Are SSPX and Sedevacantists actually Protestant?

[x1980x]

What do y’all think about the idea of SSPX and sedevacantists being considered as Protestants? In a sense, they are in rebellion to the Pope, believing that the CC had departed from the true faith. This is what Martin Luther and many of the other Protestant reformers thought - that the church had been corrupted and that they were purifying it.

Is a Protestant simply a Christian who rebels against Rome, or is a Protestant someone who follows the movement and teachings originally developed by the traditionally accepted Reformers of the 16th and 17th century, whether or not modified since?

Obviously, “sola fide” is a hallmark of what is traditionally understood to be Protestantism. But can one be a Protestant if they do not believe in “sola fide” but disagree with Rome (and Constantinople)?

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

The SSPX is neither schismatic nor heretical., they simply uphold the Faith as it has been without giving into the novelties of modernists. The Sedevacantists are in schism (and in that way outside the Catholic Church) but are not heretical.

Protestantism, refers to those Christian groups which rebelled against the Church during the Protestant Reformation. Since the Early Church, there have been heretics and schismatics breaking away from Rome, but the term Protestant only refers to those born of the Reformation.

 

[chevalier]

There are some similarities, yeah, though there’s enough of a difference to preclude anything more than a poetic analogy. SSPX are Roman Catholics with a history of obedience issues (posing a serious disciplinary and moral problems), while sedevacantists are in schism… and the sects are pretty weird.

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

So, then why are the SSPX sacraments not considered valid?

 

[Skeptic92]

So, then why are the SSPX sacraments not considered valid?

The SSPX sacraments are indeed valid (The Eucharist, Holy Orders, Baptism, Confirmation(this I’m unsure of)) however those Sacraments that require an active ministry within the Church (Matrimony, Confession etc) are not valid due to the fact they have no active ministry within the Church.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

SSPX is chronically gravely disobedient and if I’m not mistaken perform invalid sacraments of Penance and Matrimony as well as granting bogus annulments. They constantly set themselves up as the supreme interpreter of Apostolic Tradition and subject even the Magisterium to their judgments. I find it hard to imagine how this could happen on such a large scale and for so many years without an implicit ecclesiological heresy akin to Protestantism.

 

[PerfectTiming]

You can’t just split by Catholic/Protestant. It’s much more complicated than that.

So, then why are the SSPX sacraments not considered valid?

SSPX has no canonical status within the Church, therefore it’s ‘sacraments’ are not valid. They are not part of the Church.

 

[Defender1]

What do y’all think about the idea of SSPX and sedevacantists being considered as Protestants? In a sense, they are in rebellion to the Pope, believing that the CC had departed from the true faith. This is what Martin Luther and many of the other Protestant reformers thought - that the church had been corrupted and that they were purifying it.

Is a Protestant simply a Christian who rebels against Rome, or is a Protestant someone who follows the movement and teachings originally developed by the traditionally accepted Reformers of the 16th and 17th century, whether or not modified since?

Obviously, “sola fide” is a hallmark of what is traditionally understood to be Protestantism. But can one be a Protestant if they do not believe in “sola fide” but disagree with Rome (and Constantinople)?

IF you are a Christian but not in union with Rome . if you claim Christianity but are not Catholic, you are a protestant SSPX are protestant until they accept our Pope and Vatican II as the way of the church

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

IF you are a Christian but not in union with Rome . if you claim Christianity but are not Catholic, you are a protestant SSPX are protestant until they accept our Pope and Vatican II as the way of the church

The SSPX accept Pope Benedict XVI as Pope, and have never rejected any popes. They accept Vatican II as the pastoral council it was, and consider it valid. The parts of the council they take issue with are those pastoral declarations (not infallible) which contradict previous teachings of the Church, as well as modern practices (like Assisi) which provide scandal to the faithful.

 

[RyanBlack]

IF you are a Christian but not in union with Rome . if you claim Christianity but are not Catholic, you are a protestant SSPX are protestant until they accept our Pope and Vatican II as the way of the church

Your definition of what constitutes Protestantism is excessively broad. The Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East all are not in union with Rome and are not Catholic; however, they are not Protestant.

 

[runningdude]

Sedevacantists would compare more closely to an Old Catholic Church or an Orthodox church than a Protestant community.

Generally speaking, their Holy Orders (Apostolic Succession) is unbroken, but they fail to obey the current Pope, believing the “true” Papacy to be vacant, and the current Pope to be an imposter.

The Pius the X organization itself I don’t believe is formally recognized by the Catholic Church, but the individual priests and ministers have a long history of irregular status. They may or may not be disobedient Catholics, but they practice a valid mass and most sacraments (marriage and penance are iffy).

 

[Skeptic92]

Sedevacantists would compare more closely to an Old Catholic Church or an Orthodox church than a Protestant community.

Generally speaking, their Holy Orders (Apostolic Succession) is unbroken, but they fail to obey the current Pope, believing the “true” Papacy to be vacant, and the current Pope to be an imposter.

The Pius the X organization itself I don’t believe is formally recognized by the Catholic Church, but the individual priests and ministers have a long history of irregular status. They may or may not be disobedient Catholics, but they practice a valid mass and most sacraments (marriage and penance are iffy).

The Orthodox Church is not sedevacant, they accept Pope Benedict as the successor of Peter, they however disagree about the role of the Papacy compared to the other Bishops then us (if I remember they take a low Petrine View, whereas the Catholic Church takes a Absolute/High Petrine view).

 

[Bluegoat]

The Orthodox Church is not sedevacant, they accept Pope Benedict as the successor of Peter, they however disagree about the role of the Papacy compared to the other Bishops then us (if I remember they take a low Petrine View, whereas the Catholic Church takes a Absolute/High Petrine view).

Well, actually from their POV any Pope after the schism would not have much meaning. In fact, I believe they have a Bishop of Rome of their own now. They don’t accept Catholic orders, so that would include Bishops and Popes.

They do accept a role for the Pope in theory, but it would have to be an Orthodox Pope.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think an interesting question is how to designate a group like the Old Catholics. They don’t come from the Protestant Reformation, and the CC accepts their priestly orders and Sacraments as valid. But they have over the years accepted a lot of Protestant theology into their thinking.

So while they are not historically tied as a group to the Reformation, they do have theological ties to the Reformation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The SSPX is neither schismatic nor heretical., they simply uphold the Faith as it has been without giving into the novelties of modernists. The Sedevacantists are in schism (and in that way outside the Catholic Church) but are not heretical.

Protestantism, refers to those Christian groups which rebelled against the Church during the Protestant Reformation. Since the Early Church, there have been heretics and schismatics breaking away from Rome, but the term Protestant only refers to those born of the Reformation.

How can one be in schism and not be heretical? To deny the authority of the Pope is heretical to anyone who claims to be Catholic.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The SSPX accept Pope Benedict XVI as Pope, and have never rejected any popes. They accept Vatican II as the pastoral council it was, and consider it valid. The parts of the council they take issue with are those pastoral declarations (not infallible) which contradict previous teachings of the Church, as well as modern practices (like Assisi) which provide scandal to the faithful.

So they’re cafeteria Catholics basically. Picking and choosing what to accept and what not to.

 

[pnewton]

Protestantism is an historical movement. Those denominations that are part of this history or have branched off from them are Protestants. The Eastern Orthodox are not Protestants, for example. Too often Catholics engage in calling things “protestant” as a generic insult, much like “liberal” or “nazi”, even though there is not connection to actual protestantism. This is rhetoric without substance and unbecoming of the respect we should have for each other.

 

[pnewton]

How can one be in schism and not be heretical?

Because heresy has a specific definition. One could accept the doctrine of the papacy, yet not believe that HH Benedict XVI is not the true pope, or decide not to follow his authority in any number of ways. A child can disobey his parents and even run away from home, yet not deny that they are his parents.

 

[runningdude]

The Orthodox Church is not sedevacant, they accept Pope Benedict as the successor of Peter, they however disagree about the role of the Papacy compared to the other Bishops then us (if I remember they take a low Petrine View, whereas the Catholic Church takes a Absolute/High Petrine view).

I knew that was going to come up . I was referring to being a “particular church” outside of the Catholic Church when I was comparing them to the Orthodox, not specifically the belief about the vacancy of the papacy. The Orthodox are varied bunch though, so some come close to a sedevacante position, but not quite.

Well, actually from their POV any Pope after the schism would not have much meaning. In fact, I believe they have a Bishop of Rome of their own now. They don’t accept Catholic orders, so that would include Bishops and Popes.

They do accept a role for the Pope in theory, but it would have to be an Orthodox Pope.

The Orthodox in general believe do not Holy Orders have any meaning outside of the Catholic (Orthodox) Church. In schism, even an Orthodox priest’s orders are believed to fade and become useless.

If they do have a “Bishop of Rome”, I’d imagine it would be simple the local Orthodox eparchy in central Italy. The Catholic Church installed several “Latin” patriarchs in major Orthodox cities, and it was quite an insult to them, and I hope they wouldn’t attempt the same thing today .

 

[Defender1]

The SSPX accept Pope Benedict XVI as Pope, and have never rejected any popes. They accept Vatican II as the pastoral council it was, and consider it valid. The parts of the council they take issue with are those pastoral declarations (not infallible) which contradict previous teachings of the Church, as well as modern practices (like Assisi) which provide scandal to the faithful.

They must differ. I have been in debate with SSPX for quite some time and they do not accept any popes from Vatican II on even though most of the SSPX books written in the past highly support our current pope when he was Cardinal Ratzinger . From what I understand , If we went back to pre Vatican II SSPX would accept the RCC . They break with Matthew 16 and 18 when they break from us . They speak on sticking to tradition when they do not stick with the traditions in the Bible