What do you think?
Rate this book
The Sedevacantist Delusion: Why Vatican II's Clash with Sedevacantism Supports Eastern Orthodoxy
The Sedevacantist Delusion concerns the new face of Roman Catholicism introduced with Vatican II (1962–1965) and its most antagonistic enemy since the Protestant the Sedevacantists. The Sedevacantists believe that the Church under Pope Francis is a substantially different organism than the Roman Catholic Church. Maintaining that today’s Church has been a counterfeit sect since the commencement of the reforms called for at Vatican II, they believe they are engaged in a battle of epic proportions for the one true Church of Jesus Christ. In provocative style, lifelong Catholic and former Sedevacantist John C. Pontrello wrote this book with the objective of proving that Sedevacantism violates fundamental doctrines of the Church and is therefore heretical. But in making his case, he does not shy away from the truth Sedevacantism brings to light about the Catholic Pope Francis is the real pope but only because the Church can fail and defect in contradiction of its own terms yet still remain the Catholic Church of the ages. With its critical examinations of the doctrines of indefectibility, visibility, apostolicity, and the papacy, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the Catholic faithful to look at the Church in the same way after reading this probing book.
322 pages, Paperback
First published August 22, 2015
12 people are currently reading
66 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
July 20, 2020
"If an entity exists today that could be called 'the true Church of Christ', the Sedevacantists have provided an invaluable service to Eastern Orthodox Christianity by exposing the Roman Church's defection with Vatican II while simultaneously disqualifying themselves and every other purported 'substitute' Roman Catholic Church in the process." p.243
December 24, 2018
It is always tempting to write about one's own spiritual journey when reviewing (and reading) books like these. Pontrello avoids the personal for the majority of the book, but I actually would have enjoyed hearing more about how he came to Orthodoxy. He organizes his critique of Sedevacantism well, and he chooses only a few of their major positions to critique. A book like this could easily swell to 1000 pages, but I was impressed at how concise he stayed (it was only 250 pages of argument with some appendices).
I may be overreaching, but I think this book could be all you need to leave the Papacy for Orthodoxy. While not addressing the position of the SSPX in any meaningful way, Pontrello demonstrates the contradictions inherent in the Roman position. He also removes any escape via the Sedevacantists (who are the most appealing as an alternate to the "Novus Ordo" position). As I said before I think the only criticism I would make would be that he needs a chapter at the end about Orthodoxy and his journey therein. While Catholicism has a lot of overlap, it has become a different religion over the 1000 years since the separation. In my own experience, there is some culture shock (though much less than leaving Protestantism for Rome). If you are a Sedevacantist or a concerned Catholic of any kind...you should read this and consider your own belief in the Papacy as it exists today.
I may be overreaching, but I think this book could be all you need to leave the Papacy for Orthodoxy. While not addressing the position of the SSPX in any meaningful way, Pontrello demonstrates the contradictions inherent in the Roman position. He also removes any escape via the Sedevacantists (who are the most appealing as an alternate to the "Novus Ordo" position). As I said before I think the only criticism I would make would be that he needs a chapter at the end about Orthodoxy and his journey therein. While Catholicism has a lot of overlap, it has become a different religion over the 1000 years since the separation. In my own experience, there is some culture shock (though much less than leaving Protestantism for Rome). If you are a Sedevacantist or a concerned Catholic of any kind...you should read this and consider your own belief in the Papacy as it exists today.
April 25, 2022
Sedevacantism can be thought of as a type of conspiracy theory, which claims that the Roman Catholic church effectively ceased to exist sometime between 1958 and 1965. This is because the pope, and bishops all became heretics, and have continued to be heretics. So the current Roman Catholic Church is a fake-Church and the Sedevacantists are the ‘real’ Roman Catholics.
The author spent several years as a Sedevacantist and this book is his refutation of it. In his view there are four main mistakes in Sedevacantism.
a) Firstly, it is committed to the claim that the church defected between 1958 and 1965, yet it is an RC dogma (indefectibility) that the Church cannot defect.
b) Secondly, Vatican I declared that the papacy is ‘essential’ yet Sedevacantists have no pope, so how can they be a continuation of Roman Catholicism?
c) Thirdly Protestants have argued that the Church is ‘invisible’ and that explains how Christians can have an (invisible) unity, even when they look disunified. Catholics reject that view, yet that is what Sedevacantism is committed to.
d) And Apostolicity is one of the essential marks of the Roman Catholic Church, but this consists in being ‘sent’ by someone with ‘jurisdiction’ to do the sending, in an unbroken line back to the apostles. However, Sedevacantists have ‘sent themselves’, so they have not got apostolicity, and thus cannot count as Roman Catholic.
The authors arguments on these issues are long and detailed, with significant quoting of original documents and source material.
In places the book becomes a line-by-line refutation of the main pro-Sedevacantist book (Dimond, The Truth…). This can mean that the arguments sometimes seem a bit repetitive, and they even become a bit ‘nit-picky,’ criticising Dimond for misquoting paragraph numbers (81%).
Some of the arguments did not seem, to me, to justify their conclusions. For example the author insists that if a pope is necessary, then the Church must always have a pope, as it cannot be lacking an ‘essential’ criterion. So there cannot be an interregnum (40%), but there have been interregnums, so the Church is wrong to claim that the pope is essential.
In the UK, the queen is constitutionally ‘essential’ to sign acts of parliament into law. But the country can still function in an interregnum. The author needed to explain more, why the essentialness of the pope must necessarily be so different.
The second main theme of the book is to show that Roman Catholicism itself is contradictory. This seemed to me to be rushed, and less well argued. For example the author cites the Filioque controversy as involving a (contradictory) changing of dogma (6%). But there are alternative readings of the dispute. So why must it be viewed as proving contradictions in dogma?
Similar issues arise with the other examples cited by the author.
The alleged contradictory doctrinal changes of Vatican II are also challenged by Roman Catholics. Some of the changes can be viewed as changes of policy, not doctrine. And some may be developments of doctrine, rather than changes. The book assumes a contrary interpretation, but it needs to argue that interpretation, if it is to be convincing.
One of the issues raised by the book is whether a refutation of Sedevacantism and Roman Catholicism really does justify Orthodoxy, as the true version of Christianity? If part of what is wrong with Sedevacantism is its lack of unity, and its propensity to split into further disunity, can’t that charge be levelled at Orthodoxy too?
Overall, there are some interesting arguments in the book, and there is a welcome wealth of source material made available to readers. But some of the arguments need more work, to be properly convincing. And the amount of detail in the book means that it will appeal most to readers who are specifically interested in Sedevacantism, and have some background knowledge of the issues.
The author spent several years as a Sedevacantist and this book is his refutation of it. In his view there are four main mistakes in Sedevacantism.
a) Firstly, it is committed to the claim that the church defected between 1958 and 1965, yet it is an RC dogma (indefectibility) that the Church cannot defect.
b) Secondly, Vatican I declared that the papacy is ‘essential’ yet Sedevacantists have no pope, so how can they be a continuation of Roman Catholicism?
c) Thirdly Protestants have argued that the Church is ‘invisible’ and that explains how Christians can have an (invisible) unity, even when they look disunified. Catholics reject that view, yet that is what Sedevacantism is committed to.
d) And Apostolicity is one of the essential marks of the Roman Catholic Church, but this consists in being ‘sent’ by someone with ‘jurisdiction’ to do the sending, in an unbroken line back to the apostles. However, Sedevacantists have ‘sent themselves’, so they have not got apostolicity, and thus cannot count as Roman Catholic.
The authors arguments on these issues are long and detailed, with significant quoting of original documents and source material.
In places the book becomes a line-by-line refutation of the main pro-Sedevacantist book (Dimond, The Truth…). This can mean that the arguments sometimes seem a bit repetitive, and they even become a bit ‘nit-picky,’ criticising Dimond for misquoting paragraph numbers (81%).
Some of the arguments did not seem, to me, to justify their conclusions. For example the author insists that if a pope is necessary, then the Church must always have a pope, as it cannot be lacking an ‘essential’ criterion. So there cannot be an interregnum (40%), but there have been interregnums, so the Church is wrong to claim that the pope is essential.
In the UK, the queen is constitutionally ‘essential’ to sign acts of parliament into law. But the country can still function in an interregnum. The author needed to explain more, why the essentialness of the pope must necessarily be so different.
The second main theme of the book is to show that Roman Catholicism itself is contradictory. This seemed to me to be rushed, and less well argued. For example the author cites the Filioque controversy as involving a (contradictory) changing of dogma (6%). But there are alternative readings of the dispute. So why must it be viewed as proving contradictions in dogma?
Similar issues arise with the other examples cited by the author.
The alleged contradictory doctrinal changes of Vatican II are also challenged by Roman Catholics. Some of the changes can be viewed as changes of policy, not doctrine. And some may be developments of doctrine, rather than changes. The book assumes a contrary interpretation, but it needs to argue that interpretation, if it is to be convincing.
One of the issues raised by the book is whether a refutation of Sedevacantism and Roman Catholicism really does justify Orthodoxy, as the true version of Christianity? If part of what is wrong with Sedevacantism is its lack of unity, and its propensity to split into further disunity, can’t that charge be levelled at Orthodoxy too?
Overall, there are some interesting arguments in the book, and there is a welcome wealth of source material made available to readers. But some of the arguments need more work, to be properly convincing. And the amount of detail in the book means that it will appeal most to readers who are specifically interested in Sedevacantism, and have some background knowledge of the issues.
March 12, 2018
Fantastic
A book most likely to be misunderstood by the non-sedevacantist and most likely reviled by the staunch sedevacantists; it is a treasure trove to those of us who either came within the fold of Sedevacantism or realized there must be a way out of that web. Until one has actively discussed, debated or been among these camps, one cannot appreciate not only the knowledge sedevacantists have but the way they will spin arguments against any perceived dissenters. The author does an amazing job of tackling every angle from which the sedevacantists day to argue and refutes their errors. Anyone can appreciate in reality the true sincerity of traditionalists and sedevacantists, and the author makes it clear; i.e. it is these who are left holding the bag of an image of the Church they refuse to accept and acknowledge defected. Worse, it is these very camps who in reality are also anathematized by the very institution they are trying to save. If you’ve had one or more questions about Sedevacantism that you’ve either been revoked for asking or cannot get an honest answer for, pick up a copy of those book. You will not regret it.
A book most likely to be misunderstood by the non-sedevacantist and most likely reviled by the staunch sedevacantists; it is a treasure trove to those of us who either came within the fold of Sedevacantism or realized there must be a way out of that web. Until one has actively discussed, debated or been among these camps, one cannot appreciate not only the knowledge sedevacantists have but the way they will spin arguments against any perceived dissenters. The author does an amazing job of tackling every angle from which the sedevacantists day to argue and refutes their errors. Anyone can appreciate in reality the true sincerity of traditionalists and sedevacantists, and the author makes it clear; i.e. it is these who are left holding the bag of an image of the Church they refuse to accept and acknowledge defected. Worse, it is these very camps who in reality are also anathematized by the very institution they are trying to save. If you’ve had one or more questions about Sedevacantism that you’ve either been revoked for asking or cannot get an honest answer for, pick up a copy of those book. You will not regret it.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews