4.8. Isn’t sedevacantism a recent innovation, since I haven’t heard of this until now?
The commonly held narrative—promoted particularly by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)—claims that sedevacantism is a recent, divisive deviation within the Traditional Catholic movement, emerging around 1973–1976. Fr. Francesco Ricossa, in response to this position, argues persuasively that sedevacantist thought predated this period and was an integral part of the initial resistance to the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). In fact, he contends it was the SSPX’s position that developed later and attempted to centralize the Traditionalist movement around itself, marginalizing other early resistors to Vatican II.
I. Historical Roots of Sedevacantism
Ricossa presents evidence that sedevacantist ideas were already circulating before and during Vatican II, particularly among Mexican theologians and laymen. One prominent source is the 1962 publication The Plot Against the Church, distributed to all Council Fathers. It warned that Jews and Masons were influencing the Council to subvert Catholic doctrine. The authors implied that such actions could only be accomplished by a false pope—setting a conceptual foundation for sedevacantism.
In 1965, as Vatican II neared conclusion, opposition to the Nostra Aetate declaration became particularly vocal. Critics—including bishops and lay Catholics—argued that only a false pope or a false council could promulgate a document effectively contradicting 19 centuries of magisterial teaching on Judaism. This reflected the growing belief that the Chair of Peter might indeed be vacant.
II. Global Spread of Early Sedevacantism
Beyond Mexico, sedevacantist sentiments appeared in France, Argentina, Germany, and the U.S. between 1967 and 1969, particularly after the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969. Ricossa cites a pivotal meeting in July 1969 at Fr. Georges de Nantes' Maison Saint-Joseph in France, attended by prominent priests like Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, Fr. Coache, and Fr. Saenz y Arriaga. These clergy had already concluded that Paul VI was not a true pope.
In the U.S., figures like Dr. Hugo Kellner challenged the legitimacy of Paul VI by 1967, while in Germany, Professor Reinhard Lauth openly espoused sedevacantism in 1969. These early voices formed a global chorus of resistance that was not dependent on or united under Archbishop Lefebvre or the SSPX.
III. Other Non-SSPX Traditionalist Responses
Ricossa also highlights alternative responses to the crisis in the Church apart from sedevacantism and the SSPX:
Fr. Georges de Nantes held that Paul VI was a heretical pope but should be canonically deposed by the Roman clergy—a position distinct from both SSPX and sedevacantist views.
Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer (Brazil) supported a cautious exploration of the idea that a heretical pope loses office automatically, though he never publicly declared the See vacant. He also supported Fr. Guérard’s initiative for a public episcopal declaration.
The French journal Itinéraires, under Jean Madiran, gave space to discussions about heretical popes, legitimizing this as a theologically serious concern, even if not fully endorsing sedevacantism.
IV. Archbishop Lefebvre’s Delayed and Cautious Engagement
Contrary to the SSPX’s portrayal of Lefebvre as the original unifier of Traditionalism, Ricossa demonstrates that:
From 1965 to 1975, Archbishop Lefebvre took a cautious and quietist approach, neither opposing Vatican II publicly nor aligning with the early resistance led by figures like Fr. de Nantes or Fr. Coache.
Lefebvre signed all but two conciliar documents, and even those were eventually accepted. He praised Paul VI as late as 1968.
The SSPX was founded in 1970, approved by a Novus Ordo bishop, and remained publicly compliant with the Church’s authorities until after disciplinary actions were taken in 1975–1976.
Ricossa notes that the first major public stand of Lefebvre occurred only after the 1974 Apostolic Visitation and the 1975 suppression of the SSPX, which forced the archbishop into open confrontation. Only then did he begin to question the Council and the legitimacy of the reforms. Yet, even then, he did not declare the Holy See vacant, preferring instead to label the “Conciliar Church” as distinct from the Catholic Church.
V. Sedevacantists Supported, Not Divided, the Traditionalist Movement
Ricossa stresses that the sedevacantists were among the earliest and most loyal supporters of Archbishop Lefebvre, especially during his suspension and conflict with Paul VI in 1976. Figures like Fr. Guérard and Fr. Barbara defended him, despite their differences.
However, a definitive break came after Lefebvre began negotiations with Rome. By 1979, the archbishop publicly rejected sedevacantism and prohibited SSPX members from holding such views or denying the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae. Fr. Guérard, Fr. Barbara, and others then distanced themselves. Ricossa argues that it was the SSPX that initiated the rupture, choosing institutional recognition over fidelity to theological consistency.
VI. Conclusion: Sedevacantism as an Original and Legitimate Response
Ricossa concludes that sedevacantism is not a novelty, but rather a logical and early response to the doctrinal chaos of Vatican II and the New Mass. It predates the SSPX, which emerged only later and chose a different path—one Ricossa sees as ultimately compromising.
He challenges the narrative promoted by La Tradizione Cattolica, which blames sedevacantists for dividing the Traditional movement. On the contrary, it was Archbishop Lefebvre’s decision to pursue reconciliation with the Vatican—even at the cost of doctrinal ambiguity—that led to division.
Ultimately, Ricossa calls for a historically honest and theologically rigorous re-evaluation of sedevacantism’s place in the Traditional Catholic movement, asserting it was there from the beginning, often leading the charge when others hesitated.
Further reading:
History of the Traditional Catholic Movement: Is Sedevacantism Something Recent?