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