reform and religious freedom

There have always been doubts about the legitimacy of a pope in church history. However, sedevacantism as a theory or view only developed in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. Like other traditionalist groups, its representatives worked on its reforms: Liturgical reform and socio-political repositioning of the Catholic Church such as the acceptance of human rights, reconciliation with democracy, ecumenism, interreligious dialogue and religious freedom.

But it doesn't stop at pure criticism: in the eyes of the sedevacantists, the papacy in Rome and its followers have distanced themselves from the true Catholic faith with the Second Vatican Council. They reject the "Council Church" or even the "Novus Ordo sect" (after the Latin name of the reformed liturgy of the Mass, Novus Ordo Missae), as it is incompatible with the teachings of the popes before the Council. As a result, the popes who defend or do not reject the teachings of the Council are heretics. And a heretical pope automatically ceases to be pope: Here they invoke the early modern theory of "papa haereticus" by theologian and cardinal Robert Bellarmin (1542-1621). And since there are no longer any benevolent episcopal ordinations, priests can no longer be validly ordained - and therefore no valid sacraments can be administered.

To speak of the representatives of sesidvacantism as a real movement, however, is an exaggeration. They are mostly small splinter groups and individuals. They are also far from being a homogeneous group in terms of content. This starts with the judgement of who the last legitimate pope was. For most, it is Pius XII (1958-1963): his death marked the beginning of the vacancy; his successor, Council Pope John XXIII (1958-1963), had forfeited his papacy. Some cite the year 1965 as the beginning of the vacancy of the papacy, as the Council adopted the declaration "Dignitatis humanae" on religious freedom at that time. Probably the best-known traditionalist organisation, the Society of St. Pius X, on the other hand, is not sedevacantist. Although it rejects central teachings of the Second Vatican Council, for them the popes have been legitimate popes ever since.

How to deal with the assumed situation?

There is also disagreement across the spectrum about how to deal with the assumed vacancy of the papacy. Whilst some are obviously resigned to it, some have elected a pope - they are so-called "conclavists". The best-known grouping is the Palmarian Catholic Church, which is particularly well-known in Spain and goes back to alleged Marian apparitions and visions of the Spaniard Clemente Domínguez y Gómez, who had himself crowned pope as "Gregory XVII" after the death of Pope Paul VI following such a vision. It also happened that someone declared that he had been crowned pope by the angels or appointed as such by heaven.

Another school of sedisvacantists, on the other hand, advocates so-called sedisprivationism, loosely translated as "usurpation of the chair". This is the view that the Holy See is only formally occupied, but de facto unoccupied. In this way of thinking, the validly elected holders are something like "potential" popes who have formally lost the office due to their heresies and cannot exercise it. However, as soon as they became orthodox again, they would automatically be "real" popes again.

Although sedisvacantists claim to be true Catholics, from the Church's point of view they are in schism because they refuse to obey the Pope. Their theological and canonical argumentation also raises a whole series of questions. For example: How can the popes have become heretical after the Second Vatican Council, even though they have not denied any church dogma and have not even claimed to dogmatise anything? As bizarre as the views and groupings may seem - sometimes sedevacantist theses seem to catch on even with believers who want nothing to do with such movements. For example, the myth developed around Benedict XVI's resignation from office in 2013 that he had retained the "munus", the Petrine office, and only relinquished the "ministerium", the active exercise of the pontificate. According to the logic of this thesis, Pope Francis would not be a legitimate pope. In a sense, a new variety of sedisvacantism has thus emerged.

Some critics of Francis' course of openness repeatedly allude to this narrative. There have even been priests who have labelled the current pontiff an "anti-papal usurper" who has unlawfully usurped the office of Benedict XVI because he was forced out of office. Vatican Media Director Andrea Tornielli sharply criticised such theories at the beginning of this year. Such "absurd and ridiculous theories about renunciation/non-renunciation" and whether Benedict XVI had been forced to renounce his office were an attack "on the person and intelligence of a great theologian, bishop, cardinal and pope like Joseph Ratzinger". A pontificate is only "a mere jurisdiction to which one is elected by conclave". And further: "If the Bishop of Rome resigns, this jurisdiction is transferred to his successor, who is canonically elected with at least two thirds of the votes of the cardinals of the conclave, and since March 2013 this has been Francis."

How seriously should sedevacantist movements be taken? Even if they are very small in number and their positions only elicit a tired smile from many Catholics, their theses can be appealing to at least some of the faithful in times of rampant conspiracy theories in society - especially in a phase in which the Church is struggling to chart its course into the future. For Pope Francis, at any rate, sedevacantists are "mushrooms" in the Church. This group and other critics from the traditionalist environment would deliberately misinterpret his statements, the pontiff said recently in an interview with Spanish journalists. "They have sadness in their hearts, I feel sorry for them".