Answering Objections: "What About Perpetual Successors?" Defending Sedevacantism - Part 2
Refutation of the Video’s Objections
Summary of the Argument Against Sedevacantism
The objection claims that sedevacantism is an untenable position because it contradicts Vatican I’s decree on the perpetual succession of the papacy. The argument asserts:
Sedevacantism allows people to ignore the crisis in the post-Vatican II Church.
Vatican I teaches that there will always be perpetual successors to St. Peter until the Second Coming.
If there has been no Pope since Pius XII (for over 70 years), then this contradicts the concept of perpetual succession and undermines the Church’s indefectibility.
A prolonged sede vacante period is unprecedented and, therefore, cannot be a valid position.
Bishop Pivarunas’ Response
Bishop Pivarunas refutes the objection by demonstrating that:
The Church has never defined how long a vacancy in the papacy can last.
Historical precedents, such as the nearly three-year vacancy between Pope Clement IV (1268) and Pope Gregory X (1271) and the nearly 40-year Western Schism, prove that a long interregnum is not contrary to Catholic doctrine.
The Church remains monarchical in structure even when the papal throne is empty.
Theologians such as Fr. Edward J. O’Reilly (writing after Vatican I) and St. Robert Bellarmine confirm that a prolonged vacancy would not contradict Christ’s promises to the Church.
A doubtful pope must be considered no pope at all.
Key Quotes and Theological Support
1. The Church’s Teaching on the Papacy and Interregnums
"Nowhere does the Church determine how long a vacancy may exist in the See of Peter." – Bishop Pivarunas
"The Church is a society that is essentially monarchical, but this does not prevent it from remaining deprived of her head for a short time or even for many years." – Rev. Deutsch, Institutions of Fundamental Theology
"If during the entire Schism of nearly 40 years there had been no Pope at all, that would not prove that the office and authority of Peter was not transmitted." – Fr. Hill, S.J., The Catholic’s Ready Answer (1915)
2. Visibility and Indefectibility of the Church
"The Church is a visible society with a visible ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible ruler is, then he is not visible." – Fr. Doyle, The Defense of the Catholic Church
"A doubtful Pope must be considered as no Pope." – St. Robert Bellarmine
"At the time of the Council of Constance, there were three men claiming to be Pope. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all." – Suarez, S.J.
Analysis
1. Vatican I’s "Perpetual Successors" Does Not Mean an Unbroken Chain of Popes
The objection misinterprets Vatican I’s teaching. "Perpetual succession" means that the office of the papacy will endure until the end of time, but it does not mean that there must be an unbroken, uninterrupted line of Popes.
The Church has already experienced multiple sede vacante periods, some lasting years. If an interregnum of 3 or even 40 years is possible, why not 70?
The promise of Christ (Matthew 16:18) ensures that the Papacy as an institution will never fail, but it does not require that there always be a reigning Pope at every moment.
2. Historical Precedents of Long Vacancies
The objection assumes that a long interregnum is impossible. However, history shows otherwise:
Pope Clement IV to Pope Gregory X (1268–1271): The Church functioned for nearly three years without a Pope.
The Western Schism (1378–1417): For nearly 40 years, three rival claimants to the papacy created massive uncertainty. Theologians recognized that it was possible that none of them were valid Popes.
If the Church survived these crises without violating Christ’s promises, why would a sede vacante period since Pius XII be impossible?
3. Indefectibility and Visibility of the Church Without a Pope
The Church is indefectible because it preserves the true faith, sacraments, and apostolic succession—not because there is always a reigning Pope.
The Visibility Argument is a Red Herring: The Church remains visible through its bishops, priests, and sacraments, even in a prolonged sede vacante.
Heresy in the Post-Vatican II Church Invalidates the Papal Claimants: If a man promotes heresy, he cannot be a true Pope. The sedevacantist position follows the principle that a heretical Pope ceases to be Pope, as taught by St. Robert Bellarmine and Pope Paul IV (Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio).
4. Vatican II and the Heresy of the Modernist "Popes"
The objection assumes that sedevacantists have a burden to explain the lack of a Pope. However, the real issue is whether Vatican II’s claimants to the papacy are valid.
The Vatican II "Popes" have promoted religious indifferentism, false ecumenism, and doctrinal innovations that contradict previous Magisterial teaching.
A heretical Pope ceases to be Pope. Therefore, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis are not true Popes.
The burden of proof is on those who claim these men are valid successors of St. Peter despite their doctrinal errors.
Takeaways
A Long Sede Vacante Is Possible and Not Contrary to Catholic Doctrine
The Church has never set a maximum limit on an interregnum.
Historical precedents, such as the Western Schism, show that the Church can survive long papal vacancies.
The Papacy Is Perpetual, Not Necessarily Continuous
Vatican I’s teaching on perpetual succession means the office remains, even if it is temporarily vacant.
Christ’s promise in Matthew 16:18 refers to the papacy as an institution, not to an uninterrupted line of Popes.
Vatican II’s Claimants Are Not True Popes
The Vatican II "Popes" have taught heresy, which means they cannot hold office.
St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope Paul IV, and other theologians affirm that a heretical Pope ceases to be Pope.
The Indefectibility of the Church Remains Even Without a Pope
The Church is visible through its doctrine, sacraments, and apostolic succession.
The sedevacantist position upholds the true faith, while Vatican II represents a departure from Catholic Tradition.
The Objection Fails to Prove the Vatican II Popes’ Legitimacy
The argument assumes that anyone elected must be a valid Pope.
If a Pope must be Catholic, and Vatican II’s "Popes" have promoted heresy, then sedevacantism is the only logical conclusion.
Conclusion
The objection to sedevacantism is based on a misinterpretation of Vatican I and ignores historical precedents of long papal vacancies. The Catholic Church has survived without a Pope for extended periods, and the visibility of the Church does not depend solely on the Pope but on the preservation of true doctrine and sacraments. Given that the Vatican II claimants have promulgated heresy, the only logical and theologically sound position is sedevacantism.
