C
CatholicLife
Guest
My parish priest told me , that the SSPX does not accept Pope Benedict XVI as pope and that they are sedevacantist. I’m sure this isn’t true but I cant find any info to back it up.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
O
Onegin
Guest
I’d really suggest checking out the SSPX website before asking here as everything you need to know about them is there, but here is the link anyway:
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q15_sedevacantists.htm
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q15_sedevacantists.htm
L
LollilopLicker
Guest
they come across as traditional catholic but they do NOT follow the pope.
D
damooster
Guest
Wrong. You could not be further from the truth.they come across as traditional catholic but they do NOT follow the pope.
sspx.org/superior_generals_ltrs/papal/on_the_election_of_pope_benedict_xvi.htm
R
roadsend
Guest
Lots of Catholics, lay and otherwise, do not follow the Pope.they come across as traditional catholic but they do NOT follow the pope.
In what ways do you see the SSPXers not follow the Pope?
B
Bendzi
Guest
I believe the SSPX once were sedevecantist until Pope John Paul II and them had a talk in 1988. they were allowed union with the church if they dropped their sedevecantist ways. today i believe they are a religious order that solely practices the mass in the extraordinary form. the SSPV on the other hand left the SSPX because they still saw the pope as invalid and wished to continue as they were before.
The SSPX, Most Holy Family Monastery, and other sedevecantist are our fallen brothers. they need prayer and guidance
The SSPX, Most Holy Family Monastery, and other sedevecantist are our fallen brothers. they need prayer and guidance
B
Bbigam
Guest
They are not sedevacantist and they do accept Benedict XVI as Pope (at least, that’s the official position and they are supposed to; whether they all do is a different question that I don’t know the answer to).My parish priest told me , that the SSPX does not accept Pope Benedict XVI as pope and that they are sedevacantist. I’m sure this isn’t true but I cant find any info to back it up.
They do accept him as pope and pray for him; however, they don’t exactly always follow him, since they are still in a state of disobedience and suspension, including rejecting Vatican II and the Ordinary Form of the Mass.Wrong. You could not be further from the truth.
sspx.org/superior_generals_ltrs/papal/on_the_election_of_pope_benedict_xvi.htm
Yes, lots of modern priests and religious and even bishops are disobedient in other (sometimes heretical) ways. But that doesn’t excuse the SSPX being disobedient in their own ways.
O
Onegin
Guest
I’m sorry but you are wrong. The SSPX has never endorsed the sedevacantist position. Ever. I’m not sure what you are talking about with a “talk” in 1988 - that is when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the 4 bishops. Prior to that, the SSPX was just another fairly ordinary priestly fraternity.I believe the SSPX once were sedevecantist until Pope John Paul II and them had a talk in 1988. they were allowed union with the church if they dropped their sedevecantist ways. today i believe they are a religious order that solely practices the mass in the extraordinary form. the SSPV on the other hand left the SSPX because they still saw the pope as invalid and wished to continue as they were before.
The SSPX, Most Holy Family Monastery, and other sedevecantist are our fallen brothers. they need prayer and guidance
Anyways, please do your research before posting on these forums about this issue as erroneous statements can cause a lot of harm. Cheers.
C
choy
Guest
i think there are sedevacantists within SSPX, but SSPX are not sedevacantists themselves. didn’t the SSPV came from the SSPX when the SSPX tried to rid themselves of sedevacantists?
but in any case, they don’t have a canonical status with the Church today but are working on getting back into full communion with the Pope
but in any case, they don’t have a canonical status with the Church today but are working on getting back into full communion with the Pope
Z
Zacdecat
Guest
No,no,no. I attend a church that is serviced by the SPPX and there is a picture of the Holy Father in the church, prayers are offered up for his intention. You cannot be a traditional Catholic and deny the Pontiff.
You can disagree with the Holy Father where teachings are in conflict with what has been taught by the Church . The Holy Father is a man and is therefore prone to the failings of man. It is only in certain circumstances when he is teaching on Faith and Morals within striictly defined boundaries is he regarded as infalliable.
You can disagree with the Holy Father where teachings are in conflict with what has been taught by the Church . The Holy Father is a man and is therefore prone to the failings of man. It is only in certain circumstances when he is teaching on Faith and Morals within striictly defined boundaries is he regarded as infalliable.
B
Bendzi
Guest
Ahh im sorry, 1988 was the first time that the SSPX ever listened to the pope, before that all orders directly from the pope to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre were ignored. even after the suspention of “collatione ordinum” (ordaining priest) and “divinis” (any sacraments at all) he continued to do so. but yes he did not hold a sedevecantist position, rather he felt disobedience was necessary if the pope did not act infallible which he though Pope Paul VI didThe SSPX has never endorsed the sedevacantist position. Ever.
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello CatholicLife,My parish priest told me , that the SSPX does not accept Pope Benedict XVI as pope and that they are sedevacantist. I’m sure this isn’t true but I cant find any info to back it up.
You are bound to get various responses and opinions here, often contradictory. I would only say that the SSPX and “the Vatican” are working on regularizing the situation of the SSPX in the Catholic Church. If the SSPX was actually sedevacantist, why would they bother to have anything to do with Benedict XVI or the Roman Curia?
Dan
O
Onegin
Guest
I’m not sure what you are talking about with “orders” other than the Pope’s request that Archbishop Lefebvre cease plans to consecrate the 4 bishops to the SSPX.Ahh im sorry, 1988 was the first time that the SSPX ever listened to the pope, before that all orders directly from the pope to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre were ignored. even after the suspention of “collatione ordinum” (ordaining priest) and “divinis” (any sacraments at all) he continued to do so. but yes he did not hold a sedevecantist position, rather he felt disobedience was necessary if the pope did not act infallible which he though Pope Paul VI did
But prior to 1988, the FSSPX was a priestly society no different than the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross or the FSSP (only the FSSP didn’t exist in 1988). I would say that it was only AFTER the 1988 consecrations when it raised the ire of Rome and much of the Catholic world that the SSPX gained it’s negative reputation that it has today.
Finally, as a general note directed to no one in particular, infallible declarations are VERY rare. Throughout thousands of years of history, popes have hardly ever made infallible pronouncements. In fact, the last time a Pope spoke ex cathedra was in 1950. The problem is that many Catholics mistakenly believe that every statement by the Pope must be infallible because he is the Pope. This is a misunderstanding and, if not corrected, can lead to the unfortunate sin of papism.
P
pnewton
Guest
No, the SSPX has never been officially sedevacantist. If you look up the history of the SSPV (not SSPX), you will find that nine SSPX priests split and founded a new group based on using an older missal before the papacy became vacant. While individuals within the SSPX may vary, pretty much anyone who is sedevacantist split at that time. Of course since then the SSPV has further split.
This is a familiar pattern when the further one gets away from the unity of the Catholic faith. .
This is a familiar pattern when the further one gets away from the unity of the Catholic faith. .
C
CWBetts
Guest
This is not true. The SSPX does have some serious issues they have to deal with, but sedevacantism is not one of them.My parish priest told me , that the SSPX does not accept Pope Benedict XVI as pope and that they are sedevacantist. I’m sure this isn’t true but I cant find any info to back it up.
E
Emmit_Fitzhume
Guest
What constitutes serious issues these days? Communion on the tongue kneeling? Statues? Altar rails? Fiddle Backs? Latin? Gregorian Chant? Please explain.
This is not true. The SSPX does have some serious issues they have to deal with, but sedevacantism is not one of them.
B
Bbigam
Guest
How about refusal to submit to the Sacred Magisterium and the Holy Father with regards to Vatican II and the Mass of Paul VI, as well as their own canonical suspensions?What constitutes serious issues these days? Communion on the tongue kneeling? Statues? Altar rails? Fiddle Backs? Latin? Gregorian Chant? Please explain.
No one (serious, or with authority on the matter) is telling them they can’t receive on the tongue while kneeling, or have statues, altar rails, fiddleback vestments, Latin, or Gregorian chant. Except for Communion while kneeling and an altar rail, we have all of those at my parish at least on occasion - and it’s the Ordinary Form. Also, if someone were to kneel to receive, the priest wouldn’t balk at all. Nor would our good bishop. I’ve seen it happen with both of them.
E
Emmit_Fitzhume
Guest
Laughable at best…I have a deal. You all accept ALL the councils prior to Vatican II, and will will seriously consider accepting VII. Sound like a deal?
How about refusal to submit to the Sacred Magisterium and the Holy Father with regards to Vatican II and the Mass of Paul VI, as well as their own canonical suspensions?
F
floresco
Guest
Emmit,
I tried to send you a PM but your mail box was full. This was the message:I respectfully suggest that you change what you have filled in as your religion. If you accept the teachings of the SSPX you are Roman Catholic and that would be the more appropriate response. I can understand you wanting to let people know you support the SSPX. I find it an admirable organization in many ways. But referring to it as your religion actually supports those who erroneously claim it is in schism.
I tried to send you a PM but your mail box was full. This was the message:I respectfully suggest that you change what you have filled in as your religion. If you accept the teachings of the SSPX you are Roman Catholic and that would be the more appropriate response. I can understand you wanting to let people know you support the SSPX. I find it an admirable organization in many ways. But referring to it as your religion actually supports those who erroneously claim it is in schism.
R
rben20
Guest
Are you implying accepting previous councils means we cannot accept VII? Did I misread your point? If that’s what you meant how so?Laughable at best…I have a deal. You all accept ALL the councils prior to Vatican II, and will will seriously consider accepting VII. Sound like a deal?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.