Are the FSSP sedevacantist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gavin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not sure if this is what you’re after (it’s all Greek to me…)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Yes, that’s it! Does it also have All you who have been baptized into Christ… ?

Actually, it’s at the bottom of the page.

Thank you very much, Father!
 
Last edited:
You’re welcome. I just happened to have a copy of the Divine Liturgy (I think that’s what it’s called) amongst my eclectic collection of books!
 
Ooh… Is that the Greek Orthodox one or a Byzantine Catholic one? (The GO one doesn’t have the petition for the Holy Father in it.)
 
Greek Orthodox (it was actually given to me by a GO priest and is what the congregation uses in their church). The nearest Byzantine church would be in Australia.
 
Oh that’s right - I forgot that you’re in NZ just like @catholic03. It’s going for 1 a.m. here in Pennsylvania so I’m turning in. Thank you and good night / afternoon !
 
There is; I forgot about them. The Eastern Rites have a very low profile in NZ - I’m sure there must be more than a few Eastern Rite kids who are accidentally “re-confirmed” each year! The FSSP (in keeping with the original subject of this thread) have an even lower profile since they only exist in one diocese and the SSPX (or “Pixies” as I like to call them) even lower since they more or less keep to themselves. The SSPX do however have a picture of Pope Francis in their church (like like almost every other Catholic church - even if some take a few years to catch up) so no one could accuse them of bring sedevacantist- they just don’t want to be under the authority of local bishops is all. To put it another way, it’s complicated!
 
JakubMaximilian said:
Then why did Pope Francis allow their Priests to licitly hear confessions??
Click to expand...
I do not believe I am qualified to answer for the Holy Father.

I suspect that His Holiness granted them the faculty to hear confessions because the Church’s supreme law is the salvation of souls. Remember, too, that the law gives men who are laicised priests the faculty to hear confessions albeit in limited circumstances.

You could equally enquire why the SSPX does not have permission to administer all the sacraments.
 
I notice that the Syro Malabar Church has probably the biggest presence here among the Eastern Catholic Churches. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church had a priest and parish in NZ (or at least they did a coupleof years ago), but no parish church.

Yes, FSSP do have a low profile although their NZ priest is somewhat famous in the FSSP.

The Transalpine Redemptorists have a parish in Christchurch where the 1962 Missal is daily celebrated.

SSPX is in Wellington but considering their canonical irregularity and disobedience I wouldn’t think of going to them.

I am very happy with my parish and the wonderful priests in the Archdiocese. I believe both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms are equally reverent and mutually enriching.

Next time I am in Auckland I will try and go to either the Latin Mass or an Eastern Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
My point was not that the 1917 code was in force, but that the difference between the two points out that the idea of excommunication being automatic for ordaining a Bishop, clearly isn’t a part of the Divine Law. Thus, it must be human law, and therefore in principle can be in error. This becomes abundantly clear when we realize that for hundreds of years, bishops were licitly ordained without the permission or even Knowledge of the Pope
 
Last edited:
JakubMaximilian said:
My point was not that the 1917 code was in force, but that the difference between the two points out that the idea of excommunication being automatic for ordaining a Bishop, clearly isn’t a part of the Divine Law. Thus, it must be human law, and therefore in principle can be in error.
Click to expand...
Excommunication is a judicial punishment. And Canon law is most certainly not divine law, which would include the 1917 Code that didn’t say it was an excommunicatable offense. You would then have to also admit that not excommunicating could also be in error.
JakubMaximilian said:
This becomes abundantly clear when we realize that for hundreds of years, bishops were licitly ordained without the permission or even Knowledge of the Pope
Click to expand...
What people did centuries ago cannot be applied to this. The current Code is the current Code, and the Pope is the one who can change it as he likes. If the Pope wants to make the punishment for illicitly consecrating bishops be excommunication, he may certainly do so.
 
Last edited:
JakubMaximilian said:
the difference between the two points out that the idea of excommunication being automatic for ordaining a Bishop, clearly isn’t a part of the Divine Law. Thus, it must be human law, and therefore in principle can be in error. This becomes abundantly clear when we realize that for hundreds of years, bishops were licitly ordained without the permission or even Knowledge of the Pope
Click to expand...
The problem with Lefebvre wasn’t so much that he ordained bishops (plural) without the Pope’s permission but rather that he deliberately went ahead with it after having been told not to and being warned that the actions would be result in his excommunication (and theirs). The Church takes the illicit ordination of bishops seriously because it jeopardises the unity of the Church by placing a wedge between the local and universal. It centuries past, and arguably even during the cold war, illicit ordinations may have been necessitated by circumstances - there being no way of safely or effectively communicating with Rome. Lefebvre adopted much the same reasoning in support of his own actions - that it was necessitated by the circumstances. However, this wasn’t a situation where communication was impeded - quite the opposite - and the “emergency” existed only subjectively. The obvious problem with Lefebvre’s reasoning is that it could be used by almost any other bishop to justify similar actions in defiance of Rome and threatening the very nature of the universal Church.
 
I know you were not talking to me, but I am glad you made me aware of this. I now know where to go when I vacation to NZ.
 
Absolutely. Our local Opus Dei people say things about the Holy Father that no SSPX priest would ever say.
 
Maximian said:
However, since the excommunications were later lifted and never reimposed, though the SSPX hasn’t changed its stance, it shows that the Vatican considers the decision to excommunicate was unsound.
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t it simply shows that there’s since ben a warming in relationships to the point where continuation of the sanction (whcih was intended, like all eclesial penalties, to be medicinal) was no longer necessary. That does not mean that it’s original imposition was unsound. Consecration of bishops without an apostolic mandate incurs a latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication both for the one who consecrates and those are are consecrated. So strictly speaking a warning wasn’t necessary although it was given in this case and shows Lefebvre knew full well what he was doing was illicit but went ahead and did it anyway and thus incurred the penalty set out in Canon Law. There has never been any question that the penalty what properly imposed (do the crime do the time after all) but its lifting by BXVI (as was his right) was intended as a gift of peace towards SSPX in order to invite the four Bishops to return - as Benedict himself said.

Finally, just as an aside, I note that it’s lifting wasn’t retroactive…
 
Famulus said:
No, they’re not. They are practically in schism, they disobey the Pope, and their Priests celebrated the Mass, whilst validly, illicitly and without and against the Church’s permission.
Click to expand...
I’m no fan of the SSPX, but what you write here is not technically true.

The SSPX has been granted faculties by Pope Francis. They operate Chapels in a way similar to a priest offering a private mass for a conference or at a camping trip.

Now, they are irregular, but they are not practically in schism. The biggest issue with them (besides the 3 questions they ask about the documents written during/after Vatican II (don’t remember which) is that the priests are not incarnated anywhere.

Also, to the annoyance of some bishops, the SSPX operates much like an ordinariate vs operating like a Religious Order.

But they are not “practically in schism.” If they were, Pope Francis would have never granted them permanent faculties to hear confessions and offer Catholic weddings.

God Bless
 
JakubMaximilian said:
The SSPX or sometimes seen as the FSSPX is the religious order that the FSSP seperated from. At the time a small handful of their leaders were automatically excommunicated according to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Whether the excommunications happened or not is disputed, but that’s what caused the separation.
Click to expand...
Just as an FYI - the excommunications were not the sole reason for the split between FSSP and SSPX. From what I understand, it’s was actually the last straw and might have happened anyway.

The priests who left to form the FSSP had a number of other issues with the SSPX too.

This is why I tell people what if the SSPX ever “regularizes” their situation, the FSSP and SSPX will not merge. Their charisms are very different today, just like how the FSSP and ICRSP have different charisms too.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top