Sedevacantism and Its Popularity

[pnewton]

The Orthodox never refused not to follow the papacy.

I said they do not follow the papacy. This is a true statement. It is the only common fact to which I referred.

 

[Vonsalza]

I welcome you - to reconsider the opinions that you have been taught. By what authority does anyone on earth declare the seat of Peter to be vacant?

No matter how it is explained, at some level, the belief holds that the gates of hell have indeed prevailed against Christ’s Church.

Problem.

I’d very much like a sede to address this comment.

 

[StarMapp]

Exactly. Better make a larger batch of coffee in our ecumenical dialogue, this is going to take a long time.

 

[jas84173]

Their marriages and confessions were declared regular and valid by Pope Francis last year. I find it hard to understand the situation with the SSPX.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Their marriages and confessions were declared regular and valid by Pope Francis last year. I find it hard to understand the situation with the SSPX.

I do also. I get the impression that the media does not present the full picture of everything going on between the Pope and the SSPX behind the scenes.

 

[graciew]

So you were 12 years old then when you made this decision?

 

[jas84173]

I go to an SSPX Mass as an extra on Sundays because I really love the EF of Mass. I never have gone to a confession. I usually receive the sacraments at my regular parish. I however am sometimes drawn to the homilies by the priests of the SSPX. They don’t sugar coat things like many priests do today.

 

[Vonsalza]

I am not a sedevacantist and reject the theory outright. However, I know several people who’ve become sedevacantist as a direct result of Pope Francis. The Holy Father is swelling the ranks of this misguided group because of his outlandish actions and statements.

Anytime you let in a little fresh air, there will always be a small, generally negative group that preferred the stale.

 

[TradidiQuodEtAccepi]

Yes, there are several known groups of sedevacatist communities.

 

[TradidiQuodEtAccepi]

No. The SSPX is not sedevacatist and have made it very clear too…They pray for the Holy Father in the Canon of the mass. Throughout the history of the SSPX, there have been priests expelled/kicked out for taking up the position that the See of Peter is vacant.

 

[TradidiQuodEtAccepi]

The SSPX hold the belief that all the popes since the time of Pius XII are still legitimate popes. Sedevacantists on the other hand, reject every pope since Pius XII. The most known sedevacantists are the CMRI, SSPV, Feeneyites, bishops from the Archbishop Thuc line, etc. Which group do you belong to/associate with? Another possibility are sedevacatists who run their own independent chapels as well. I am curious…

 

[Lovinglight]

Thnk u for that clarification. I was waiting for confession once in a parish and on the checklist paper it had “do u involve yourself with SSPX/ICKSP/FSSP etc”

 

[Melchior_1]

Thnk u for that clarification. I was waiting for confession once in a parish and on the checklist paper it had “do u involve yourself with SSPX/ICKSP/FSSP etc”

To be fair to the checklist, a couple of years ago the SSPX being on there actually would have been appropriate, as their confessions were invalid then (and had been for several years). It wasn’t until the last year or two when Pope Francis granted them faculties during the Year of mercy that their confessions were valid again.

 

[Lovinglight]

Ok thnk u. Didnt know that. This would have been about a year ago.

 

[TradidiQuodEtAccepi]

The way that Fr. Gregory Hesse describes it is, the SSPX recognizes the pope as valid because the election of a pope is an act of administration, not a sacrament. It is not a theological procedure of the Church, therefore, there cannot be some sort of “infallible” pronouncement of it. All elections in the Church are acts of admnistration. For example, in a monastery, when the members vote to elect an abbot, it is known as a canonical election within that community. In the same way, the election of the Supreme Pontiff is a canonical procedure carried out by the Cardinals of the Church. This is why the rules/laws for electing a pope can be changed and have been many times thorught the history of the Catholic Church. At one point, it was the people living in Rome who elected the pope, then in another period, the clergy of Rome were the ones who elected popes. It was not until about ~1300 years after the death of our Lord that only Cardinals were the ones to elect a pope.

I hope this helps…

 

[R_H_Benson]

The faculties granted by Pope Francis to the SSPX for confessions were extended beyond the Year of Mercy to be continued indefinitely. As for marriages, the SSPX has also been granted the faculties, with certain restrictions, to validly celebrate the sacrament of Holy Matrimony indefinitely.

 

[Melchior_1]

Regarding confessions and marriages with the SSPX, even with the recent decisions by Pope Francis regarding these has some nuance to it.

Anyway, here’s what I wrote regarding the current canonical situation with the SSPX.

As well, I also wrote some stuff about sedevacantism a few years ago.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As for marriages, the SSPX has also been granted the faculties…

Not correct. SSPX has had no grant given them relative Marriage

Rather, a provision has been made – exceedingly graciously and generously – by which the laity might validly contract marriage, if they are faithful to expressing their submission to the Bishop who has governance and juridiction over their souls and by whose leave canonically they contract marriage validly and if the SSPX clergy submit themselves to the competent ecclesiastical authority, as is always their obligation, canonically and morally.

The letter of the Holy See, with emphasis added:

Your Eminence,
Your Excellency,

As you are aware, for some time various meetings and other initiatives have been ongoing in order to bring the Society of St. Pius X into full communion. Recently, the Holy Father decided, for example, to grant all priests of said Society the faculty to validly administer the Sacrament of Penance to the faithful (Letter Misericordia et misera, n.12), such as to ensure the validity and liceity of the Sacrament and allay any concerns on the part of the faithful.

Following the same pastoral outlook which seeks to reassure the conscience of the faithful, despite the objective persistence of the canonical irregularity in which for the time being the Society of St. Pius X finds itself, the Holy Father, following a proposal by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has decided to authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society, according to the following provisions.

Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite, followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo, by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society.

Where the above is not possible, or if there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass, reminding him of the duty to forward the relevant documents to the Diocesan Curia as soon as possible.

Certain that in this way any uneasiness of conscience on the part of the faithful who adhere to the Society of St. Pius X as well as any uncertainty regarding the validity of the sacrament of marriage may be alleviated, and at the same time that the process towards full institutional regularization may be facilitated, this Dicastery relies on Your cooperation.

The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on 24 March 2017, confirmed his approval of the present letter and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 27 March 2017.

 

[commenter]

I would say that one that does not follow the papacy is pretty much treated the same, whether they are Protestant, Orthodox or sedevacantist. As long as the discussion is civil and our pope treated respectfully, discussion is allowed now. But in the end, such things are a moderator decision.

By all means, we should keep everything civil and respect the individuals on this thread. I think this thread is interesting. The problem is that, unlike Protestants and Orthodox, sedes do recognize the need for the papacy. So what leads them in the meantime?

I wonder if there are degrees of sedevacantism. It seems there are some people who regard all popes since 1958, or maybe only the pope since 2013, as “popes”…in a way…sort of administrative place holders. But not really as “Popes”, in the teaching, authoritative way Pope Pius XII was Pope.

It seems like, if someone regarded the recent popes as Popes, then they would now regard their local bishop as their Ordinary (given the close connection between Pope and Ordinary). But there are many who do regard their local bishop (or Eastern bishop) as a valid bishop, but not him or anyone as their valid Ordinary. I suggest there should be an intermediate category, sort of semi-sedevacantist.

 

[ErraticFaith]

Whilst sedevacantism isn’t a position I hold or entertain (for reasons I won’t bother getting into as most haven’t);

I’m not entirely convinced that ‘belief’ in it reaches to extent of hyperbole such as 'it being ‘proof of hell prevailing over the church’.

Catholicism has had some entirely ridiculous people occupy the seat in times long past. Yet it has endured. The Pope doesn’t carry the faith. He takes a physical seat, in the stead of a ‘physical’ representative / Jesus, as many have before him. Which is not the same as being God himself…

If all men are sinners, just how much would you like a man to be guilty of before he is deemed unworthy. Don’t misread; that’s not a likely point of view/reality. But to a sede, the extreme ‘conclusion’ might be the utter destruction of the church. At which point someone might turn and say ‘hmm maybe he wasn’t the best bloke for job you think?’

That’s in no way meant to downplay the severity of the issue or claim. But to say the faith wouldn’t survive the lack of its figurehead, i think is overstated.

People should be open to all angles for the sake of education alone. To do otherwise seems immoral and not in line with the greater good, whether you deem it stupid or not.