Sedevacantism: if it's Wrong, it's Right

Join our Apologetics Seminars:

Private Apologetics and Writing Tuition:

Buy me a coffee:

One-off donations:

[samuellariviere]

This is probably the strongest argument in favour of sedevacantism. Please pray for me brothers, I believe I have a calling to priestly ministry. If I accept the sede theory I will have no choice but to seek out a seminary that tolerates that position.

[Mokinono]

A+ 100% and happy face.

While I don't use this argument, it is entirely flawless. Good Job presenting it!

[TheMidnightCzar]

Can't say enough good things about this video - excellent production quality, clear argumentation, and an easily digestible brevity. I especially liked the low-key classical music in the background. This is very helpful for discerning individuals looking for more information, like myself. I'll be sure to check out your longer form video, and I encourage you to continue producing additional content.

Well done!

[mariamurray]

Your videos are very well put together and easy to grasp. Thank you!

[ryan]

Please keep up your work. We need more content explaining our position that actually *LOOKS GOOD, * like this! I cannot emphasize enough how important aesthetics are in making teaching content.

Also, please consider making short form video content on the topic.

[quisutdeus]

One of the best videos on the subject !! Congratulations :)

[olinobnizov]

I've been making this exact argument for years. I called it a Pascalian Wager for sedevecantism.

If VATICAN II is right we go to heaven even if we reject it.

[Thejetsta]

So those of us so called “rigid “ Catholics are all probably seds, but we just don’t realise it yet, or don’t feel they have the authority to openly declare it, thinking it would put them outside the church.
A very good thought provoking presentation, thank you.

[LOOregano]

This reminds me of St Alphonsus describing how King Henry IV forsake Calvinism for Catholicism using pretty much this same argument. "The devil always strives to deceive heretics, by suggesting to them that they can be saved in their belief. This was what Theodore Beza said to St. Francis de Sales, when hard pressed by him on the importance of salvation : “I hope to be saved in my own religion.” Unhappy hope! which only keeps them in error here, and exposes them to eternal perdition hereafter, when the error cannot be remedied, I think the danger of eternal perdition, by dying separated from the Church, should be a sufficient motive to convert every heretic. It was this that made Henry IV. forsake Calvinism, and become a Catholic. He assembled a conference of Catholics and Calvinists, and after listening for a time to their arguments, he asked the Calvinistic Doctors if it was possible a person could be saved in the Catholic faith; they answered that it was; “then, said the king, if the faith of the Roman Church secures salvation, and the Reformed faith is at least doubtful, I will take the safe side, and become a Catholic.” (See last page of History of Heresies & Their Refutation in the section: "End of the Refutation Exhortation to Catholics").

Putting this in today's language: if the faith of the Roman Church prior to Vatican II secures salvation, and the Post-Vatican II Novus Ordo Reformed faith is at least doubtful, I will take the safe side, and become a Catholic and forsake the Post-Vatican II Innovators.

[Deuterocomical]

Vatican II doesn’t state that other religions are “right”. In fact, it reaffirms the objective superiority of the Catholic faith.

[speedygonzales]

Yes, if it is wrong, it must be RIGHT!

[Tom-iksc]

Thank you, I've been saying this for a while. I'd also add that at worst, according to Canon law, sedevancantists aren't even schismatic. Because Canon law says those who reject a particular claimant to the papacy due to suspicion or even rumors of irregularities, are not to be considered schismatic. So, there ya go, even if sedevancantists are wrong, they can't be considered schematic, since there is ample reason to question the legitimacy of these popes... Especially Francis.

[seankivlehan]

Excellent presentation of logic. It was along this same line of thinking I myself developed the courage to withdraw my family from the Vatican II religion years ago. If I am wrong, I am also right. But if V2 is wrong, it is catastrophically wrong for a billion souls.

[VesselofMercy]

I figured this logic out myself as a “sedevecantist”. Even though “new” world “order “ Catholics despise us for clinging to tradition. I asked myself, if Vatican 2 teaches Protestants who reject the pope, Mary as the at of the covenant, tradition, etc etc… and they can go to heaven. How could I not go to go heaven when I believe everything (except parts of Vatican 2) the Catholic Church has always taught.
Also. People act like the sede position is a new invention just after Vatican 2. There people who believed popes were bad or lived wicked, and even some who taught heresies before Vatican 2. (Not officially or ex cathedra) There was actually a book written identifying at 40 known anti-popes before the last bad apples.

[coencampbell]

“Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.”
-Vatican 1, Session 4, Chapter 2, Paragraph 5

Heresy and schism are mortal sins. It has always been understood that there’s a difference between the material and form of heresy. Heretics and schismatics who culpably deny the truth are condemned, this includes Sedevacantists.

We don’t claim that non Catholics can be saved through their own sects, we claim that they can be saved to to ignorance and their proximity to the true faith.

[duaneadams]

If all churches are part of God and everyone is saved, then why remain Catholic ??

[kristianpowell]

The problem being that the Church doesn’t teach some universalist doctrine, and never has. Firstly, salvation IS open to anyone until the hour of their death they have the freedom to choose Christ, baptism and his Church and attain salvation. But just because it is POSSIBLE for someone who is invincibly ignorant but in good faith to be saved doesn’t mean that anything goes. The Church has always and will always teach Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, but also maintains that outside of the visible church there does exist certain ways to be counted among the flock inside the Church if invisibly. So yes, Sedevacantists CAN be saved, but like schismatics, heretics and those with invincible ignorance their chances of eternal life are incredibly mitigated outside of the explicit and visible Catholic Church.

[danielscalera]

Never realized how far Vatican II documents actually go with their "ecumenism". Simply ridiculous really

[carapompilla]

Are you right? or wrong? It doesn't matter (postmodernist church...)

[rickardoribeiropinto]

Hi, TVC! New arrival in your channel, already a sedevacantist myself, and truly impressed by your exposition: simple, clear, cristalline and logical, and free of the prejudices so often found when talking about these themes. Already subscribed!
Two questions for you, if you're willing to answer:
1: Which sede institute are you associated with? CMRI, Mater Boni Consilii, SGG, independent, etc.?
2: Have you ever looked into Griff Ruby's Lumen Gentium Theory? He, in his two Sede Vacante books, expounds all ecclesiological doctrines relevant to modern times and develops a Theory to explain all of them in an academic and organizer fashion. Most of the Theory, however can be found online. I think it's a great analysis of the current crisis, that goes beyond mere basic sedevacantism and offers a full doctrinal and theological basis (like Cassiciacum, but easier to understand and more self-consistent) Even if you happen to not agree with it, it's still very thought-provoking
Long live Christ the King!