Sedeprivationism is a term coined by William J. Morgan, an English layman and sedevacantist apologist. The word "sedeprivationism" is an amalgamation of two words: "sede" and "deprivation". Individuals or groups who follow the sedeprivationist school of thought, such as the Istituto Mater Boni Consilii and others, hold that while the current occupant of the papacy is a duly elected pope, he lacks the authority to either teach or govern unless he recants the changes brought by the Second Vatican Council.
History
The English layman and sedevacantist apologist William J. Morgan developed the term "sedeprivationism" in order to distinguish it from sedevacantism, a position which he held himself. He applied the term to one of the Catholic theological explanations for the traditionalist opposition to the conclusions of the Second Vatican Council. The traditionalists assert that the Novus Ordo popes have been defective popes. According to Morgan, sedeprivationists agree with French Dominican theologian Michel-Louis Guérard des Lauriers that John Paul II was "materially 'Pope' only"; that is, Karol Wojtyla was the valid electee of the October 1978 conclave. Although he never became Pope, he equally has never forfeited his canonical claim on the papacy. Guérard des Lauriers presented his thesis in a publication with the title Cahiers de Cassiciacum which states that the See of Peter is not obtained and must conform with one of two prescribed requirements of a legitimate papal election by the Novus Ordo popes. The two criteria are:
That the pope is elected legitimately by valid designated electors. This aspect designates the papal candidate as materially elected and designated candidate to the office of pope.
That the newly chosen pope-elect expresses his acceptance and that on giving his assent he receive from Christ the form of the papacy i.e. the indefectible power or authority promised to Saint Peter and his successors by which the elected candidate formally becomes pope and actually takes hold of the office of the papacy.
The sedeprivationist thesis as held by the Istituto Mater Boni Consilii contends that both of these aspects are required and should any candidate fail in either one, he would be elected to the office of pope. The Catholics of the sedeprivationist school hold that all claimants of the papal office from at least Paul VI toFrancis are invalid and that they do not hold the papal office except by right of designation due to a failure to receive the form of the papacy because his acceptance is impeded by a defective intention arising from their manifest disposition of apostasy. Sede vacante technically refers to the period between a papal death and a newly elected papal candidate. During the interim period, the period of time when the papal seat was vacant, the chamberlain, the Cardinal Camerlengo, administered the church in lieu of the pope. Sedevacantism is the notion of some Catholics that in this time of the Novus Ordo popes the state of the papacy is that of sede vacante. Sedeprivationism seeks to clarify and distinguish between sedevacantism, a simple and complete vacancy, and the more complex current state of affairs in the Church where there is an elected successor to Peter though deprived of the reception of the authority of the office. The term sedeplenist may also be used to signify the minds of Catholics like the Society of Saint Pius X who believe the Novus Ordo popes are fully fledged popes and are truly in possession of the full authority promised by Christ to Saint Peter and his successors, yet have substantially erred in the teaching of the universal ordinary magisterium on matters of faith and morals. In their perspective they believe this kind of error is possible and has occurred, so they may lawfully recognize and resist the fully seated papal authority on the most essential matters which constitute a religion: doctrine, morals, liturgy, sacramental system, code of law, and nature of government.
Description
According to Guerard des Lauriers' thesis, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI and Francis were or are defective popes in that, due to their espousal of the "modernist heresy", their consent to become pope was faulty or defective, so that they were legally designated to be pope yet became deprived of attaining full succession to the authority of Peter. Guerard des Lauriers' thesis holds that the Vatican II popes succeed as legal designees to the papacy and continue the line of Saint Peter materially, which means that the Vatican II Novus Ordo popes are legitimate designees to be true popes but not formally. As such, they lack jurisdictional authority because of the obstacle that they posit to the reception of the authority. They are not the authority, true popes, or true bishops, but are legally in the position to become true popes and bishops if they should remove the obstacle to the reception of the authority of the office. Donald Sanborn writes:
Because the power of designation to office pertains to the purely legal and material side of authority, the Novus Ordites possess the power to legitimately designate to positions of power, until such time as this power is legally removed from them. As a result, there is a material hierarchy in place, i.e., someone legally nominated to be a pope, and others legally nominated to be bishops, and others legally nominated to be electors of popes, but none of these has any jurisdiction, and obedience is owed to none of them. Because they lack the authority, which is the form which makes them to be what they are, Ratzinger is a false pope and the bishops are false bishops. The cardinals are true electors, to the extent that they are legally nominated to be designators of the pope. But their role pertains to the material order of authority, the order of designation only.
Corollaries
There is no real sede vacante state in the Novus Ordo popes since a man fills the role of potential pope;
If the current potential pope recants from modernism and returns to Catholicism, he will complete the process and attain to the fullness of the papacy – all else being equal.
Arguably, the feud between those who say the Chair of Saint Peter is totally empty and those who say it is totally full can come to an end as the answer is neither of these two explanations as they compromise either the perpetuity of succession or the doctrine of indefectibility and infallibility.
