On 5 July 2024, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) , in an "Extrajudicial Penal Process", simply declared Viganò as having incurred a *latæ sententiæ* excommunication , but was he even given a trial? Or does an "Extrajudicial Penal Process" mean he is sentenced as guilty without a trial?

Why is Abp. Viganò's (supposed ) excommunication for schism *latæ sententiæ* (automatic), not *ferendæ sententiæ* (declared juridical sentence )?

According to sedeprivationism , does a material pope (*papa materialiter*) have temporal authority ?

Vatican II appears to me to have been a schizophrenic episode in the life of the Church. With the psychosis still going on and getting more intense with Pope Francis. It’s as though there was a Spirit of Vatican I that has been replaced with a Spirit of Vatican II. Or as though the latter council was a counter catechism to the former. It’s extremely hard to interpret Vatican II and what came after it with a hermeneutic of continuity. I would love examples of this being done with the most controversial of the passages in that council’s documents. I have been looking at a lot of Sedevacantist material, especially that of Most Holy Family Monastery, and what it says seems to make a lot of sense. All they seem to do really is take the infallible statements of the Popes and Ecumenical Councils seriously, as well as that of the Magisterium. And there have certainly been more than two ex-cathedra statements from the popes, contrary to popular opinion. Long before Vatican II, both Communists and Freemasons openly declared their intention to set one of their own on the throne of Saint Peter. They were once very powerful forces in society, and probably still remain very influential today. Prophecies abound about a Great Apostasy that’s supposed to take place. And the Third Secret of Fatima was supposed to be revealed no later than 1960. Something just doesn’t add up, or rather, something does seem to add up, or at least appears to. I don’t believe anyone of good will can read the writings of the Church before Vatican II, compare them with that council and the writings after, and say everything is fine and dandy. Therefore my question is to those who recognize that there is at least a major crisis in the Church, why is sedevacantism false?

This is both a terminology question and a Catholic doctrine question regarding the status of [sedevacantists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism) , that is, those who reject the current pope as illegitimate. I found the following Catholic definition of "schism" in [Canon §751](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P2H.HTM) : > schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. This seems like it could plausibly applied to sedevacantists by the "official" Catholic Church, but I'm not sure that it actually is. The penalty for schism is severe – excommunication, per [canon §1364](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM) – and I haven't heard of this being applied. So my question is, according to the post-Vatican II *magisterium of the Catholic Church* – that is, the official teachings of the pope (Francis, Benedict XVI, etc.) and his bishops – are believers of sedevacantism necessarily in schism with the Church? If not, why not? And if only some are in schism, where is the dividing line? Note that I'm focusing here on the *magisterium* – not the views of sedevacantists themselves, nor those of theologians who recognize the legitimacy of post-1970 popes. Here I'm interested in the official teaching of the Catholic Church (as led by Francis, Benedict XVI, John Paul II, etc.).

I was recently listening to my favorite Catholic apologist Trent Horn talk about Sedevacantism on his podcast, and he brought up an objection that I’m curious to hear a response too. He said that if the See was truly empty since Vatican II, and becoming a priest/bishop required the laying of hands by other legitimate priests/bishops, then no current priests/bishops except for the ones ordained prior to Vatican II (I think he said it was 4 ministers) would be legitimate. Thus none of the sacramental distributions would be legitimate either. How would a Sedevacantists respond to this?

On to my next question of “catholic vocabulary”, I hear this word tossed around occasionally. What is “Sedevacantism”? Is it a belief? A heretical belief? A practice?

"[Sedevacantism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism) " is the belief that the See of Rome is currently vacant; that is, there is no current Pope. There are not very many people who believe it, but they do seem to be pretty vocal on the Internet. One thing that I don't understand about it is: What do they think *will* or *should* happen in the future in order to resolve the situation? (Of course, the non-sedevacantist majority don't think there's a situation to be resolved at all.) The bulk of what I've read consists of their detailed complaints about recent Popes, along with some wrangling about election procedures and the like; but I haven't seen much that's about the future. I understand that some of these groups have tried to elect their own Popes. Do they think that the global Church will/should come around to their position? Is there any kind of plan for how this might happen? Or are they content to remain as an elite minority while everybody else is condemned? I ask partly because I have a sense that there is an eschatological dimension. The contemporary movement reminds me of the late mediaeval apocalyptic theory of an usurping pseudo-papal antichrist and his battle with the true Pope, this being one of the signs of the end of history. (See for example Bernard McGinn, *Apocalypticism and Church Reform 1100-1500*, in vol. 2 of *The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism*, 2000.) I have seen sedevacantists talking about the so-called *[Prophecy of the Popes](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes)* , which has quite an end-of-the-world flavour.