Apologia Pro Vita Sua:

How I Arrived at a "Sede-Doubtist" Position (Part II)

A. Introduction

In Part I of this article, we explained how men arrive at religious conviction in matters which do not avail themselves of mathematical certitude, according to Cardinal Newman’s theory of converging probabilities (i.e., amassing such a cumulation of indications pointing toward a particular conclusion, that to refuse assent to the conclusion would be unreasonable). We reviewed the role disposition plays in this intellective process, as an explanation of why two men viewing the exact same indications can come to opposite views. And we explained that although the method is not without all risk of error, nevertheless, one can arrive at such a high probability of certitude, approximating what moralists refer to as “moral certitude,” that it becomes eminently prudent and reasonable to act upon the conclusion.

In this final installment, I will attempt to explain an array of factors which have tended to modify my position regarding the legitimacy of the conciliar and post-conciliar papal claimants, and caused me to arrive at my present position of “sede-doubtism,” which could be defined as “a position which considers the legitimacy of the recent papal claimants as being at least capable of question.”

But before proceeding, I would like to reemphasize the importance Cardinal Newman attributed to maintaining a proper disposition for the reception of truth: The man who is searching for truth is docile to it’s indications. And when these indications run contrary to competing principles already held, it can be difficult to set aside a priori convictions which militate against one’s preconceptions. If you came here ready to battle for your side (whatever it might be), you have already failed this test, and reading any further will be a waste of your time.

With this operative disposition in place, I’ll tell you my story.

B. My Position Until Recently

My position until recently was one of dogmatic anti-sedevacantism (i.e., an a priori predetermination to reject even the possibility that sedevacantism could be correct, and a semi-conscious or instinctive refusal to consider any argument advanced in its favor).

You will note immediately the defect in disposition inherent in dogmatic anti-sedevacantism, but there are a number of reasons for it (at least in my case):

Firstly, there was my SSPX indoctrination (social and doctrinal). I devoured all the articles, conferences, books, and sermons they published against sedevacantism, and therefore considered myself learned and already in possession of the truth, from which it followed that the sedevacantists must necessarily be wrong: If one thinks himself to be in the possession of truth, he will fight to retain it, promulgate it, and defend it, and that those who would oppose his truth are partisans of error to be fought. This in large part explains my formerly pugnacious demeanor in disputations on this subject.

But there was more.

I was taught, in the materials discussed above, that sedevacantism destroyed indefectibility, apostolicity, and visibility; it was schismatic not to accept the legitimacy of a universally accepted papal claimant; the identity of the pope was a dogmatic fact; Vatican I said there must be perpetual successors; etc. etc. Consequently, giving the slightest ear to the possibility of sedevacantism was an attack of the devil, and threatened to rob me not only of my own personal faith, but undermined the very credibility of the Catholic religion. Therefore, any consideration of sedevacantism was to be treated the same as an emergent impure thought: Smothered and dismissed as soon as possible, and this at an almost instinctive and preconscious level.

I was simply not equipped with the doctrinal foundation to accept the possibility of sedevacantism. So it was a war to the death, as faith and salvation seemed to be at stake.

But that fear would not last.

C. “Circumstances are God’s Marching Orders”

So this was my predominant disposition, and very obviously, it was not conducive to the reception of truth. But unseen to most, in the background, there were a number of peculiar circumstances which had been chipping away at my hostility toward the possibility of sedevacantism, and which, over time, would cause me more and more to reevaluate my own position on the subject.

First among these was my deteriorating relationship with the SSPX. When I’d first stepped foot in their churches, I was convinced that here was the truth. I’d found it at last. And as I mentioned, with that belief in mind, I became one of their most zealous lay advocates. But the reorientation of the SSPX in 2012 (and in truth, almost immediately after the death of +Lefebvre) came as a shock to me. Seeing the way in which they were turning their backs on +Lefebvre in so many areas, changing their positions as though they had previously been wrong, and hiding their quid pro quo compromises with modernist Rome from the faithful, was disillusioning to say the least, and it implied this question:

“If the reorientation of the neo-SSPX suggested they were wrong about many things previously, what else were they wrong about?” In other words, the betrayal of +Lefebvre and their about-face on a number of subjects had caused for me a trust issue.

Nevertheless, we hung on to SSPX Mass attendance despite being publicly aligned with the Resistance (there being no regular Resistance Mass venue in our area), in order to have access to the sacraments, and especially to put our children in the school. But because of various conflicts with chapel and school personnel, we were eventually given an ultimatum by which we would be forced to agree in advance and in writing that our children would partake in all school activities, or they would not be welcome to continue attending. Our opposition was likely known in advance, and we did not accept this ultimatum. Consequently, we were not only strained in our relationship with the SSPX, but were now also without a school (which was the only reason we moved into this area on the first place).

Between all the Resistance-related strife with the SSPX, and then the loss of the school, it began to seem as though God might be removing us from the SSPX, despite our desire to hang on. Then, in the summer of 2024 it was announced that a new priest would be transferred to the chapel, who had never been conditionally ordained in the old rite.

Checkmate.

Soon we would be without sacraments. Where were we to go?

D. The Lefebvre Quotes

Watching the SSPX do an about-face on so many subjects was sending me the message that they were subtly backtracking on many of their former positions (whether in order to ingratiate themselves with modernist Rome, or because they’d become convinced they were simply wrong), which they now seemed to doubt: Consenting to the 2017 marriage guidelines seemed to suggest they doubted the prior validity of their own marriages; reversing their position on abortive vaccines; discarding the post-1988 principle of action of +Lefebvre vis-a-vis modernist Rome; etc., etc. All these things had combined to form a trust issue, and that trust issue seemed to predispose me to question their positions on other issues.

As regards the pope question, I’d been familiar with the many +Lefebvre quotes seemingly supportive of the possibility of sedevacantism for many years. But somehow, my reflexive reaction to these, when presented by various sedevacantist personas online, was to presume they’d been somehow taken out of context, or misinterpreted, misunderstood, or at worst, were out of character and/or exceptional statements, made at highly volatile times (e.g., after Assisi), and therefore could not be considered +Lefebvre’s true position. But having come to look with a more critical eye on many of the SSPX positions, I involuntarily began to internalize these quotes in a different light, rather than through the indoctrinated anti-sedevacantist lens of former years.

I’m not going to post the litany of quotes +Lefebvre made which seemed to allow for the possibility of sedevacante (though they are contained in one of the resources in the Reading List at the end of this article), but if that great prelate can give a spiritual conference to seminarians in which he is considering whether or not an heretical pope remains a pope, and answers, “I do not know, I am not making a decision! But you can ask yourselves the question. I think that any sensible man must ask himself the question. I do not know,” then I would like to count myself amongst such sensible men, and allow that such a thing is possible.

But the big gap was to consider how such a thing could be justified doctrinally.

E. The Dominos Begin to Fall

So the ralliement of the SSPX to Rome had caused me to question many things coming from the Society which I’d formerly accepted on authority. Circumstances had forced us out of the school and chapel, and there was no Resistance Mass locally. I was soon to be a man without a country, so to speak. But meanwhile, I was understanding the +Lefebvre quotes in a new light, thanks to this reevaluation which the trust issue had inspired. But what was still missing was the doctrinal foundation in support of the possibility of sedevacantism:

If the pope was a “nope,” wasn’t a declaration of the cardinals or bishops necessary for the peace and certitude of the Church? Wasn’t it schismatic to question the legitimacy of a sitting pope? And what of the seeming issues pertaining to apostolicity (i.e., the hierarchy has vanished), indefectibility, perpetual successors, visibility, schism, dogmatic fact, and all the rest of the objections I’d been so well formed in? It seemed there were just too many objections for sedevacantism to be doctrinally plausible. And in fact, it almost seemed as if, in my former mindset, one could array a contrary list of converging indications against the possibility of sedevacantism (but only if one ignored the disposition issue, which is essential to the method).

Providentially, I believe, while all this was happening, a friend of mine had turned me on to a Substack called the WM Review. This was an altogether different kind of sedevacantist website: Well-researched articles without a trace of passion or animus, and they were hitting all the right buttons (including all those I mentioned above). There was no attempt to bind readers to their conclusions. Just a calm presentation of what the approved popes and theologians had said, with a bit of commentary for context. My new disposition combined with their writing style allowed me to read their research without engaging my choleric temperament, and this in turn facilitated a fair reading of the material.

About the same time, one of their authors (Matthew McCusker) was -almost miraculously, it seemed to me- allowed to publish a series on papal legitimacy over at LifeSiteNews, which argued among many other things, that, since Francis was a public heretic (therefore separated from the Catholic Church, of which the pope needed to be a member), Francis could not possibly be a true pope. I’d also been reading Dr. John Lamont (a non-sedevacantist) over at the indult Rorate Coeli blog, who’d compiled a list of Francis’s public heresies. These and other sources had begun dismantling my former objections, and I’d realized that arguments against sedevacantism which I’d formerly considered unassailable were in fact capable of convincing rebuttals.

I’m going to resist the urge to address all the objections against sedevacantism, and the sedevacantist responses. Instead, I’m appending a list of articles and authors I found convincing to the end of this article, but remember: The point is not to convince you the reader, but instead to explain how I became convinced that sedevacantism was at least a possibility. One by one, my objections began to fall like dominos, and my reasons for rejecting the possibility of sedevacantism became fewer and fewer. These authors had supplied the doctrinal building blocks, and it completely changed my perspective.

This was a watershed moment for me.

F. The indications Mount

Recalling Msgr. Flanagan’s emphasis on the importance Cardinal Newman assigned to good disposition, saying the man of good disposition “is already seeking the truth, looking for any sign from God, and when he receives it, he recognizes it as the truth, and accepts it happily,” I became conscious that an array of signs or indications was mounting, which seemed to suggest that God Himself was pulling me out of my perplexities, and setting me upon the course He wanted, and that this might be the local SSPV/CSPV chapel (Some of the indications below have not been explained yet, but I’ll get to them):

• With nine children (the oldest being profoundly autistic, and requiring more care than the other eight combined), homeschooling was overwhelming: We needed a school, and the SSPV chapel had one.

• We needed certainly valid sacraments, and with the proliferation of Novus Ordo refugees circulating amongst SSPX chapels, the SSPV chapel was the only game in town guaranteed to have them.

• We’d already cut ourselves off from the SSPX socially, then from the school, and finally sacramentally;

• The interesting timing between my new disposition, estrangement from the SSPX, and openness to sedevacantism;

• My friend’s advice to “let God put you where He wants you;”

• Finding newfound profundity in Mary Rathke’s adage from 20 years prior (“Circumstances are God’s marching orders”);

• My new reading of the Lefebvre quotations;

• The fact that our first Sunday at the SSPV/CSPV chapel would be August 4 (Feast of St. Dominic: My favorite saint);

• The arrival of the non-conditionally ordained Novus Ordo refugee priest at the SSPX chapel, just at the time when I was going through all these internal changes and reconsiderations, forcing us out;

• The fact that the SSPV/CSPV is not technically/officially a sedevacantist organization (even if in practice all or most of its priests are convinced sedevacantists);

• My friend Mithrandylan’s unsolicited comment that it was God’s “providence” orchestrating all of this; a sense I was already forming within myself, and which his comment seemed to fortify;

• Nearly all my former doctrinal objections against sedevacantism convincingly rebutted (each of which would have to stand on its own as a particular “indication”).

It seemed (and seems) to me that this was too much to chalk up to coincidence. There was a process which was taking place, and I was not always its cause. I had the sense that this wonderful convergence of circumstances was transpiring by design, and was being directed from above. But as I was not yet a convinced sedevacantist, while simultaneously no longer able to hold my former “recognize and resist” positions, it seemed I was in a theological no man’s land, so to speak. But I wasn’t.

I’d been revisiting the possibility of attending St. Anne’s Chapel (White Bear Lake, MN), run by Fr. Mrocza (SSPV), and in his semi-retirement mostly tended by the priests of the aligned CSPV. What a “coincidence” that not only did this group adhere to the pre-1955 Holy Week and Missal (which all know me to love), but they had a k-12 school taught by nuns. And although having only two schools in the whole country, one of them was right in my backyard. But what were their principles? Would a “sede-doubtist” like me, who was somewhat on the fence (even if leaning in the sedevacantist direction) be welcome? I was very pleased to visit Fr. Jenkins’ (SSPV) website, and read in his “Statement of Principles” a position which perfectly conformed to my own:

“Among Catholics who are presently adhering to tradition, bishops, priests, and laity alike, we observe a marked difference of opinion concerning the legitimacy of the present hierarchy. We hold that there is certain and sufficient evidence to assert, as a legitimate theological opinion, that anyone who publicly professes the conciliar religion does not legitimately hold any position of authority in the Catholic Church, for the reasons stated in paragraph seven. While we do not claim the authority to settle this question definitively, we believe that the legitimacy of this theological opinion is dictated by logic and a correct application of Catholic theological principles. We recognize that the definitive and authoritative resolution to such theological questions rests ultimately with the magisterium of the Church. We thus deplore the attempt of some to settle this question by acting as though they had the authority to bind the consciences of the faithful in matters which have not been definitively settled by the Church.”

This was precisely the perspective I had developed, what Ladislaus on Cathinfo had referred to as “sede-doubtism.” And mysteriously, there was the Church, sacraments, and school all right there across town.

The rest, as they say, is history.

G. Conclusion

I hope I have given sufficient explanation to those who have wondered how I arrived at my present position (whether they agree with me or not). The events, movements of soul and intellect, and circumstances I have described may not convince you. That’s fine. But they convinced me of the the possibility of sedevacantism. And according to my reading of Cardinal Newman’s method, it seems to me, as it seemed to +Lefebvre (in the quote above), that any reasonable man must ask himself whether publicly heretical popes remain true popes.

If you were to ask me, “Mr. Johnson, in plain words, which way do you lean?” I’d have to say that I tend to find the sedevacantist argument the more persuasive (particularly the argument from public heresy), and I’ll give you my reason:

It used to be that I was terrified to entertain sedevacantism, because I considered it a threat to my faith: If the Church has had no pope for 60 years, can it really be the true Church? Today, I see things practically the opposite: To admit a true pope can spread heresies by the handful in his official magisterial teachings is to negate the raison d’etre of having a pope in the first place (whether he does it infallibly or non-infallibly). More than this, it would seem to severely undermine the claims of the Catholic Church to be the one true Church and the one true religion divinely constituted by Christ, and is therefore a mortal temptation against the faith itself. Consequently, I have come to view sedevacantism not as an attack against the faith, but rather, as an explanation which enables men to retain their faith in the face of apostasy.

All that said, I’m aware of my own shortcomings, and the fact that I have been wrong in the past. It is not impossible to be wrong again. And so with this in mind, I refrain from declaring sedevacante as an act in humility…even if I suspect they’re correct.

This is more or less how I arrived at my present position.

H. Reading List:

1. Is Francis the Pope? The Argument from Public Heresy Suggests Not, by Matthew McCusker

2. Is Archbishop Vigano Really in Schism? by Matthew McCusker

3. Why Universal and Peaceful Acceptance Doesn’t Prove Francis is Pope, by Matthew McCusker

4. We Shouldn’t be Afraid of Concluding that Francis Isn’t Pope: Here’s Why, by Matthew McCusker

5. Pope Francis as Public Heretic: The Evidence Leaves No Doubt, by Dr. John Lamont (Note: Dr. Lamont is, somehow, not sedevacantist)

6. What Are the Consequences of Francis’s Theology? — An In-depth Personal Analysis, by Dr. John Lamont

7. Reply to Joseph Shaw on Francis, by Dr. John Lamont

8. Ultramontanism and the False Spirit of Vatican I: Response of Dr. Lamont to Critique by Fr. Brian Harrison

9. Papal Elections without the Cardinals? - Gaspar Hurtado, SJ (WM Review)

10. Papal Elections without the Cardinals? - Cardinal Billot (WM Review)

11. Papal Elections without the Cardinals? - Francisco de Vittoria (WM Review)

12. How Does a Pope Stop Being Pope? Wernz & Vidal Explain (WM Review)

13. Is the legitimacy of a universally and peacefully accepted pope a matter of faith? — John of St. Thomas (WM Review)

14. Public defection from faith does not require joining a sect for tacit resignation from office (WM Review)

15. “Universal and peaceful adherence” defense unavailable to traditionalists (WM Review)

16. Classic study admits invalid rites would NOT destroy hierarchy (SD Wright - WM Review)

17. Bellarmine does not teach councils are necessary for ipso facto loss of office (WM Review)

18. Could a pope destroy the Church? John de Torquemada answers (WM Review)

19. How an evil pope could destroy the Church - Cajetan’s objections (WM Review)

20. How to defeat a destroyer pope (WM Review)

21. Fake conclave, true pope? (SD Wright - WM Review)

22. Are modern churchmen “pertinacious” - or just “mentevacante”? (SD Wright - WM Review)

23. Lefebvre Quotes on Sedevacantism (Compiled by John Daly in Four Marks, 2006)

24. Perpetual Successors to St. Peter by Rev. Martin Stépanich OFM, STD