Former 'dogmatic anti-sede' author attributes change to WM Review
'Well-researched articles without a trace of passion or animus, and they were hitting all the right buttons,' Sean Johnson said.
(WM Round-Up) – A traditional Catholic writer once known for his outspoken opposition to “sedevacantism” has documented a significant change in position—crediting, in part, the influence of The WM Review.
, a longtime commentator associated with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and Resistance circles and now writing at The Seraphim, published a two-part reflection on Substack titled Apologia Pro Vita Sua: How I Arrived at a “Sede-Doubtist” Position. In it, he describes a gradual shift away from what he calls “dogmatic anti-sedevacantism,” prompted by doctrinal reflection, practical circumstances, and a reevaluation of long-held assumptions.In Part II, he explains that exposure to the style of argumentation employed at WM Review was one of the factors contributing to this shift:
Providentially, I believe, while all this was happening, a friend of mine had turned me on to a Substack called the WM Review. This was an altogether different kind of sedevacantist website: Well-researched articles without a trace of passion or animus, and they were hitting all the right buttons (including all those I mentioned above). There was no attempt to bind readers to their conclusions. Just a calm presentation of what the approved popes and theologians had said, with a bit of commentary for context. My new disposition combined with their writing style allowed me to read their research without engaging my choleric temperament, and this in turn facilitated a fair reading of the material.
About the same time, one of their authors (Matthew McCusker) was -almost miraculously, it seemed to me- allowed to publish a series on papal legitimacy over at LifeSiteNews, which argued among many other things, that, since Francis was a public heretic (therefore separated from the Catholic Church, of which the pope needed to be a member), Francis could not possibly be a true pope. I’d also been reading Dr. John Lamont (a non-sedevacantist) over at the indult Rorate Coeli blog, who’d compiled a list of Francis’s public heresies. These and other sources had begun dismantling my former objections, and I’d realized that arguments against sedevacantism which I’d formerly considered unassailable were in fact capable of convincing rebuttals.
We thank Mr Johnson for these comments, and would like to provide some further clarifications.
The term ‘sedevacantism’
The term “sedevacantism” is, in general, ill-defined and misunderstood. It often provokes what might be called “sede derangement syndrome”, leading to all manner of extraneous and secondary ideas (as well as a contagious moral turpitude) being attributed to those who are deemed to be “sedevacantists.”
In extreme cases, this has even led to calls for the removal of such persons from positions of employment.
Personally, we prefer to understand the term according to the more minimalist definition provided by John S. Daly in 2002:
Sedevacantism is the belief that the Holy See is vacant. If you believe that the Catholic Church today has no pope – no true, valid and legitimate successor of St Peter – you are a sedevacantist; otherwise, you’re not.
I stress that sedevacantism is not a movement. There are sedevacantists who go only to the Mass of sedevacantist priests; there are others who go elsewhere, and others again who don’t go to Mass at all. Likewise, of course, there are persons who go to the Mass of sedevacantist priests without being themselves sedevacantists.
So sedevacantism is not about who you associate with, just as it is not about whether you think that women should wear pants or your view on “chemtrails” or Archbishop Thuc’s “dental state” – it is about whether or not you recognise John-Paul II as visible head of Christ’s Church.
And since it is a belief, not a movement, sedevacantism does not as such have any goals or exercise any proper activity. If you have come here today in the hope of hearing us talk about the most effective way of restoring Catholic order, or increasing the number of traditional Catholics, or getting more subscribers to traditional reviews, you’re going to be disappointed. The scope of the two talks you are going to hear is not about whether sedevacantism is useful. It is limited to whether sedevacantism is true.
Taken from the following conference:
As a result, other issues such as the validity of Novus Ordo sacramental rites, attending Masses in which the priest names the false pope, and the current location of the Apostolic hierarchy, are all secondary matters, which stand or fall on their own arguments.
As such, “sedevacantism” should be understood exclusively as the proposition that the apparent Roman Pontiff lacks legitimacy, and that we are in a long interregnum.
However, while we might appreciate such a definition, there are serious question about the wisdom of applying a such a term to oneself when its meaning is so controverted – especially under the circumstances mentioned.
While the “persecution” mentioned above (which is mild, in comparison to what was suffered by the martyrs and confessors) should be welcomed as a blessing from God, we are very happy to receive comments such as Johnson’s (as well as those from Fr Relyea). They testify both to the actual approach taken at The WM Review, and the fruits which it can achieve.
Further evidence of this can be found here from a wide variety of readers, both clerical and lay:
Sean Johnson’s trajectory
Johnson is a longtime defender of the late Bishop Richard Williamson and the “Resistance.” He is the author of As We Are? – an account of “101 Compromises, Changes and Contradicitions” that he argues have taken place in the SSPX milieu since 2012.
“I was simply not equipped with the doctrinal foundation to accept the possibility of sedevacantism,” he writes, explaining his prior hostility. “So it was a war to the death, as faith and salvation seemed to be at stake.”
His two essays explain the role of a “convergence of probabilities” – a concept explained by Newman, to which he refers in Part I – also led him from an instinctive rejection of “sedevacantism,” to a more open reconsideration.
The change was accelerated by personal events and exposure to lesser-known material he had previously ignored and not registered.
Referring to a spiritual conference by Archbishop Lefebvre which WM Review had translated and published in 2024, Johnson wrote:
I’m not going to post the litany of quotes +Lefebvre made which seemed to allow for the possibility of sedevacante (though they are contained in one of the resources in the Reading List at the end of this article), but if that great prelate can give a spiritual conference to seminarians in which he is considering whether or not an heretical pope remains a pope, and answers,
“I do not know, I am not making a decision! But you can ask yourselves the question. I think that any sensible man must ask himself the question. I do not know […]”
… then I would like to count myself amongst such sensible men, and allow that such a thing is possible.
In fact, Lefebvre continues, going on to suggest that the priests of the SSPX should even start to discuss the question with the faithful, and prepare them for the idea that John Paul II was not a true Pope:
We may not talk about it, of course… We can talk about it among ourselves, privately, in our offices, in our private conversations, among seminarians, among priests, and all that…
Should we talk about it to the faithful? Many say: ‘No, do not talk to the faithful. They will be scandalised. It will be terrible, it will go far…’
Well. I told the priests, in Paris, when I gathered them, and then to you, I had already told you, I said: ‘I think that, little by little, we must still enlighten the faithful a little…’
I do not say that it should be done brutally, and throw this to the faithful to frighten them… No. But I still think that it is precisely a matter of faith.
The faithful must not lose the faith. We are responsible for keeping the faith of the faithful, protecting it. They will lose the faith… even our traditionalists.
Johnson’s ‘sede-doubtism’
The term “sede-doubtist,” which Johnson applies to himself, is meant to reflect a position that neither insists on the vacancy of the papal office nor accepts post-conciliar claimants as unquestionably legitimate.
It is a longstanding maxim of ecclesiology that, when there are strong, well-founded reasons to doubt a man’s claim to the papacy, the prudent course is to refuse recognition and obedience. The principle papa dubius, papa nullus—a doubtful pope is no pope—applies in such a case because jurisdiction requires moral certainty.
This is discussed by authors such as St Robert Bellarmine and the canonists Wernz and Vidal.
Johnson concludes that while he does not definitively claim the See of Peter is vacant, he states that he “tend[s] to find the sedevacantist argument the more persuasive,” and adds:
To admit a true pope can spread heresies by the handful in his official magisterial teachings is to negate the raison d’etre of having a pope in the first place (whether he does it infallibly or non-infallibly). More than this, it would seem to severely undermine the claims of the Catholic Church to be the one true Church and the one true religion divinely constituted by Christ, and is therefore a mortal temptation against the faith itself.
Consequently, I have come to view sedevacantism not as an attack against the faith, but rather, as an explanation which enables men to retain their faith in the face of apostasy.
The essays were published on Johnson’s new Substack The Seraphim, and include an extensive reading list pointing to key works and authors that shaped his conclusions.
Make sure you subscribe to The Seraphim – as well as subscribing to The WM Review, and sharing with your friends:
Johnson’s Reading List
Is Francis the Pope? The Argument form Public Heresy Suggests Not, by Matthew McCusker
Is Archbishop Vigano Really in Schism? by Matthew McCusker
Why Universal and Peaceful Acceptance Doesn’t Prove Francis is Pope, by Matthew McCusker
We Shouldn’t be Afraid of Concluding that Francis Isn’t Pope: Here’s Why, by Matthew McCusker
Pope Francis as Public Heretic: The Evidence Leaves No Doubt, by Dr. John Lamont (Note: Dr. Lamont is, somehow, not sedevacantist)
What Are the Consequences of Francis’s Theology? — An In-depth Personal Analysis, by Dr. John Lamont
Reply to Joseph Shaw on Francis, by Dr. John Lamont
Ultramontanism and the False Spirit of Vatican I: Response of Dr. Lamont to Critique by Fr. Brian Harrison
Papal Elections without the Cardinals? - Gaspar Hurtado, SJ (WM Review)
Papal Elections without the Cardinals? - Cardinal Billot (WM Review)
Papal Elections without the Cardinals? - Francisco de Vittoria (WM Review)
How Does a Pope Stop Being Pope? Wernz & Vidal Explain (WM Review)
Is the legitimacy of a universally and peacefully accepted pope a matter of faith? — John of St. Thomas (WM Review)
Public defection from faith does not require joining a sect for tacit resignation from office (WM Review)
“Universal and peaceful adherence” defense unavailable to traditionalists (WM Review)
Classic study admits invalid rites would NOT destroy hierarchy (SD Wright - WM Review)
Bellarmine does not teach councils are necessary for ipso facto loss of office (WM Review)
Could a pope destroy the Church? John de Torquemada answers (WM Review)
How an evil pope could destroy the Church - Cajetan’s objections (WM Review)
How to defeat a destroyer pope (WM Review)
Fake conclave, true pope? (SD Wright - WM Review)
Are modern churchmen “pertinacious” - or just “mentevacante”? (SD Wright - WM Review)
Lefebvre Quotes on Sedevacantism (Compiled by John Daly in Four Marks, 2006)
Perpetual Successors to St. Peter by Rev. Martin Stépanich OFM, STD
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Further reading:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
I believe that credit for coining the term "sede-doubtism" belongs to "Ladislaus" from CathInfo, who blogs elsewhere as "Vlad Sarto".
I really appreciate this resource. I regularly post these to the truecatholicfaith Telegram channel, associated with truecatholicfaith dot com. Thanks so much.