cross-posted from: https://wolfballs.com/post/11146

The sedevacantism general discussion elsewhere had me briefly check in on the broader "radosphere" and I found a few topics I thought I'd like to comment on and see what people think.

Sedevacantism And Sedeprivationism Are Entirely Separate Ideas

I had argued this some time ago, and still hold this view of the OP title. Recently, some "independent trad bishops" +Dolan (sedevacantist) and +Sanborn (sedeprivationist) got in to a disagreement about sedeprivationism, in spite of them associating together for almost five decades, with Dolan arguing more strongly that sedeprivationism was an error that should be avoided. I consider them to be true bishops validly, but since no pope has approved of their consecrations, that they are not clearly licit bishops. Therefore, Catholics ought not to go to them for sacraments, as they are of doubtful lawfulness (the problem with the "independent trad clergy" generally).

What Is Sedeprivationism?

https://infogalactic.com/info/Sedeprivationism

Sedeprivationism is a belief today that Francis for example, has been validly elected as pope materially, but cannot formally become pope because of his acceptance of Vatican 2 heresies. Sedeprivationists have called themselves "sedevacantists", which I think is an inaccurate portrayal, and I think that they should consider themselves to be "in a league of their own"; I consider the assertion to be a category mistake. +Dolan has apparently argued something like sedeprivationism is part of the tentacles of the modernist institution that's taken over Rome; I have also thought sedeprivationism was a distraction that has kept Catholics attached to the currently Vatican, rather than to peacefully separate to be Catholic.

Is Sedeprivationism Schismatic, From A Sedevacantist Viewpoint?

I have previously argued that this view is schismatic in a sense, and that sedevacantists and sedeprivationists should consider themselves as entirely separate, because the sedeprivationists believe that if tomorrow for example Francis was to abjure all Vatican 2 errors, he would formally become pope. But sedevacantists would consider his election to have been invalid and would not follow him as pope, and would require a new election of a pope, and thus there would be a future schism. Since there is that future possibility of schism, I argued that in the present the views are divided so that sedeprivationism is schismatic from our viewpoint. I believe it is an erroneous view and that simply the Vatican 2 era papal elections have been invalid, rather than that they have produced "material popes".

Thus my views for some time now may be in line with what +Dolan is expressing.

When Did The Vatican 2 Church Separate From The Catholic Church?

+Sanborn argues, well, if the Vatican 2 church is entirely separate, when did this separation formally happen? There have been some disagreements among sedevacantists, but it seems like the break became apparent when Paul VI approved an alleged heresy in the Vatican 2 documents in December 1965. Then, retroactively it has been reasoned that John XXIII could not have become pope in 1958, and was a pre-election heretic, thus was incapable of being elected, and so the break would have been in 1958. I do not think really this argument helps +Sanborn, because if there was no point of break, then how can sedeprivationists justify their break from the Vatican 2 church? The same questions could be asked, if John XXIII was a "material pope", or Paul VI, etc. which I would not anticipate the sedeprivationists would necessarily have an answer to, and if they would then the same answer is true for the sedevacantists.

Abjuration of Errors

+Sanborn also argued that him and +Dolan never completely left the Vatican 2 church formally, by making an abjuration of errors. Thus he argues that the Vatican 2 church has some legal claim to being the Catholic Church. Instead I have simply argued that +Dolan and +Sanborn should have made abjuration of errors on some point. If say a Catholic joined a non-Catholic group, and then rejoined the Catholic Church, they are to make an abjuration of errors for having adhered to a group that adheres to error. This has been a problem with a lot of trad groups, a lack of requiring an abjuration of errors it seems, which generally to me is just another argument for "home alone" sedevacantism, or avoiding these various trad groups, which do not possess clear Catholic authority. +Sanborn claims, which I believe is true, that no "independent traditional" groups require such an abjuration. He thinks this is in defense of sedeprivationism, and of the "independent traditional clergy", while instead to me this is more of an argument for why they should all be avoided (perhaps there are a few exceptions). The Vatican 2 church I believe will also typically lack any kind of quality control on this topic (and will not often be strict about requiring an abjuration), which is on the laundry list of reasons I would avoid them.

Removing Excommunications

+Sanborn notes that he and +Dolan would have been excommunicated for example for participating in the Vatican 2 church, if it was a separate heretical church, and thus would be unable to remove excommunications as they are technically under unremoved excommunications themselves. Again, this is to me an argument against them functioning as "clergy", rather than an argument in support of sedeprivationism. Also I think perhaps an argument was brought up about authorities having declared people heretics as being legally different from the person being an heretic in the past - an example was cited of Pius V excommunicating a queen, I think. Well, one difference here might be that the Code of Canon Law from the early 20th century now allows for excommunications to be automatic, if someone becomes an heretic. So, at one time, there was no special organization of how heresy was dealt with in the early Church, then heretics were judged to be so by Church authorities, and now certain heresies may trigger automatic (latae sententiae) excommunications. So I'm thinking the objection may not stand, along these lines, in defense of sedeprivationism over sedevacantism. (Catholic encyclopedia on heresy: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm)

CMRI On "Una Cum" Masses

Apparently there was also a conflict about +Pivarunas of the CMRI suggesting that Catholics could go to "una cum Francis" masses, if no sedevacantist masses were available. For many years it was argued by sedevacantists that this was a schismatic action which I thought the CMRI was solidly in support of, as it professed communion with Francis, while sedevacantists believe there is no pope. Thus again you get more inconsistency among some of these sedevacantist "orders" (which is somewhat understandable given the confusion today), who have been frequently against the option of Catholics being "home alone" without sacraments. It would be better from the sedevacantist viewpoint, to avoid a mass that is schismatic and pray at "home, alone", than to commit an act of schism, would be the reasoning. Furthermore I've always been confused at how much some have wanted to make sure people go to mass "at all costs", as if sedevacantism is true, "home alone" is going to be the default for most of the world - most people do not live within a reasonable commute to a sedevacantist church, even if that was an option. Of course with the "pandemic", to me I consider these objections to be almost obsolete, as many people have been forced to be unable to go to church today, even if they wanted to, thus showing that it's possible in exceptional circumstances, to be deprived of sacraments for a time period, even a long one (as the example of Japanese Catholics shows as well, who were without sacraments for 200 years).

Does anyone have any thoughts on the issues that might clarify anything further?