The Sspx And The Orthodox Church

[KeenanParkerII]

Disclaimer: Please don't post in here unless you're seeking understanding and doing so in a spirit of charity. I'm not looking for an aggressive debate. Neither do I want entire pages of random citations, only concise documentation where necessary. (Apo + Rexi)

I asked my priest a very straightforward question: Does the Orthodox Church have valid Sacraments, yes or no answer. He says yes, they in fact do have valid sacraments. Why then are they in schism? Among other things, they reject the supremacy of the Pope. (Differentiating between primacy and supremacy here.) Why do they have valid Sacraments if this is the case? They stem from the organic development and of the Tradition of the Church.

Cannot we also say the same of SSPX? Their liturgy is precisely as that which was an organic development of the Church, some would say even moreso than what we practice today, but that is another matter. While they believe that the seat of St.Peter is essentially void, can it not be said in simplified terms that they too do not recognize the supremacy of the Pope?

What are your opinions on this? Some people view the SSPX favourably, and those same people tend to aggressively denounce the Orthodox Church (perhaps out of a Latin bias). Some people are so far Eastern rite bias that they would seem to see no difference between themselves and the Orthodox Church.

Hopefully I can gain more insight on both irregular groups here.

[Cherie]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='15 March 2010 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1268668925' post='2073469']
Cannot we also say the same of SSPX?
[/quote]

As far as I understand, (and this was a common topic when I was in the convent) if this is the question you were asking, yes, they have valid sacraments, even so far as saying that if a "regular" Catholic Sunday Mass is not available, you can fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX Mass.

Edited March 15, 2010 by CherieMadame

[zunshynn]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='15 March 2010 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1268668925' post='2073469']
Disclaimer: Please don't post in here unless you're seeking understanding and doing so in a spirit of charity. I'm not looking for an aggressive debate. Neither do I want entire pages of random citations, only concise documentation where necessary. (Apo + Rexi)

I asked my priest a very straightforward question: Does the Orthodox Church have valid Sacraments, yes or no answer. He says yes, they in fact do have valid sacraments. Why then are they in schism? Among other things, they reject the supremacy of the Pope. (Differentiating between primacy and supremacy here.) Why do they have valid Sacraments if this is the case? They stem from the organic development and of the Tradition of the Church.

Cannot we also say the same of SSPX? Their liturgy is precisely as that which was an organic development of the Church, some would say even moreso than what we practice today, but that is another matter. While they believe that the seat of St.Peter is essentially void, can it not be said in simplified terms that they too do not recognize the supremacy of the Pope?

What are your opinions on this? Some people view the SSPX favourably, and those same people tend to aggressively denounce the Orthodox Church (perhaps out of a Latin bias). Some people are so far Eastern rite bias that they would seem to see no difference between themselves and the Orthodox Church.

Hopefully I can gain more insight on both irregular groups here.
[/quote]

One correction... the SSPX, at least most of them, do not believe that the Chair of Peter is void or vacant. People that believe that are sedevancantists... while there are some similarities in the reason why they are not in communion with the Church, they are different groups. The SSPX believe that Pope Benedict is a valid pope. They do not believe that the Holy See had the authority to institute the Novus Ordo, though, which they consider to be an invalid mass. The reasoning that I have heard most often for there belief that the Novus Ordo is invalid is in the language of the consecration... someone else can probably better explain that. And I don't recall whether or not those that accuse past popes of having committed the heresy of modernism include the SSPX or if that is typically sedevacantist groups.

So yes, it's a similar situation to that with the Orthodox, especially in the respect of them still celebrating valid sacraments, (except for confession, as their faculties to give absolution have been suspended--at least by the bishops in most dioceses, I don't know if that is the situation everywhere) but you can not really say that it's the same thing. The issue with the Orthodox at the time of the Schism was primarily doctrinal and theological (although since then more problems have arisen), whereas the issue with the SSPX is primarily disciplinary. They do believe in the primacy of Peter, actually... but they don't believe that primacy extends to matters of the liturgy.

If by "view favorably" you mean that it would be a very good thing for them to be back in communion with the Holy Father and that they would have much to offer the Church in full communion, then yes I view the SSPX favorably as I do the Orthodox. If by that you mean it's not important for them to come into full communion because they are already "good", then no I wouldn't agree with that. It is ideal for every person to be in full communion with the Catholic Church.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='15 March 2010 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1268670191' post='2073481']
One correction... the SSPX, at least most of them, do not believe that the Chair of Peter is void or vacant. People that believe that are sedevancantists... while there are some similarities in the reason why they are not in communion with the Church, they are different groups. The SSPX believe that Pope Benedict is a valid pope. They do not believe that the Holy See had the authority to institute the Novus Ordo, though, which they consider to be an invalid mass. The reasoning that I have heard most often for there belief that the Novus Ordo is invalid is in the language of the consecration... someone else can probably better explain that. And I don't recall whether or not those that accuse past popes of having committed the heresy of modernism include the SSPX or if that is typically sedevacantist groups.

[/quote]
I've read some SSPX stuff- from what I read it seems like many of them believe that the pope is openly modernist (in the heretical sense), as was John Paul II, John Paul I, and Paul VI.
They're rather harsh about it. I get the impression that we're nicer to them than they are to us.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='15 March 2010 - 10:38 AM' timestamp='1268671130' post='2073490']
I've read some SSPX stuff- from what I read it seems like many of them believe that the pope is openly modernist (in the heretical sense), as was John Paul II, John Paul I, and Paul VI.
They're rather harsh about it. I get the impression that we're nicer to them than they are to us.
[/quote]

yeah, probably.

I thought that too, but that surprises me somewhat, because I know that most say that they believe in the pope's infallibility... so how do they square the notion that they were teaching modernism with that?

[Cherie]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='15 March 2010 - 12:38 PM' timestamp='1268671130' post='2073490']
They're rather harsh about it. I get the impression that we're nicer to them than they are to us.
[/quote]

It's true, some of them definitely can be.

They have an awesome hymnal, though

[Apotheoun]

As I see it, the problems associated with the SSPX are an internal matter that can only be resolved by the authorities within the Latin Church itself.

[KeenanParkerII]

[quote]One correction... the SSPX, at least most of them, do not believe that the Chair of Peter is void or vacant. People that believe that are sedevancantists... while there are some similarities in the reason why they are not in communion with the Church, they are different groups. The SSPX believe that Pope Benedict is a valid pope. They do not believe that the Holy See had the authority to institute the Novus Ordo, though, which they consider to be an invalid mass. The reasoning that I have heard most often for there belief that the Novus Ordo is invalid is in the language of the consecration... someone else can probably better explain that. And I don't recall whether or not those that accuse past popes of having committed the heresy of modernism include the SSPX or if that is typically sedevacantist groups.[/quote]

There is a huge overlap between sedevacantism and the SSPX movement. I can see why there is a natural attraction to the SSPX movement by sedevacantists. On the topic of differences between the Orthodox and Latin Churches, I believe the theological differences (filioque) developed primarily as a means to denounce one another rather than vice versa. However, that stems from the rejection of papal supremacy, which is of course theological.. But that is a historical opinion rather than a theologians.

Edited March 15, 2010 by KeenanParkerII

[zunshynn]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='15 March 2010 - 11:44 AM' timestamp='1268675084' post='2073531']
There is a huge overlap between sedevacantism and the SSPX movement. I can see why there is a natural attraction to the SSPX movement by sedevacantists. On the topic of differences between the Orthodox and Latin Churches, I believe the theological differences (filioque) developed primarily as a means to denounce one another rather than vice versa. However, that stems from the rejection of papal supremacy, which is of course theological.. But that is a historical opinion rather than a theologians.
[/quote]

There definitely is an overlap between the two, but sedevacantists are generally NOT attracted to the SSPX--they think that they have caved too much. Sedevacantists don't believe that we currently have a pope, and that we have not for a long time... SSPX do believe we have a pope. I think Goldenchild has mentioned that when he was a sedevacantist, he'd only attended an SSPX mass once or twice. I'm pretty sure a sedevacantist would only attend an SSPX mass as a last resort, generally speaking. From our perspective, it's very similar... outside of the Church is outside of the Church... but for them, they have irreconcilable differences even between each other.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='15 March 2010 - 12:57 PM' timestamp='1268675820' post='2073535']
There definitely is an overlap between the two, but sedevacantists are generally NOT attracted to the SSPX--they think that they have caved too much. Sedevacantists don't believe that we currently have a pope, and that we have not for a long time... SSPX do believe we have a pope. I think Goldenchild has mentioned that when he was a sedevacantist, he'd only attended an SSPX mass once or twice. I'm pretty sure a sedevacantist would only attend an SSPX mass as a last resort, generally speaking. From our perspective, it's very similar... outside of the Church is outside of the Church... but for them, they have irreconcilable differences even between each other.
[/quote]
Although I bet that the SSPX lose members to sedevacantists the same way we lose people to the SSPX. You could see sedevacantism as a more radical version, if you were inclined in that direction.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='zunshynn' date='15 March 2010 - 11:57 AM' timestamp='1268675820' post='2073535']
There definitely is an overlap between the two, but sedevacantists are generally NOT attracted to the SSPX--they think that they have caved too much. Sedevacantists don't believe that we currently have a pope, and that we have not for a long time... SSPX do believe we have a pope. I think Goldenchild has mentioned that when he was a sedevacantist, he'd only attended an SSPX mass once or twice. I'm pretty sure a sedevacantist would only attend an SSPX mass as a last resort, generally speaking. From our perspective, it's very similar... outside of the Church is outside of the Church... but for them, they have irreconcilable differences even between each other.
[/quote]

It just depends really. I would have had no problems whatsoever attending SSPX (and sedes - the ones I associated with - quite often only attended SSPX if that was all that was available in their area). Of course there are varying opinions among different sede groups, but I believe that there was (is) no valid theological reason for a sedevacantist to turn down an SSPX mass. I think the Mass you were referring to in my case is the FSSP. This is where I differed from some of the more radical sede groups (although again on a theological basis there should be no reason for this), I didn't (don't) see a reason for a sede to turn down an FSSP mass (or any Tridentine Latin Mass) if the priest is old enough to have been ordained before the new rite of ordination was introduced. There are a couple other smaller considerations to think about, but I won't get into details here. For purposes of this post, there really is no reason for a person who is partial to sedevacantism to refuse to attend SSPX. In general though, you are right that sede's believe the SSPX has compromised far too much, as did I. But I believed their Mass was still perfectly valid.

There is/was certainly a lot of tension and disagreement between the groups, but if you ever spend any time within it as I did, you find that much of it is political/philosophical/personal rather than theological.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='15 March 2010 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1268679397' post='2073563']
It just depends really. I would have had no problems whatsoever attending SSPX (and sedes - the ones I associated with - quite often only attended SSPX if that was all that was available in their area). Of course there are varying opinions among different sede groups, but I believe that there was (is) no valid theological reason for a sedevacantist to turn down an SSPX mass. I think the Mass you were referring to in my case is the FSSP. This is where I differed from some of the more radical sede groups (although again on a theological basis there should be no reason for this), I didn't (don't) see a reason for a sede to turn down an FSSP mass (or any Tridentine Latin Mass) [b]if the priest is old enough to have been ordained before the new rite of ordination was introduced.[/b] There are a couple other smaller considerations to think about, but I won't get into details here. For purposes of this post, there really is no reason for a person who is partial to sedevacantism to refuse to attend SSPX. In general though, you are right that sede's believe the SSPX has compromised far too much, as did I. But I believed their Mass was still perfectly valid.

There is/was certainly a lot of tension and disagreement between the groups, but if you ever spend any time within it as I did, you find that much of it is political/philosophical/personal rather than theological.
[/quote]
A lot of FSSP priests are younger men these days.

I feel that this calls for an "evil genius" style laugh, although I'm not sure why.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='15 March 2010 - 12:59 PM' timestamp='1268679560' post='2073566']
A lot of FSSP priests are younger men these days.

I feel that this calls for an "evil genius" style laugh, although I'm not sure why.
[/quote]

Yes and sedevacantists shouldn't attend Mass offered by these as they view the new rite of ordination as invalid/doubtful. That doesn't mean that all of them are. Some of the priests could be older (I don't know any more how many). And that goes for priests outside of the FSSP, if they are old enough, then it shouldn't matter if they are loyal to the Pope, as long they offer the Tridentine Mass and don't propagate modernist errors.

Edited March 15, 2010 by goldenchild17

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='15 March 2010 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1268675084' post='2073531']
On the topic of differences between the Orthodox and Latin Churches, I believe the theological differences (filioque) developed primarily as a means to denounce one another rather than vice versa.
[/quote]

The Catholic Church definitely did not develop the [i]Filioque[/i] in order to denounce the East.

The doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son can be found in Catholic texts from centuries before there was any conflict over the issue. For example, the fifth century Athanasian Creed states that "Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens."--"The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son: not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding."

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='15 March 2010 - 11:02 AM' timestamp='1268668925' post='2073469']
Why do they have valid Sacraments if this is the case? They stem from the organic development and of the Tradition of the Church.[/quote]

The Eucharist in the Orthodox Churches is valid because Eastern Orthodox priests have been validly ordained and because they use proper matter in form and have the necessary intention when they celebrate the Liturgy.

A acrament could be valid even if most of the ceremony surrounding the celebration of the sacrament did not organically develop. For example, even if one does not observe the ceremonies of baptism (such as the exorcisms and anointings), one can baptize validly as long as, having the necessary intention, he pours water on the head of the one to be baptized while at the same time saying "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." For this reason, the Church generally accepts baptisms done by Protestant ministers to be valid.

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='15 March 2010 - 11:02 AM' timestamp='1268668925' post='2073469']
Cannot we also say the same of SSPX? Their liturgy is precisely as that which was an organic development of the Church, some would say even moreso than what we practice today, but that is another matter. While they believe that the seat of St.Peter is essentially void, can it not be said in simplified terms that they too do not recognize the supremacy of the Pope?
[/quote]

The Eucharist celebrated by SSPX priests is valid, as well. Also, the SSPX definitely does accept [i]Pastor Aeternus[/i], the most important document on papal primacy in the history of the Church.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Resurrexi