What's the story with the SSPX? Are they Sedevacantists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Potato1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Potato1

Guest
Ok someone correct me if my logic is wrong here. The SSPX are sedevacantists and they believe that the seat of st Peter is vacant. What would it matter to them if the MP is aimed at reconciling with Rome. How can one Pope not be the “Pope” and then because of a declaration be the Pope again. don’t they have to have a Pope o thier appoval elected and the ruling of the other Popes nullified regurding VII and such. Just by deffinition of being a sedevacantist.
 
The SSPX isn’t sedevacantist. A case could be made for the SSPX being schismatic but not sedevacantist.
 
apparantly me;) .

It was just something I have heard. But could someone please explain to me how the SSPX ignores the authority of recent pope. Do they still think Pope Bennedict is the Vicar of Christ. Was JPII How can you be schismatic without denying the seat of the Pope.
 
Potato1 said:
apparantly me;) .

It was just something I have heard. But could someone please explain to me how the SSPX ignores the authority of recent pope. Do they still think Pope Bennedict is the Vicar of Christ. Was JPII How can you be schismatic without denying the seat of the Pope.
Click to expand...
They acknowledge the Pope, they just like their religion a la carte.
 
rtconstant said:
They acknowledge the Pope, they just like their religion a la carte.
Click to expand...
No no no.

Pope John Paul II told Bishop Lefebvre not to consecrate any bishops, Bishop Lefebvre said he didn’t need the Pope’s permission to consecrate bishops, the Pope stated that if Lefebvre consecrated any bishops he would be excommunicating himself, Lefebvre said he wouldn’t be excommunicating himself, and went ahead and consecrated bishops. That’s what the supposed excommunication was about, it had NOTHING to do with Doctrines of the Faith.
 
So they believe B16 is the Pope and the Vicar of Christ? Why are they schismatic then. It seems to me a simple mea culpa and they would be “in the fold so to speak”
 
Potato1 said:
Why are they schismatic then.
Click to expand...
According to some “higher ups” in the Vatican SSPX is not schismatic. According to others, outside of Vatican City, the SSPX is schismatic. It’s all who you want to listen to: people in the Vatican or people outside the Vatican.
 
KofC660 said:
According to some “higher ups” in the Vatican SSPX is not schismatic. According to others, outside of Vatican City, the SSPX is schismatic. It’s all who you want to listen to: people in the Vatican or people outside the Vatican.
Click to expand...
To be technically correct, Lefbvre and 4 bishops commited a schismatic act.

This does not necassarily apply to anyone else involved with the SSPX (though Bp. Burkewitz apparently threatened excommunication against some SSPX members in Lincoln, NE).

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
KofC660 said:
No no no.

Pope John Paul II told Bishop Lefebvre not to consecrate any bishops, Bishop Lefebvre said he didn’t need the Pope’s permission to consecrate bishops, the Pope stated that if Lefebvre consecrated any bishops he would be excommunicating himself, Lefebvre said he wouldn’t be excommunicating himself, and went ahead and consecrated bishops. That’s what the supposed excommunication was about, it had NOTHING to do with Doctrines of the Faith.
Click to expand...
Obedience to disciplinary authority of the Pope is also part of being Catholic. To submit oneself to the proper ecclesiastical authority in one’s local jurisdiction is also part of being Catholic. SSPX parishes set themselves up in competition to the legitimate parishes and priests. I repeat a la carte.
 
They (the SSPX) also have elected Bernard Fellay as their Superior General, in violation of Canon Law. Canon law forbids electing one who is excommunicated to any church organization’s leadership role. The SSPX were papally chartered, and should fall under this.

The disobedience extends past that of Archbishop Lefbvre. Any priest who voted for the election of Bernard Fellay did so in violation of Canon Law.

Bernard Fellay was excommunicated formally by Pope John Paul II in 1988 (John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei). He was elected superior general of the SSPX in 1994 and again in 2006 (Wikipedia, Bernard Fellay).

Code of Canon Law (Vatican Intratext, English)
Code of Canon Law (Bolding mine.):
TITLE IV.

PENALTIES AND OTHER PUNISHMENTS (Cann. 1331 - 1340)

CHAPTER I.

CENSURES

Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

1/ to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;

2/ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;

3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

§2. If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:

1/ who wishes to act against the prescript of §1, n. 1 must be prevented from doing so, or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this;

2/ invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm of §1, n. 3;

3/ is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted;

4/ cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church;

5/ does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church.
Click to expand...
 
(though Bp. Burkewitz apparently threatened excommunication against some SSPX members in Lincoln, NE).
Click to expand...
Actually, Bishop Bruskewitz didn’t *threaten *excommunication…he did, in fact, excommunicate any Catholics who persisted in membership in SSPX beyond a certain date (this was in 1996), along with members of Call to Action and some Masonic-related organizations.

This excommunication has been appealed to the Vatican and has been upheld.

His action, it should be noted, applies only to the area of his ecclesiastical authority - the Diocese of Lincoln.
 
Glennon_P said:
Actually, Bishop Bruskewitz didn’t *threaten *excommunication…he did, in fact, excommunicate any Catholics who persisted in membership in SSPX beyond a certain date (this was in 1996), along with members of Call to Action and some Masonic-related organizations.

This excommunication has been appealed to the Vatican and has been upheld.

His action, it should be noted, applies only to the area of his ecclesiastical authority - the Diocese of Lincoln.
Click to expand...
Did he excommunicate himself for attending the “installation” of a Methodist “bishop”?

If not, why not?
 
KofC660 said:
Did he excommunicate himself for attending the “installation” of a Methodist “bishop”?

If not, why not?
Click to expand...
Please cite, chapter, verse, and canon, where the 1983 Code of Canon Law expressly prohibits a Catholic from attending a non-Catholic event.

Also show me where he was warned in writing by proper ecclesastical superiors not to attend and that the penalty for attendance was going to be excommunication…and then he ignored that warning and did it anyway.

Having known Bishop Bruskewitz on a personal level since he was installed in Lincoln in 1992, I can assure you without a shadow of a doubt that his attendance was a professional courtesy to a fellow Christian. You can put your fears to rest - he is not going to lead the Diocese of Lincoln into the Methodist Church.
 
SSPX (Society of St. Pius X) is not sedevacantist.

SSPV (Society of St. Pius V) is.
 
Ok seriously I am asking this question. How does one do what SSPX has done under pain of excomunication, and not be a sedevacantist. Again, do they feel the Pope or the last Pope have authority over the Church or not?
 
Potato1 said:
Ok seriously I am asking this question. How does one do what SSPX has done under pain of excomunication, and not be a sedevacantist. Again, do they feel the Pope or the last Pope have authority over the Church or not?
Click to expand...
SSPX says there is a Pope, but we don’t have to listen to him.
Sedevacantists say there is no Pope. They guy claiming to be Pope (Benedict XVI) is an antipope and we don’t have to listen to him.

Same mirror. Different shape.
 
BobCatholic said:
SSPX says there is a Pope, but we don’t have to listen to him.
Sedevacantists say there is no Pope. They guy claiming to be Pope (Benedict XVI) is an antipope and we don’t have to listen to him.

Same mirror. Different shape.
Click to expand...
So thier view of the Pope is like a ruling figurehead not necessarily the Vicar of Christ? How can you say that there is a Pope but he doesn’t rule? What is a pope then? 🤷 Maybe I am just to dumb to understand.😃
 
Potato1 said:
So thier view of the Pope is like a ruling figurehead not necessarily the Vicar of Christ? How can you say that there is a Pope but he doesn’t rule? What is a pope then? 🤷 Maybe I am just to dumb to understand.😃
Click to expand...
Who are you asking about? These two are not the same.

SSPX simply don’t want to listen to the Pope. They’re no different from the other dissenters.

==================================

Sedevacantists DENY THERE IS A VALID POPE. They believe the guy who claims to be Pope is not a valid bishop. They deny that he has the Holy Orders (they believe the change in the sacrament of Holy Orders has invalidated it - in their eyes, he is only at the rank of priest) They also believe that a Pope no longer is a Pope if he teaches heresy. Then they accuse him of some heresy and bam, he’s no longer Pope.

The problem is that many of these sedevacantist groups then go into heresy. One group in Canada ordains “women priests” spit Others ordain their own Popes.

I love how one of these “popes” was “ordained” a “bishop” and then “Pope” by a real priest, and he turns around and “ordains” the priest a “bishop”. Sorry, he can’t do that. He didn’t have the ability before and after 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top