It was bound to happen sooner or later. It seems like only yesterday, lay Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis was merrily writing article after article supporting his comrade Gerry Matatics, another Catholic lay apologist. As Fleetwood Mac taught us, however, yesterday’s gone and a fascinating new day is upon us. Gerry and Bob are merrily smacking away at each other about sedevacantism. In case you’re not familiar with Roman Catholic terminology, this is the belief that the last few popes have been heretics and anti-popes, which means the papal seat has been vacant and that Catholic church without a valid pope. In an email sent to a sedevacantist group (http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/), Gerry writes,
I believe, and publicly teach, that the Catholic Church has always infallibly taught that because heretics are not members of the Catholic Church, they cannot validly hold office in the Church, according to divine law, and that, should they seem to hold such offices, the believing Catholic must conclude that their election to and possession of such offices is null and void. This would include, not only the manifest heretics John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II, but also the manifest heretic and present illicit and invalid occupant of the See of Peter, Benedict XVI, who has the further handicap (unlike his immediate four predecessors) of not even having been validly consecrated a bishop, which, in addition to all other considerations, makes it impossible for him to therefore function as Bishop of Rome.
That, unfortunately, puts Mr. Matatics squarely on the shooting gallery, and Bob Sungenis opens fire with a response and condemnation of Gerry’s position. Thanks you guys. Once again you have clearly demonstrated that the so-called “unity” of the Roman Catholic church is nothing more than a vapour, a mirage that wavers in and out of perception. I believe both of these guys are walking in a straight line with Roman Catholic tradition, because I believe that tradition is about as solid as a bowl of runny stew. The deliciously insane part of such a debate is that, if the seat is vacant then there’s no one to offer an infallible judgement on the current pseudo-pope. If it’s not vacant, then no one outside of Benedict XVI can offer infallible judgement on his orthodoxy. The only one who can place the label of “heretic” on a pope is a subsequent pope (as Pope Agatho condemned Pope Honorius I – but that was back before ‘papal infallibility’ was a dogma), so as long as the line of alleged “anti-popes” continue, there is no way for the Roman Catholic individual to know with certainty whether they are being infallibly guided by Christ’s representative on earth, or a raving heretic trying to lead people astray.
Therefore, I advise my friends in the Roman Catholic tradition to not argue against Protestantism on the basis of “unity” or “infallibility” because it simply does not exist.

