What's the Straight Dope on Sedevacantism?

[Scholar Beardpig]

(note: I realize that I'm asking a question, but since it's a very broad question and it's about religion, I figured I should put it here.)

When I was in high school, I had a friend named Charlie. While we were in school together, he converted to Catholicism and became a bit of a fanatic. I didn't think very much of it at the time, and after we graduated we lost touch.

Hoo, boy... I recently tried to track it down, and it turns out that he is now neck-deep in Sedevacantism. He had previously run a Facebook group about burning books (and people) and how we should go back to having kings and how the French Revolution was the greatest apocalypse in history. Now, he is apparently a contributor for a blog about the same. I think he even got expelled from college. I tried to talk to him a bit, but he's wrapped up entirely in his personal crusade. I don't think he considers himself my friend anymore, though I like to think I'm still his - or would be, if he'd have me. To me, this looks like a cult situation, or it would be if they all got together in one place.

What is the deal with Sedevacantism? As far as I can tell, it seems to be people who want to have their cake and eat it, too - they love the idea of having an infallible church, but they don't think their church is being very infallible. Where does it come from? Are they just a total fringe group, or do they represent the coalescence of a larger phenomenon? Are their sentiments popular, and are they dangerous?

Also: yes, this is my first post, but I've been lurking for like six years. Got a new computer for christmas, been setting it up, thought I'd join. Glad to be here, et cetera.

[TriPolar]

For others who had no idea what sedavantism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedevacantism) is.

[foolsguinea]

Welcome the SDMB, Scholar Beardpig!

...

Yeah, I don't know really. Religious groups do that sometimes.

[Simplicio]

Hmm...I've heard the word in the sense of Catholics that reject Vatican II, but I don't think I've heard of anyone calling for a return to Monarchy and people burning! Do you have a link to the blog you were talking about?

[clairobscur]

I'm no expert, but I think it's a very fringe position. Even the "traditionalists" followers of Mgr Lefebvre who rose in opposition to the decisions of the Vatican II council, and were themselves quite a marginal (though not insignificant) group never went as far as espousing sedevacantism. They might have thought the Pope was in error, but not so much so that he wasn't legitimate.


By the way, if I'm not mistiken, some sedevacantist even elected somehow their own pope. Those must be the fringe of the fringe of the marginals.



ETA : I never heard of anyone wanting to burn people, either. OTOH, wishing a return to monarchy isn't something I find that surprising for a *French* catholic integrist. I'm quite surprised, though, that an American (I suppose) would espouse such a position.

[Scholar Beardpig]

ETA : I never heard of anyone wanting to burn people, either. OTOH, wishing a return to monarchy isn't something I find that surprising for a *French* catholic integrist. I'm quite surprised, though, that an American (I suppose) would espouse such a position.

He was an American born-and-raised, but his ancestors were Acadians, so I guess that's where he got it.

Once this mythical New Catholic Monarchy was created - he called it Ascalonia - he told me about how the first order of business would be to put all non-Catholics in camps...

Has the Pope, or a Pope, ever made a concrete statement on these guys, or is the Catholic far-right just a badly-kept secret? It seems like this is the sort of thing popes would come down on hard. I imagine that Bricker, being the expert on all things Catholic, probably knows all there is to know about this. I wonder if he'll swing by...

[tomndebb]

- he called it Ascalonia -They are going to name their new nation/empire/whatever the Spanish word for a shallot?

Once this mythical New Catholic Monarchy was created - he called it Ascalonia - he told me about how the first order of business would be to put all non-Catholics in camps...Catholics are still pretty well outnumbered by the rest of the world and his fringe group is composed of a few hundred ex-Catholics. He is not connected to reality in any way.

-Has the Pope, or a Pope, ever made a concrete statement on these guys, or is the Catholic far-right just a badly-kept secret? It seems like this is the sort of thing popes would come down on hard. I imagine that Bricker, being the expert on all things Catholic, probably knows all there is to know about this. I wonder if he'll swing by...It is not so much a secret as a bad joke. Why should the pope take any notice of a tiny group of people who have excommunicated themselves while claiming that they are the "real" church. Popes have failed to take note of these guys in the same way they have failed to take note of Jack Chick.

Generally, as one person or another has decided to denounce the church and proclaim Sede Vacante, the local bishop will have declared them wrong. If the person is a bishop, priest, or teacher, the bishop will have removed him (or her) from any position of authority in the church and told them that they would be allowed back if they renounced their error. As Clairobscur noted, even Lefebvre refused to go along with sedevacantism and if you can't get the biggest heresiarch in the last century to go along with you, you are pretty much the fringe of the fringe.

As to some odd Catholic Monarchy, I suspect that that group is the fringe on the fringe of the fringe. I know of most of the odd reactions to Vatican II, and I had not heard of them prior to this thread.

[Scholar Beardpig]

I am going to go out on a limb and link to a piece of his work, in fact, the only piece of his work that I could readily find - most of his great screeds were on Facebook, and he has taken them all down. (I would like to believe that it's because I trounced him, but more likely it's because he wised up and decided to be less public.)

http://rencesvals.blogspot.com/2008/10/domino-gloria-lessons-from-lepanto.html

This is my favorite part. It's not a quotation, it's something he wrote in absolute, chilling seriousness.

Meanwhile, in Europe, heresy was rampant; all of northern Europe was lost to the darkness of joyless Protestant individualism; northern German princes greedily stopped paying tribute to Christ, saving tax revenues for their own disposal. In 1562, the perfidious Huguenots infected France like the plague, stalking the countryside in full armour, killing Christians, destroying monasteries, and desecrating Our Lord in His churches. With the Social Kingship of Christ being undermined by positive treason from within, and the power of the cursèd Mohammedans growing daily without, many Christians asked themselves the natural question : Is God punishing us for our lukewarmness and our sins ? Christendom was at its nadir; the orthodox Faith was being attacked by infidels on all sides, and now the Mohammedans were beginning a campaign directly against the Italian peninsula itself in the hope to take Rome and destroy Christianity once and for all.

After some crafty Googling, the last thing I saw about him was from 2010. I hope the poor man's not getting himself in trouble...

[Ludovic]

They are going to name their new nation/empire/whatever the Spanish word for a shallot?
As God has declared, so shallot be.

[Anduril]

You win.

[Merneith]

They are going to name their new nation/empire/whatever the Spanish word for a shallot?

Ascalon is Ashkelon, an ancient city on the Isreali coast and the site of an important battle in the First Crusade. It's name was given to the lance carried by St. George when he slew that dragon.

The name is also used in the Guild Wars video game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascalon

[Condescending Robot]

It is not so much a secret as a bad joke. Why should the pope take any notice of a tiny group of people who have excommunicated themselves while claiming that they are the "real" church. Popes have failed to take note of these guys in the same way they have failed to take note of Jack Chick.

That's not quite true. Sedevacantism is only one degree more extreme than the Society of St. Pius X, which believes nearly all of the same things but stops short of explicitly denying the legitimacy of the Pope. The Papacy has been heavily involved in negotiating with, condemning, reinstituting, and so on, towards the SSPX and the priests it has consecrated. Catholics who want to hold on to the mandatory Latin mass, to anti-Semitism, to whatever else the sedevacantists reject about Vatican II are a substantial minority within the Church that the Papacy has been engaging with in various ways ever since Vatican II happened. It's not equivalent to one American Protestant leaving brochures in lobbies.

[tomndebb]

That's not quite true. Sedevacantism is only one degree more extreme than the Society of St. Pius X, which believes nearly all of the same things but stops short of explicitly denying the legitimacy of the Pope. The Papacy has been heavily involved in negotiating with, condemning, reinstituting, and so on, towards the SSPX and the priests it has consecrated. Catholics who want to hold on to the mandatory Latin mass, to anti-Semitism, to whatever else the sedevacantists reject about Vatican II are a substantial minority within the Church that the Papacy has been engaging with in various ways ever since Vatican II happened. It's not equivalent to one American Protestant leaving brochures in lobbies.My comment was in regards to the particular extreme fringe talking about restoring the world to a God appointed monarchy, so it is, as I noted, on the fringe of sedevacantism that is on the fringe of the SSPX bunch, that is on the fringe of the far right of the church. Spending effort on that extreme group is like bothering to correct the lies and errors of Chick.

On the other hand, your "substantial minority" is much more minority than substantial. We are still talking about a set of disparate groups, not all of whom agree with each other, numbering in the thousands* among an institution numbering over a billion. Even folks following the Pius X society vary from people who supported Lefebvre to the point of excommunicaton to folks who would just like to attend Mass in Latin. The church is never going to return to a global policy of approving only the Tridentine, (much less Latin), Mass. And while Lefebvre's bunch, specifically, certainly harbored a fair amount of anti-semitism, (including one real-life former Vichy officer), the expressions of anti-semitism within that group have tended to put periodic halts to any efforts at reconciliation.

* There are only around 500 priests, 120 brothers, and 170 sisters in SSPX. In the unlikely event that every priest had a congregation of 1,000 parishoners, there would be around a half million lay followers of SSPX. For that number, (concentrated in a relatively few countries), even though they number less that 0.05% of the church, the church is going to try to keep open lines of communication. Not so much for a handful of bloggers.

[tomndebb]

Ascalon is Ashkelon, an ancient city on the Isreali coast and the site of an important battle in the First Crusade. It's name was given to the lance carried by St. George when he slew that dragon. Thank you.



(I wonder if dragons are related to vampires, defeated by shallots instead of garlic?)

[BrainGlutton]

By the way, if I'm not mistiken, some sedevacantist even elected somehow their own pope. Those must be the fringe of the fringe of the marginals.

There are at least four Conclavist antipopes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conclavism#Conclavist_antipopes)

[Condescending Robot]

And while Lefebvre's bunch, specifically, certainly harbored a fair amount of anti-semitism, (including one real-life former Vichy officer), the expressions of anti-semitism within that group have tended to put periodic halts to any efforts at reconciliation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/world/europe/25pope.html?pagewanted=all

It seems that actual Holocaust denial is no barrier at all to said reconciliation. The anti-Semitism has nothing to do with what remaining opposition to Lefebvrism the current Pope has; as long as they agree in principle to his authority he obviously could not care less.

[tomndebb]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/world/europe/25pope.html?pagewanted=all

It seems that actual Holocaust denial is no barrier at all to said reconciliation. The anti-Semitism has nothing to do with what remaining opposition to Lefebvrism the current Pope has; as long as they agree in principle to his authority he obviously could not care less.Old news that you apparently did not follow.

Williamson's comments were aired on Swedish TV during the period when the reversal of the excommunication was being arranged. It was released on the internet just days before the announcement was made. Once the the Swedisn show hit the internet, the Vatican announced that while the excommunication of all four bishops had been reversed, Williamson would be prohibited from exercising any episcopal duties until he renounced his pro-Nazi views. Williamson issued a half-hearted apology that the Vatican utterly rejected, leaving him with no position in the church. Williamson's SSPX superior then further apologized for Williamson's behavior and added his own command that Williamson refrain from any public statements or activities.

[BrainGlutton]

Well, if Benedict XVI is not conservative enough for the Sedevacantists, I wonder who would be?

[MEBuckner]

Well, if Benedict XVI is not conservative enough for the Sedevacantists, I wonder who would be?
Pius IX? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabus_of_Errors)

[Saintly Loser]

By the way, if I'm not mistiken, some sedevacantist even elected somehow their own pope. Those must be the fringe of the fringe of the marginals.

I think there might be a couple of antipopes floating around. The one I know about is Pope Michael of Kansas, who was elected pope by a conclave consisting of, if I remember right, his parents and next-door neighbors or something. Apparently the poor guy takes the whole thing pretty seriously, and issues encyclicals and papal pronouncements every now and then.

I don't think he has much of a following (actually, I don't think he has any following). I don't even think he's a priest, let alone a bishop.

As far as I can tell, the sedevacantists are just plain nuts. Even the Lefevebrists (a/k/a the Society of St. Pius X) are pretty nuts. And, if you ask me, they're taken way too seriously by the Vatican, who ought to just ignore them to death.

[MEBuckner]

The one I know about is Pope Michael of Kansas, who was elected pope by a conclave consisting of, if I remember right, his parents and next-door neighbors or something.
pouts

My parents never elected me Pope!

[Alessan]

Well, if Benedict XVI is not conservative enough for the Sedevacantists, I wonder who would be?

Urban II.

[Princhester]

pouts

My parents never elected me Pope!

Don't just stand their pouting, appoint yourself. What do you need votes for? Religious leaders aren't usually democratically elected and I see no reason for you to be an exception.

[MEBuckner]

Yeah, but it's the thought that counts.

[Saint Cad]

I think the Catholic Church has been Sedevacantic since AD 381 when they allowed those that believe in God ex nihilo to be practicing Catholics. Fucking Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II)

[clairobscur]

I think the Catholic Church has been Sedevacantic since AD 381 when they allowed those that believe in God ex nihilo to be practicing Catholics. Fucking Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II)


Wow! I never had heard of the existence of this theological issue and had to look it up. Interesting and makes sense, by the way.


Sorry for not explaining more since those who don't know any better than I did are probably left wondering, but I can't really try to explain something I learnt the very basics of 5 minutes ago.

[Nametag]

I think the Catholic Church has been Sedevacantic since AD 381 when they allowed those that believe in God ex nihilo to be practicing Catholics. Fucking Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II)

I don't know this subject very well, but I have two questions:

1) By "believe in God ex nihilo," do you mean that they believe in God's emergence from nothing, or that their belief comes from nowhere, as opposed to being informed by catechism (or whatever they did in the 4th century)?

2) Whatever the answer to the first question is, how does it conflict with Catholic doctrine, either then or now?

[Grumman]

Once this mythical New Catholic Monarchy was created - he called it Ascalonia - he told me about how the first order of business would be to put all non-Catholics in camps...
Catholics are still pretty well outnumbered by the rest of the world and his fringe group is composed of a few hundred ex-Catholics. He is not connected to reality in any way.
I'm thinking a fenced compound that was built to stop people "escaping" inside.

[smiling bandit]

[Post Deleted]

[Saint Cad]

I don't know this subject very well, but I have two questions:

1) By "believe in God ex nihilo," do you mean that they believe in God's emergence from nothing, or that their belief comes from nowhere, as opposed to being informed by catechism (or whatever they did in the 4th century)?

2) Whatever the answer to the first question is, how does it conflict with Catholic doctrine, either then or now?

In the early Church, the believe that God had always been, infinite in time and unchangable. The question that involved the Arianism heresy and the ecumenical councils' handling of that situation was if the Son and the Holy Ghost were likewise timeless and of the same substance as the Father. Arianism and its derivatives said no and the Church said yes.

The Nicene Creed condemned those that held heretical views but the condemnation was taken out of the second Creed. Was it editing? I think not because the 150 Bishops published
We believe in one God the Father all-powerful, maker of heaven and of earth, and of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all the ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be; for us humans and for our salvation he came down from the heavens and became incarnate from the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, became human and was crucified on our behalf under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried and rose up on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; and he went up into the heavens and is seated at the Father's right hand; he is coming again with glory to judge the living and the dead; his kingdom will have no end. And in the Spirit, the holy, the lordly and life-giving one, proceeding forth from the Father, co-worshipped and co-glorified with Father and Son, the one who spoke through the prophets; in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the forgiving of sins. We look forward to a resurrection of the dead and life in the age to come. Amen. [emphasis added]
It is ALMOST saying the same but IMO allows a little wiggle room that allowed for the Church to take back relapsed heretics that could not accept the Trinity as One but Three. Perhaps God ex nihilo is not a good phrase but rather changable Jesus. Getting back to the OP, I was playing with the idea that changing a policy or clarifying a position = the Church leadership is invalidated is ridiculous.

[smiling bandit]

In the early Church, the believe that God had always been, infinite in time and unchangable. The question that involved the Arianism heresy and the ecumenical councils' handling of that situation was if the Son and the Holy Ghost were likewise timeless and of the same substance as the Father. Arianism and its derivatives said no and the Church said yes.

Given that this is entirely your interpretation, and that all Trinitarians today still hold the old belief (which is virtually every Christian everywhere) unchanged, I would submit you're being a little crankish. I certainly wouldn't read the creed as being any less opposed to Arianism, but simply not making a specific point of it. The Creed is a positive statement, not a negative denial of specific heresies.

proceeding forth from the Father, co-worshipped and co-glorified with Father and Son

This is intended to define their relationship, not depict their status.

[Saint Cad]

Given that this is entirely your interpretation, and that all Trinitarians today still hold the old belief (which is virtually every Christian everywhere) unchanged, I would submit you're being a little crankish. I certainly wouldn't read the creed as being any less opposed to Arianism, but simply not making a specific point of it. The Creed is a positive statement, not a negative denial of specific heresies.


I think the Arian heresies and early Church reaction are pretty well documented so i'm pretty sure this is the standard interpretation. And the original Nicene Creed did explicitly condemn the heretical view that the Father existed for a time before the Son and that condemnation was taken out of the Creed in 381.

And don't forget that the second Ecumenical Council was exclusively eastern (the Pope did not participate) and that the Athanasian Creed was floating around the Eastern Church about that time which does say that the trinity is three people of the same godhead and as a direct response to Arianism explicitly states all three in the Trinity are co-eternal. This last element is exactly the part taken out of the second Creed but later took the dogmatic definition of the Trinity so if a person today believes that there existed for a time the Father (or maybe the Father and the Holy Spirit) without the Son then yes they are technially heretics.

[clairobscur]

In the early Church, the believe that God had always been, infinite in time and unchangable. The question that involved the Arianism heresy and the ecumenical councils' handling of that situation was if the Son and the Holy Ghost were likewise timeless and of the same substance as the Father. Arianism and its derivatives said no and the Church said yes.
.

I was aware of this debate, but when I looked up "ex nihilo", I found an entirely different issue : namely that god didn't create the universe ex nihilo, but rather from something, like a primordial chaos. I now forgot what interesting issues I thought it raised, but here's the wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo)