Is Mel Gibson a Sedevacantist? Sedevacantism verses Sedeprivationism

Are you ready to be confused? Then read on.

Most Catholics by now are aware of the heresy called “sedevacantism”. In short, it teaches that there is no pope on earth, and that Pope Pius XII was the last valid pope. All those since then are popes in name only. The term sedevacantism comes from the Latin sedes vacans, meaning “empty chair” – in other words, the chair of the Saint Peter is empty. So the sedevacantist teaches that John Paul II was an impostor and the same for Benedict XVI. The incredibly strange and non-Catholic Society of Saint Pius V (not the Society of Saint Pius X) is officially sedevacantist. Click here to learn about the Society of Saint Pius V.

Okay, so that’s sedevacantism. I think it’s sheer lunacy, but at least I can understand it. Here’s another position that is even more odd: sedeprivationism. Sedeprivationism follows the thought of the quasi-schismatic French theologian Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers. The term means that there is a privation in the occupant of the chair of Saint Peter, i.e. something lacking.

According to sedeprivationism, Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI were and are defective popes because they espoused the heresies of “Modernism”.

Here is where sedeprivationism becomes difficult to understand. According to sedeprivationists, the consent of these five men (J23 through B16) to become pope was faulty or defective on account of their so-called heretical views. As a result, they each became potentially pope, but did not attain to fullness of the papacy. In other words, they became pope materialiter sed non formaliter or “materially but not formally”.

Apparently, Mel Gibson is sedeprivationist and not a sedevacantist. I had a conversation with someone who recently met with Gibson to discuss this issue and Gibson seemed to grant that Benedict XVI is the pope but also that he is a faulty or defective pope. This would make him a sedeprivationist of sorts.

Thus, the sedeprivationist (like Gibson) does not believe that the papal chair is empty, only that the material popes who have occupied it are formally defective.

Does that makes sense?

Theologically, it doesn’t make sense to me.

Download My Book for Free
Thomas Aquinas in 50 Pages
Over 15,000 copies downloaded! This is a quick and easy way to learn the basic philosophy and theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas. The Popes of the last 300 years have endorsed St Thomas Aquinas. Learn more through this accessible resources. Download it for free.

Comments Policy: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic. If your comment contains a hyperlink to another site, your comment automatically goes into "Comments Purgatory" where it waits for release by way of moderation.

  • Maureen

    Have just read Peter Kelly’s “Cleansing Fire.” I can understand why there is much confusion! It helps me understand sedaprivationism!! I love the Catholic Church…am a daily communicant and know there are problems in the church, but after reading this book….wow!

  • Unanimous Consent

    “quasi-schismatic French theologian Michel Louis Guérard des Lauriers”

    He was the personal confessor to Pius XII, and was a dogmatic advisor on the dogmatic definition of the Assumption.

    He did put forward the sediprivation thesis, and prior to that taught at Econe under Lefebvre. He was later consecrated a Bishop by Thus. He was around 90 when he died.

  • Conclavist

    Didn’t know that Mel Gibson is a sedeprivationist. Wouldn’t surprise me. It seems like virtually all the sede vacantists are crypto-sedeprivationists. They bash on the “novus ordo” so very much, but yet still in a way as that they think there’s something Catholic about it. Me? I think the See became vacant but then Pope Michael filled it. We’ll see if my understanding changes as times goes on.

  • Sbyvl

    Saying that Sedevacantism is a heresy is ridiculous. What article of faith do we deny? Pope Innocent III, Pope Paul IV, St. Robert Bellarmine, and innumerable other theologians teach authoritatively that a heretic cannot be pope.

    To claim that the SSPV is “Non-Catholic” is calumny, and unless you can prove that they are not Catholic, you should most certainly offer an apology to them.

    Accusing faithful Catholics of heresy is nothing short of slander, and you should be ashamed of yourself.