The Second Vatican Council is to be rejected as a false council because it has erred in its teachings on faith and morals.

CMRI  — Theological Position: Sede Vacante

Sed contra: The documents of Vatican II were, as Paul VI himself stated in his closing speech (Dec. 7, 1965), primarily pastoral and did not intend to define new dogmas.

This synod… has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility.

„Pope Paul VI‟  — Closing Speech to Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965

While they contain ambiguities, errors, and statements that contradict previous magisterial teaching (material heresy), they were not promulgated with the full force of infallible definitions meant to bind the entire Church under pain of anathema. Their authority is thus questionable and their problematic teachings can and must be rejected by comparing them to Tradition.

[The Novus Ordo Missae] contradicts previous infallible teachings and decrees… In all instances a Novus Ordo Missae is a clear danger to one’s faith.

CMRI  — Theological Position: Sede Vacante

Sed contra: The New Mass is indeed a grave departure. However, Paul VI, while promulgating it, was, by the Holy Spirit’s protection, prevented from absolutely and schismatically abrogating the Traditional Rite and infallibly imposing his new creation in a way that would make the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church through this liturgical act alone.

Paul VI never, by his own signature, made this new liturgy obligatory.

Had Paul VI published a decree stating that the Pope has the right to write a new rite at any time, […] and that from now on every priest […] must use this Missal, then the sedevacantists would probably be right, because then Paul VI would have gone into a formal schism.

The Holy Spirit preserved him from that.

Fr. Gregory Hesse  — Papalismus, 01:02:04-01:03:45

Paul VI was responsible for the disastrous Novus Ordo Missae and the new, arguably invalid, rite of episcopal consecration (1968). His actions were objectively harmful. However, as argued above, he was prevented by the Holy Spirit from issuing a formally schismatic and infallibly binding decree that would have definitively severed his creation from any claim to Catholicity or absolutely mandated it in a way that destroyed the true Mass with full, unquestionable apostolic authority. He created a new liturgy, but the documents, like Missale Romanum (1969), lack the force to abrogate Quo Primum or to make his new rite the sole and exclusive rite of the Roman Church in a dogmatically binding way.

In this decree Missale Romanum, Paul VI says nowhere that this Mass must now be used… Had Paul VI published a decree… stating that the Pope has the right at any time to write a new rite… and from now on every priest in the Latin Church must use this missal, then the Sedevacantists would probably be right, because then Paul VI would have gone into a formal schism.

Fr. Gregory Hesse  — Papalismus, 01:03:05-01:03:42

His actions were those of a Modernist implementing a revolution, but within certain divinely permitted, though mysterious, limits that prevented an ex cathedra definition of heresy or a complete, formal, and juridically „clean‟ break that would make the vacancy of the See undeniable to all.

Sed contra: Universal disciplinary laws are protected by infallibility from commanding something sinful or directly harmful to the Faith when peacefully and universally accepted by the Church as legitimate.

The 1983 Code, promulgated by John Paul II, contains problematic canons (like that on communicatio in sacris). However, its problematic nature stems from the heretical mindset of Vatican II it seeks to implement. It being problematic reinforces the issue with its promulgator, but the Code itself is a disciplinary matter that a true Pope could change, unlike dogma. A true Pope cannot bind his successors in merely disciplinary matters.

If ever at any time it appears that… the Roman Pontiff has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy before assuming the papacy, the assumption… stands null, invalid and void… and let such ones by that very fact (eo ipso) and without any declaration required be deprived of all dignity, place, honor, title, authority, office, and power.

Pope Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio (1559)  — as cited by CMRI

Sed contra: This Bull of Pope Paul IV was a disciplinary measure for its time.

The papal bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio was a document that was basically no authority. It wasn’t dogmatic at all… The next pope who wrote about the laws of how to elect a pope didn’t even mention Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.

Fr. Gregory Hesse  — Paul IV’s bull and sedevacantism, 00:02:14-00:02:35

Papal electoral law has been changed many times. Pius X, Pius XII, Paul VI, and John Paul II all issued new conclave regulations, superseding previous ones. Furthermore, Leo XIII implicitly contradicted Paul IV by making the former heretic John Henry Newman a Cardinal, eligible for the papacy.

Sed contra: This canon refers to tacit resignation from office due to public defection from the Faith. „Public defection‟ in canon law traditionally means notorious apostasy (e.g., joining another religion) or becoming a public schismatic.

While teaching heresy is a crime against the Faith, it is distinct from the specific canonical crime of „public defection‟ that triggers ipso facto loss of office under this canon without any declaration. For a Pope, the matter is more complex, as there is no superior to declare his defection.

This is the judgment of all the early Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Ch. XXX  — as cited by CMRI

Sed contra: Bellarmine presents five opinions on how a heretical Pope might lose office. The 5th opinion (that a manifest heretic ipso facto ceases to be Pope) is the one he favored. However, „manifest‟ implies something notorious and widely recognized.

Theologians dispute whether this loss of office is immediate before any declaration by the Church (even if only a declarative one acknowledging the fact), or if such a declaration is necessary for the Church to act with juridical certainty. The very crisis is that those who could make such a declaration are themselves part of the problem.

This Conciliar Church is schismatic… heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre  — June 29, 1976 Reflection, as cited by CMRI

Therefore, those who promulgate such things cannot be true Popes, and the See of Peter is vacant.

Sed contra: A material heretic utters a statement objectively contrary to defined dogma. A formal heretic does so with pertinacity (stubbornness) and full awareness of contradicting the Church’s binding teaching. Only formal, manifest, and notorious heresy would lead to loss of office.

So long as a Pope proclaims errors… one cannot prove the sin of heresy against him… I cannot prove that he wants to say something other than the teaching of the Church. And the current Pope [JPII] certainly does not do that. He always emphasizes that one must hold fast to the teaching of the Church.

Only because his concept of Tradition is completely false does he believe that he can proclaim things here that… place him in, as he would say, „apparent contradiction to what is the Faith of the Church.‟

Fr. Gregory Hesse  — Papalismus, 01:27:01-01:28:02

The „popes‟ of Vatican II often present their novelties under the guise of „development‟ or pastoral adaptation, not as direct, formal contradiction of past dogmas which they acknowledge as dogmas. This creates confusion but falls short of the „manifest‟ and „pertinacious‟ rejection required for automatic loss of office in the eyes of the universal Church.

If a pope says: „The Council of Trent says… buy I say something else‟, then he would be a formal heretic, because he knowingly goes against an infallible council. But this is not what the modernists say.

The pope says „The Council of Trent says…

As Archbishop Lefebvre so profoundly explained, likening the current crisis to the Passion of Christ:

Just as then, so many faithful did not cope with the suffering of Christ and said: „Someone who suffered so cannot be God.‟ … And so, Archbishop Lefebvre said, the faithful today do not cope with the suffering of Christ. They cannot understand it. They cannot accept that the Mystical Body of Christ… the Catholic Church, is today subjected to such a terrible suffering, and they therefore deny either the human side of the Church… by overemphasizing the divinity of the Pope and saying the Pope cannot err… Or they come, the Sedevacantists, and they overemphasize now the human side, by saying: „Someone who errs cannot be Pope.‟

Fr. Gregory Hesse, citing Archbishop Lefebvre  — Papalismus, 01:34:00-01:36:53

The Church is both divine and human. Her divine side is indefectible. Her human members, even Popes, can fail. We are in a Passion. We must adhere to what the Church has always taught, resist novelty, pray for the Pope’s conversion or for a true successor, but not rush to declare the See vacant based on private judgment when the Church herself has not provided a clear, canonical path for such a declaration regarding a reigning Pontiff. The limits of papal power are clear; our duty is to the Faith, first and always. This is the path of true obedience and fidelity.

Should any, which God forbid, presume to think in their hearts otherwise than has been defined by Us, let them know and understand that they are condemned by their own judgment; that they have suffered shipwreck in the faith; and have defected from the unity of the Church.

Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854)  — 

This contradicts the Church’s teaching de occultis ecclesia non judicat (the Church does not judge hidden things). Yet, his definition of the dogma was infallible.

This was an error, as the Church does not judge internal thoughts. It was a teaching error in the decree of a dogma, 16 years before the definition of papal infallibility! The humor of God!

Fr. Gregory Hesse  — Fallibilitas Papae, 01:06:28-01:08:20

If a future pope proclaims heresy, then you simply don’t follow him.

Pope Pius IX to Bishop Gasser  — Mansi, 52, 1212-1214

He did not say, „then he is no longer Pope.‟ Furthermore, St. Robert Bellarmine, while presenting the „5th opinion‟ (that a manifest heretic Pope ipso facto loses office) as „true,‟ also discussed the other four opinions without definitively resolving the practical mechanism for the Church. The key is „manifest‟ and „pertinacious‟.

A Pope can indeed err in his non-infallible teachings or personal opinions, or even sin gravely, without automatically and secretly ceasing to be Pope in such a way that the entire Church is unknowingly following an anti-pope.

The sedevacantist position, while understandably reacting to grave errors, therefore simplifies complex theological and canonical realities. Ultimately the position is, that we cannot espouse positions and theories without dogmatic certainty.