FrancisVacantism Leads To Sedevacantism

Pope Francis, Self Portrait. Vatican Museums.

I keep reading around strange theories concerning which the Evil Clown would not be the Pope, because Benedict (who appears to be his buddy) was forced out, or did not know what he was doing, or whatever.

I am a great fan of reality, and therefore do not believe any of that more than I believe all the other stuff about the moon landing or JFK's assassination. However, let us examine the consequences of FrancisVacantism for those who are persuaded of it.

Francis has already appointed Cardinals and – provided he does not die before, which I ardently hope – he will appoint more in November. If – quod deus avertat! – the Evil Clown goes on breathing and appointing further men in red, the situation will become worse. Any of his successors will, already now, have to be declared invalidly elected by FrancisVacantists.

At some point, Benedict will die and go to his, no doubt terrible, judgment. Then FrancisVacantism will only have Francis as a Pope. Will the invalidly elected Pope be now declared validly elected? If yes, how? Ex tunc, that is, from 13 March 2013? How can it be, if FrancisVacantists say his election was invalid? Or ex nunc, that is, from the day of Benedict's death? How can it be, if Francis should not have been “in white” in the first place, depriving the Church of a Conclave and with a Pope (Benedict) still in charge? The same reasoning applies if Francis – please, Lord! – stretches his socialist paws before Benedict. Is the new Pope validly elected? Certainly not, as he has been elected with FrancisCardinals participating to the vote? Rinse and repeat until Benedict dies.

No, the only logical consequence of FrancisVacantism is a Sedevacantism waiting to happen, and hanging on the rather thin thread of a very old Benedict. The usual escape (more or less revolving around “we must trust the Lord that he will clear up this mess one day”) is just as absurd as Sedevacantism, which first puts you in front of an absurd hypothesis and then says to you that an unknown event will, one day, offer them the escape from the absurdity of their own position. It's like saying that you think there is a no sun in the sky, but everyone thinks there is one because of a collective hallucination or satanical deception, and then proceeding to explain to you that in His good time, the Lord will take care to find an explanation for the absurdity of this position.

No. Reality must come first. There is a sun shining in the sky, and there is a Pope in Rome. Elected as such, recognised as such by the entire Catholic world, not challenged by even one Cardinal, as evidently the owner of the job as it can be made clear under the sun, and even lavishly praised by the same man who would have been forced out to make place for it. I will choose reality any day, no matter how unpleasant, to a “solution” that is just an elaborate and, in the end, futile attempt to avoid this (admittedly) very unpleasant reality.

See the papacy as a mirror of human frailty, and everything else will fall into place.

The same Church. The same Truth. The same Judgment.

And a horrible Pope, of which there have been many.

Shake everything, and pour it into your soul. It is the cocktail that was given to our generation. We shall drink it to the end, and die in obedience.

FrancisVacantism leads to Sedevacantism; and Sedevacantism may make you feel good with yourself, but it's bad for your soul. You just can't shape the papacy to your image and resemblance. It's the height of folly. It's proto-Protestant delusion. Still, there is no escape: FrancisVacantists will have no other way to go when the funeral mass for Benedict comes.

God is punishing us. He is punishing us so hard, that he has sent us an utter traitor as Pope. We do not react to this by blinding ourselves to the obvious reality. We look at the problem in the face and decide that we have to resist error more, pray more, and do more penance.

Death will catch Francis, his successors, and ourselves. When death catches me, I do not want it to find me in a state of utter denial, but in the humble acceptance of a well-deserved (collectively speaking) Divine Punishment all too obvious, all too real in my eyes.




Posted on September 14, 2016, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. Thank you, Mundy, for pointing out the crazy that comes from calling Pope Francis the Anti-Pope. Francis is just a slimy, scheming, slippery Jesuit who knows how to cause havoc in the Papacy without touching the protected part of his office i.e. the narrow infallibility aspect. And haven’t the Modernist Popes since V2 been doing the same thing? Promoting the Modernist cause without outright proclaiming modernist dogma or doctrine using the infallible power of the chair? And yes, what about the history of the Popes…we’ve had doozies.

    I agree that this point of view reeks of proto-protestantism and a wee bit of papalotry. The promoters of the Anti-Pope keep saying “but the Pope MATTERS”. Yes, he does. Which is why it’s so scandalous what this Pope is doing and a sign of God’s righteous anger toward us. The Pope mattered for all the many centuries that 99.9999% of Catholics never saw his face or read a word he wrote and were lucky if they knew his name. But just because he matters in certain regards doesn’t mean he can’t muck up what he is supposed to matter in:+) I get that these proponents want to extend the infallible protection of the papacy beyond the strict limits given to it via Vatican I via the “extraordinary graces given to the office”. Well sure graces for the office can be there for the taking, but God isn’t going to force the graces onto the Pope if he rejects them.

    Thanks for bringing clarity, reason and sanity into this argument. God bless~

  2. You hit it. This is another form of sedevacantism, essentially, born of the same (erroneous) theological roots and leading to the same theological and psychological state, it seems.

    Francis’ papacy is a dogmatic fact; the fact that a moral unanimity of the Church makes him pope – and this is true *even if his election were invalid* as Salza/Siscoe have recently elucidated.

    And it can’t be any other way. If it were, the Church could not work, could never have worked, as you illustrate above.

  3. Hey M – I left a comment a couple days ago and do not see it. Did you miss it? Thank you. (BTW this is “A Catholic Thinker”; you referenced a piece of mine about sedevacantism a year or two ago.)

%d bloggers like this: