What are SSPXers and sedevacantists?

[Anastasia13]

What are SSPXers and sedevacantists?

[tojo]

When I don't know much about something, I twnd to turn to Wikipedia. This will give some background info, and I'm sure other phatmassers comments will help further.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X"]SSPX[/url]

[cmotherofpirl]

I think you will find it well-covered in the apologetic section.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Sedevacantists are People who claim to be catholics who are actually Heretics. they believe that Pope Benedict XVI is an anti-pope (not a true pope). They reject the second Vatican Council as illegitimate because they think it was called by an anti-pope. They use only the tradtional latin mass (ussaly the mass of 1958).

the SSPX is a priestly fraternity that was excommunicated for consecrating four bishops in 1988 under the direct order not to by the Holy Father. By doing this it was an act of Schism and disobedience and they are in excommunication. Their Bishops also only use the Traditional Mass and Sacraments. They Recognize Benedict XVI to be the Pope, but they refuse to obey him, because they think that unoffically he is a modernist. They Accept Vatican II as a legitimate council but see it as ambigous and not infallibile. I Used to support the SSPX it is a very strange relegious order and can be almost cult-like.

Many members of both groups are Extremley anti-semetic.


God Bless,

Sam

[brendan1104]

Sam,

you've gone off the deep end!

I repeat, the SSPX isn't in schism.

The Pope only said to Archbishop Lefebvre: if you will consecrate the bishops that inccurs excommunication- yet in order for somebody to be excommunicated, there needs to be a formal verbal and written pronouncement from the Holy Father...

all SSPX Sacraments are vaild.

the SSPX is a traditional society of common life, and one needs to read their whole history... wikipedia is good for background, and while PM doesn't allow SSPX links, go to www.sspx.org for more info.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Brendan brendan brendan.... just because i highly doubt that i have "gone off the deep end" i definetly value your opinion because i used to have it. But What the Holy Father says is what is true. He is the final authourity in such matters. so until he says other wise they are in schism.

God Bless,

Sam

P.S I never said that their Sacraments were invalid, plus i would have no real problem going to their masses, because it does fufill our sunday Obligation.


sam

[Cam42]

[quote name='brendan1104' date='Nov 25 2005, 07:46 PM']Sam,

you've gone off the deep end!

I repeat, the SSPX isn't in schism.

The Pope only said to Archbishop Lefebvre: if you will consecrate the bishops that inccurs excommunication- yet in order for somebody to be excommunicated, there needs to be a formal verbal and written pronouncement from the Holy Father...

all SSPX Sacraments are vaild.

the SSPX is a traditional society of common life, and one needs to read their whole history... wikipedia is good for background, and while PM doesn't allow SSPX links, go to www.sspx.org for more info.
[right][snapback]800369[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

We've been over this before and you refused to respond to me then, so I assume that you won't today either....however:

[quote name='Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei #3']In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. [b]Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.[/b] [u]In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.[/u][/quote]

[quote name='Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei #4'][b]The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.[/b] There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth."[/quote]

Yep, the bishops of the SSPX are excommunicated and the priestly fraternity is, de facto, in schism. The previous Holy Father said far more than what you assert.

[Cam42]

Validity and licitness are two completely separate issues. Because Archbishop Lefevbre was validly ordained (sic. consecrated) a bishop, when he ordained (sic. consecrated) the SSPX bishops, the action was valid. However, since he did not have permission from the Holy Father, which is required, the action was schismatic in nature (cf. CCC 2089). This action created the suspension and excommunication of the bishops and those they ordain.

The ordinations that these bishops perform are valid, but illicit. Those who are ordained are immediately suspended from having faculties.

With that being the case, they can still say Mass, because they are validly ordained, however, they don't have faculties (which are granted by the local Ordinary) to administer ANY sacraments, which include saying a licit Mass, 1962 or otherwise......

It is under dubious sentiments that one who is communion with Rome should ever attend an SSPX Mass. Those who are attending the Mass are not excommunicated, only the clergy. However, they are participating in a schismatic action and therefore it is illicit.

The reason we are not to go to SSPX Masses, is because we know them to be illicit.

The thing is that they CLAIM.....they don't have any basis. They don't have any proof. They are in error. Notice that my quotes from their own website answer your questions, but don't really answer THE questions. That is the problem....they don't tell the whole truth, because the whole truth lies within the Church, today.

Their claims are without basis and without merit. They distort what little bits of truth that they have, ie. partial statements from deceased Cardinals Ottaviani and Baggi.

The supporting quotes are listed above in my previous post.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

cam,

many trads are claiming now that Cardinal Hoyos has said that the SSPX is not excommunicated. have you heard anything about this?


sam

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 25 2005, 06:44 PM']I think you will find it well-covered in the apologetic section.
[right][snapback]800324[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
indeed check out these entries:

SSPX / Lefebvrites
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/490"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/490[/url]

Sedevacantists
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/491"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/491[/url]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Nov 26 2005, 09:58 AM']cam,

many trads are claiming now that Cardinal Hoyos has said that the SSPX is not excommunicated. have you heard anything about this?
sam
[right][snapback]800725[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, it is a misunderstanding of Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos' position.

In a 2002 meeting with Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos and Bishop Fellay there was discussion about a protocol for "regularizing" the SSPX. At the end, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos suggested to the Holy Father that if the protocol was approved, the excommunication of the St. Pius X Fraternity should be lifted. He also suggested that the fraternity be recognized as a society of apostolic life with a special rite, and that the protocol be enforced that was signed by
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre, which the latter later rejected, proceeding with the illegal ordination of bishops.

A few days later, Bishop Fellay sent the fraternity's secretary to Rome to meet with Cardinal Castrillón, to make criticisms of the present rite of the Mass, and to call for a halt in the process of reconciliation, unless the fraternity's excommunication were first lifted and every priest allowed to celebrate Mass with St. Pius V's rite.

Although he authorized the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, Pope John Paul II has worked for years to reconcile the traditionalists, and in 2000 he authorized Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos to proceed with direct negotiations with traditionalist prelates. In January 2002 those talks bore their first fruits when a separate Brazilian traditionalist group, located in the Diocese of Campos, reached a full agreement with the Holy See and was restored to communion with Rome.

Questions asked by my friend F. John Loughnan and answered directly from the office of then-Cardinal Ratzinger:

Was the declaration of Pope John Paul in Ecclesia Dei as to who was NOT in communion with him then legislatively Authoritative, binding and now still in effect? That is: are Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Malleais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta current excommunicates?
[quote]The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).

Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.[/quote]

What is the status of all the priests, seminarians and "those who adhere" to the SSPX?
[quote]While the priests of the Society of St Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and to the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St Pius X.[/quote]

[b]What does "adherence" constitute?
[quote]Thus far the Church has not officially declared what constitutes "formal adherence to the schism" inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as 'the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751).[/b][/quote]

How authoritative is your response?
[quote]We must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicæ Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the various dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.[/quote]

I understand Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos and the office of then-Cardinal Ratzinger to be consistent. I also consider them to be consistent with the late Holy Father. As is stated by then-Cardinal Ratzinger's office. I also understand this to be that the words of Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos were misused. Because there has been no formal definition of adhere, in this sense, but only the common understanding of the word, the deciphering should remain with the motu proprio and with the CDF until such time as it is formally defined.

As then-Cardinal Ratzinger so aptly stated, and is the most compitent statement:

[quote]Those mentioned above [the SSPX bishops] who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.[/quote]

I hope that helps Sam.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

thanks Cam.



sam

[brendan1104]

cam,

i didnt respond to what, exactly? i didnt see anything.

ill be on next weekend...

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

one time in the debate forum you called him a modernist, and he made a big thread about and kept inviting you to come challenge him.

[brendan1104]

ill try to look it up, i wouldve challenged him, had i seen it... all well.

[brendan1104]

p.s. sam: did you go to the novus ordo mass today?

Edited November 27, 2005 by brendan1104

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

yes sir i did. i prefer the tridentine but i really can't get there every week.