Sedevacantism and Its Popularity

[7_Sorrows]

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…

How do these different groups differ? I have never heard of any of them before.

 

[commenter]

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.

In a way, all Protestants are sedevacantists. They regard Peter as having been somewhat authoritative in his commission by Jesus in the Gospel of Mathew, other passages in the gospels, the Book of Acts, and in the 2 epistles he wrote. But there is no successor in our time. In a way, you could say all sedevacantists are Protestant. If effect, they practice private interpretation of Bible and Tradition.

The papacy is not affected by the personal good or bad of popes. Even those with questionable morality did not teach anything wrong on faith and morals.

A Christian community with no bishops might survive without a pope or patriarch. But the Catholic Church is a hierarchical institution. It, like the Orthodox Church, does need bishops Ordinary, so it does need a current pope or patriarch (which the pope also is).

 

[commenter]

Exact, relevant documentation is appreciated. We all tend to go off on our guesses as to what the Church actually said, or did, without consulting factual evidence.

 

[Vonsalza]

Exact, relevant documentation is appreciated. We all tend to go off on our guesses as to what the Church actually said, or did, without consulting factual evidence.

Well… he DID paste a letter from The Offices of the Congregation. It’s the whole post starting with “Your Eminence” and going to the end.

In fairness.

 

[Melchior_1]

Exact, relevant documentation is appreciated. We all tend to go off on our guesses as to what the Church actually said, or did, without consulting factual evidence.

Don_Ruggero posted Cardinal Müller’s letter, so he provided exactly what you were looking for.

Vatican Radio also has the text of Cardinal Muller’s letter,

"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."

This means:

• Marriages must still be performed by a priest who is not suspended and has faculties. Following the marriage, a SSPX priest can celebrate Mass.
• If there’s no other priest available (which seems unlikely), the SSPX priest can celebrate the marriage.

So they don’t exactly have the faculties to perform valid marriages as of yet. The reports of them being able to fully celebrate valid marriages 100% of the time is overblown.

 

[runningdude]

It rare. The majority here faithfully acknowledge the lawfully seated pope. A significant minority are non-Catholics interested in dialog. Very few Catholics, however, hold that there is no lawfully seated pope.

 

[commenter]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I understand that until recent years there was an issue with SSPX, but I wasn’t aware of any issue with FSSP or ICRSS and can’t figure out why they would be on am examination of conscience form.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

How do these different groups differ? I have never heard of any of them before.

I seem to recall the Feeneyites continued to take the position that only Catholics go to heaven, after the Magisterium had moved on from that view. I may be remembering wrong but I thought Fr. Feeney had some issues with the Church but was back in full communion before he died.

 

[pnewton]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/feeney.txt

In the very
first paragraph pointed out what is obvious: we must avoid private
interpretation of Scripture – for that is strictly Protestant. But
then the letter said we must also avoid private interpretation of the
official texts of the Church. To insist on our own private
interpretation, especially when the Church contradicts that, is pure
Protestant attitude.

Note this all happened prior to Vatican II and the rise of sedevacantism.

 

[Entwhistler]

Yeah, that’s weird. The FSSP has never been in schism. They were breakaways from the SSPX who wanted to return to Rome.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m not aware of any problem with the ICRSS either, although admittedly I know less about them than I do about SSPX and FSSP.

 

[Fuerza]

Fr. Feeney was excommunicated for disobeience if I remember correctly, though not specifically for his views on EENS. He was reconciled before his death without actually modifying his views in any way. The two major remnants of his group, which despite not having anything presently to do with one another, are both called the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and both operate centers named for St. Benedict, continue to hold the Feeneyite position. Despite this, both groups are recognized by their local bishops and offer diocesan approved TLMs (the one in MA has been recognized for a while, while the one in NH just recently attained diocesan approval).

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have really lost track of the sedevacantists over the last few years. For a time, my son dated a woman who was a member of SSPV, which is truly sedevacantist. They debated for a time, she gave all appearances of willingness to accept “regular” Catholicism, but he then found out she was deceiving him about that and they split.

Good thing. They could never have gotten along.

Anyway, during their dialogues or debates she provided him with an enormous amount of printed argumentation, of which the SSPV has no shortage. He and I researched some of it, and came away not only unimpressed but in some instances repulsed. There are a number of sedevacantist groups, all of which (I think) separated from SSPX because SSPX accepts the Pope. But then they split further among themselves, and pretty bitterly. At least one elected its own “pope”.

I don’t know what has happened since then. I don’t think the numbers are at all large.

 

[BornInMarch]

Sedevacantism is not popular in Catholic settings; sedevacantists are seen as basically being schismatics.

 

[poche]

The Orthodox may not follow the papacy and they may say that they disagree with the Pope, but they do not deny that the see is occupied.

 

[pnewton]

I never said otherwise. All I said is that they do not follow the papacy, even though their reasons are different. I never meant to imply that they are exact matches. However, I do not view their reasoning as significant as the outcome when I made the initial statement. I treat them all the same, practically. I do not judge individually, as I believe both could be invincibly ignorant, and yet both practically has the same objective separation.