Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism - Novus Ordo Watch

Archbishop Lefebvre's prudent line of conduct.” The question is entirely – or at least it should be – a
question of fact.
15. Fr. Boulet has now completed his expl<strong>an</strong>ation of the principles which he believes govern
judgements of heresy <strong>an</strong>d the loss of papal office attend<strong>an</strong>t upon public (or notorious) heresy. Now
he highlights difficulties inherent in the sedevac<strong>an</strong>tist theories he has seen.
4. Problems with the Sedevac<strong>an</strong>tist thesis: After the study of the theological <strong>an</strong>d
c<strong>an</strong>onical possibility for a Pope to fall into heresy, let me go to the subject that concerns us,
namely what c<strong>an</strong> we think about the Sedevac<strong>an</strong>tist theories which are being promoted
around us.
Before reviewing these difficulties, please recall that the theory of the bulk of sedevac<strong>an</strong>tists is
rather dull in comparison with some expl<strong>an</strong>ations of the crisis. As already explained, it consists
simply in denying that Paul VI was Pope when he promulgated the documents of Vatic<strong>an</strong> II <strong>an</strong>d the
Novus Ordo Missae, <strong>an</strong>d denying that John Paul II was Pope when he promulgated his numerous
erroneous <strong>an</strong>d even heretical encyclicals, as well as the 1983 Code, <strong>an</strong>d consequent upon these twin
denials, that Benedict XVI as the open <strong>an</strong>d unrepent<strong>an</strong>t follower <strong>an</strong>d successor of these two <strong>an</strong>ti-
Popes has made his own the acts of these two revolutionaries, <strong>an</strong>d thus involves his “papacy” in
their common condemnation. The root <strong>an</strong>d cause of this theory is that the infallibility <strong>an</strong>d
indefectibility of the Church dem<strong>an</strong>ds it. The “Pope heretic” thesis is a solution resorted to as a
result of difficulties inherent in considering that the Vatic<strong>an</strong> II revolution was prosecuted by
legitimate ecclesiastical authority. In other words, we look to the classical discussions of the “Pope
heretic” thesis by the great theologi<strong>an</strong>s as a solution to the otherwise-insoluble problems of
ecclesiology posed by the revolution of Vatic<strong>an</strong> II.
It will immediately be recognised that this is a minimalist position. That we do not seek to assert
things we do not know with certitude. That where there is insoluble mystery we leave it aside,
rather th<strong>an</strong> pose a rash <strong>an</strong>d false solution. In other words, our sedevac<strong>an</strong>tism is the least we c<strong>an</strong>
honestly assert, not the most. We only hold these claim<strong>an</strong>ts to be false claim<strong>an</strong>ts because we
c<strong>an</strong>not avoid doing so.
16. Fr. Boulet too is concerned with ecclesiology, but his seems to tell him that sedevac<strong>an</strong>tism is
impossible.
38