# What's the Straight Dope on Sedevacantism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 1, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-straight-dope-on-sedevacantism/608080 "2012-01-01T20:34:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2012, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-straight-dope-on-sedevacantism/608080/21 "2012-01-03T03:22:55Z")
> [@Saintly\_Loser](#): > > 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! ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2012, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-straight-dope-on-sedevacantism/608080/22 "2012-01-03T05:20:08Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, if Benedict XVI is not conservative enough for the Sedevacantists, I wonder who would be? Urban II. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2012, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-straight-dope-on-sedevacantism/608080/23 "2012-01-03T07:05:08Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > _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. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2012, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-straight-dope-on-sedevacantism/608080/24 "2012-01-03T07:39:05Z")
Yeah, but it’s the thought that counts. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2012, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-straight-dope-on-sedevacantism/608080/25 "2012-01-03T21:03:38Z")
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) ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2012, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-straight-dope-on-sedevacantism/608080/26 "2012-01-03T22:48:52Z")
> [@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) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2012, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-straight-dope-on-sedevacantism/608080/27 "2012-01-03T23:29:22Z")
> [@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) 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? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-straight-dope-on-sedevacantism/608080/28 "2012-01-04T00:12:59Z")
> [@Scholar\_Beardpig](#): > > 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… > [@tomndebb](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-straight-dope-on-sedevacantism/608080/29 "2012-01-04T14:51:05Z")
[Post Deleted] ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-straight-dope-on-sedevacantism/608080/30 "2012-01-04T18:02:37Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2012, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-straight-dope-on-sedevacantism/608080/31 "2012-01-04T22:46:45Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2012, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-straight-dope-on-sedevacantism/608080/32 "2012-01-05T20:51:02Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-straight-dope-on-sedevacantism/608080/33 "2012-01-10T05:40:03Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > 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) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-straight-dope-on-sedevacantism/608080.md?page=1)