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.
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...
I suspect that is why he can sit on EWTN World Over and call the SSPX schismatic. Canon law apparently has upheld this contention (at least in his diocese).

In any case, I suspect (the SSPX willing) the SSPX will be regularized, and any technically schismatic acts performed will have become a technicality (after some papl approbation or some other mechanism), much the way Benedict XVI is approaching the Chinese Church issue.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
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...
Scenario I

Were you ever a child? Did you ever do something that your parents told you not to do?

If you did, you were dissenting from their order. You were disobedient. You were in fact in the wrong.

This does not men that you denied that they were your parents? No.

SSPX = you (a little kid)
the Pope = parents (or specifically your father)
Scenario II

Let’s say you believe you were adopted, and ran away from home. When someone said ‘your parents are looking for you, see this newspaper ad’, you replied, ‘those are not my parents, I am adopted, so I have run away’.

SSPV = you (a little kid)
the Pope = parents (or specifically your father)
Scenario I = SSPX
Scenario II = SSPV (sedevacantists)

If in step III, you went a step further and elected new parents, you would be a conclavist. :rolleyes:

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholics.blogspot.com
 
trth_skr said:
Scenario I

Were you ever a child? Did you ever do something that your parents told you not to do?

If you did, you were dissenting from their order. You were disobedient. You were in fact in the wrong.

This does not men that you denied that they were your parents? No.

SSPX = you (a little kid)
the Pope = parents (or specifically your father)
Scenario II

Let’s say you believe you were adopted, and ran away from home. When someone said ‘your parents are looking for you, see this newspaper ad’, you replied, ‘those are not my parents, I am adopted, so I have run away’.

SSPV = you (a little kid)
the Pope = parents (or specifically your father)
Scenario I = SSPX
Scenario II = SSPV (sedevacantists)

If in step III, you went a step further and elected new parents, you would be a conclavist. :rolleyes:

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholics.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
I think I get it now… Boy I really did need that spelled out for me.
 
trth_skr said:
Scenario I

Were you ever a child? Did you ever do something that your parents told you not to do?

If you did, you were dissenting from their order. You were disobedient. You were in fact in the wrong.

This does not men that you denied that they were your parents? No.

SSPX = you (a little kid)
the Pope = parents (or specifically your father)
Click to expand...
There’s a difference between disobeying your parents once and refusing to obey your parents anymore.

SSPX refuses to obey the Pope anymore. Since 1988.
 
BobCatholic said:
There’s a difference between disobeying your parents once and refusing to obey your parents anymore.
SSPX refuses to obey the Pope anymore. Since 1988.
Click to expand...
It would depend on what would be waiting for them when if they return.
 
Please cite, chapter, verse, and canon, where the 1983 Code of Canon Law expressly prohibits a Catholic from attending a non-Catholic event.
Click to expand...
Don’t know about Canon Law but my missal mentions maybe something about it as a violation of the First Commandment?
 
There’s a difference between disobeying your parents once and refusing to obey your parents anymore.
SSPX refuses to obey the Pope anymore. Since 1988.
Click to expand...
I’m just a casual observer gathering up as much information from all sides as possible. So what’s the next move, you think? Doesn’t Bishop Fellay want the excommunications lifted or not? So far he’s accepted the MP, if I’m reading things right. Yesterday the Father defined who’s in and who’s out of the Church. That should have made the Bishop even happier. Not trying to be a SA but now what?
 
These guys ( Brothers Michael and Peter Dimond) are some of the more outspoken Sedevacantists I have come across. I’ll admit that some of their claims are difficult to refute if you don’t know your faith.
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/
 
BobP123 said:
I’m just a casual observer gathering up as much information from all sides as possible. So what’s the next move, you think? Doesn’t Bishop Fellay want the excommunications lifted or not? So far he’s accepted the MP, if I’m reading things right. Yesterday the Father defined who’s in and who’s out of the Church. That should have made the Bishop even happier. Not trying to be a SA but now what?
Click to expand...
Yes, Fellay was more gracious and accepting towards the Holy Father in his acceptance of the MP than some of the other bishops. (like the one who cried over it.)
 
BobP123 said:
I’m just a casual observer gathering up as much information from all sides as possible. So what’s the next move, you think? Doesn’t Bishop Fellay want the excommunications lifted or not? So far he’s accepted the MP, if I’m reading things right. Yesterday the Father defined who’s in and who’s out of the Church. That should have made the Bishop even happier. Not trying to be a SA but now what?
Click to expand...
Bishop Fellay is a moderate who welcomed the MP, but he has serious reservations about religious liberty and false ecumenism.

There are SSPXers who take a harder line than bp Fellay.
 
Potato1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
that is incorrect. the SSPX does not believe the seat of peter is vacant. the SSPV are sede vacantist. they believe the seat of peter is vacant not the other way around.
 
Walking_Home said:
Yes the Pillar and Foundation of Truth—that due to erroneous interpretations of the Council is having to re-state who She is.
Click to expand...
The Church has had to deal with people misinterpreting her teachings all the time. That’s nothing new. It really has nothing to do with the SSPX though who still need to submit to Apostolic authority. That will clear all of this up.
 
Walking_Home said:
Yes the Pillar and Foundation of Truth—that due to erroneous interpretations of the Council is having to re-state who She is.
Click to expand...
Hey, she has to restate who she is due to errorneous interpretations of the Bible as well! 🙂
 
SSPX from what I have heard doesn’t reject the validity of the papacy of Paul VI thru BXVI. They’ve just essentially become early Anglican in their understanding ofthe authority of the pope.

They substitute their own judgement for his and defy explicit instructions based on their own convictions. Not much different than Henry VIII, IMO. Look where that got HIM.

Prediction, if the SSPX doesn’t get itself back into the fold it will go just as weird as the post Henry Anglicans have.
 
manualman said:
SSPX from what I have heard doesn’t reject the validity of the papacy of Paul VI thru BXVI. They’ve just essentially become early Anglican in their understanding ofthe authority of the pope.

They substitute their own judgement for his and defy explicit instructions based on their own convictions. Not much different than Henry VIII, IMO. Look where that got HIM.

Prediction, if the SSPX doesn’t get itself back into the fold it will go just as weird as the post Henry Anglicans have.
Click to expand...
SSPX - BXVI is the pope but we won’t obey him until he agrees with us in our private interpretation of magisterial documents.:eek:
 
fatima1917 said:
SSPX - BXVI is the pope but we won’t obey him until he agrees with us in our private interpretation of magisterial documents.:eek:
Click to expand...
Sounds more like the Orthodox Church…

We once did, and could again, accept the primacy of the Pope but never the supremacy of the Pope…

but then there’s those pesky little dogmatic differences.
 
BobP123 said:
Don’t know about Canon Law but my missal mentions maybe something about it as a violation of the First Commandment?
Click to expand...
In reference to:
Please cite, chapter, verse, and canon, where the 1983 Code of Canon Law expressly prohibits a Catholic from attending a non-Catholic event.
Click to expand...
Seriously? So, if we have friends getting married or confirmed in a non-Catholic Chuch, we can’t attend? I don’t think that is correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top