Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Traditional Catholicism
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #31  
Old Apr 22, '17, 12:28 pm
commenter commenter is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Posts: 3,404
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by PopePiusXIISupp View Post
Sedevacantism says that there is no pope after Pope Pius XII (what is generally assumed as some go back farther). The SSPX accept the pope and pope and say masses una cum papa (in union with the pope). So by that they do accept the pope. They are disobedient, but that does not mean schism as that means rejecting the pope and those in union with him, but that is a thread for itself.

(I do not sympathize with the SSPX as they have faulty logic)
There are degrees of sedevantism. Someone might assert, or affirm, Pope Pius XII as Pope, but only "accept", to use your word, Paul VI as pope. Thus, a document from Pope Pius XI might be quoted as part of the core of Catholic Tradition that post Vatican II popes are evaluated against. The implication is that post Vatican II popes, though validly elected, don't have the same authority as pre Vatican II Popes.

The implication is that Pius X's statements are authoritative as soon as he wrote them, and we can't selectively reject anything; not could the people during his own papacy. But with recent papal statements, we can reject anything as long we can find a Papal statement, anything, as long as it is earlier than 1958 - even if the earlier papal statement was in a different context, in response to a situation not present today.

I am not saying this is the official position of SSPX, but I think it is, for some of their defenders. It is not exactly sedevacantism which claims no valid pope since X year.
It considers recent popes as placeholders, something like acting popes with ceremonial authority, with the possibility of a fully authoritative pope coming in the future. If you find people describing the "Bergoglio papacy", or referring back to the Montini papacy, that is kind of a hint. Semi-sede?
__________________
ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, NY Times:
They do not speak for me.

Last edited by commenter; Apr 22, '17 at 12:41 pm.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old Apr 22, '17, 1:05 pm
J Reed J Reed is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2014
Posts: 182
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by commenter View Post
There are degrees of sedevantism. Someone might assert, or affirm, Pope Pius XII as Pope, but only "accept", to use your word, Paul VI as pope. Thus, a document from Pope Pius XI might be quoted as part of the core of Catholic Tradition that post Vatican II popes are evaluated against. The implication is that post Vatican II popes, though validly elected, don't have the same authority as pre Vatican II Popes.

The implication is that Pius X's statements are authoritative as soon as he wrote them, and we can't selectively reject anything; not could the people during his own papacy. But with recent papal statements, we can reject anything as long we can find a Papal statement, anything, as long as it is earlier than 1958 - even if the earlier papal statement was in a different context, in response to a situation not present today.

I am not saying this is the official position of SSPX, but I think it is, for some of their defenders. It is not exactly sedevacantism which claims no valid pope since X year.
It considers recent popes as placeholders, something like acting popes with ceremonial authority, with the possibility of a fully authoritative pope coming in the future. If you find people describing the "Bergoglio papacy", or referring back to the Montini papacy, that is kind of a hint. Semi-sede?
What you're describing sounds a lot like sedeprivationism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedeprivationism), the position of the SSPV.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old Apr 22, '17, 7:29 pm
commenter commenter is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Posts: 3,404
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by J Reed View Post
What you're describing sounds a lot like sedeprivationism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedeprivationism), the position of the SSPV.
Similar. This philosophy sedeprivationism might fit the position of groups such as SSPV and the SSPX Resistance, which seem to identify no doctrinal authority to recent popes. But I am hypothesizing a middle position between this, and, for instance, Vatican I's description, which is what I was taught.

Some groups, or websites, seem to regard recent popes as somewhat papal, though less papal than pre-1958 popes. Thus, they say a recent pope was authoritative, or fairly "papal" on this document but not that. Or they say hold off on implementing these other recent pope teachings, until they are fully discerned, as to their accuracy. How do they discern? They compare to the template of Tradition, part of which is made up of papal statements that were authoritative on the day they were written, by Pope Pius XII, Pope Leo XIII, etc. If you read pro-SSPX websites, they may cite something by Pope Pius XI, without feeling the need to add, "Hey, this is authoritative". It is a given. No need to discern here, or to wait for our research department to fully assess.

The websites disagree among themselves as to the authority of given recent papal teachings; maybe this recent pope less unreliable than that one, even though we honor and respect both - and they are sometimes ok on doctrine. That is why I hypothesize a position with a gradation, a dimmer switch, rather than "on/off" which semprivationism is.

Liberal groups might say Pope Francis was quite papal when he taught about marriage, but mostly just his private opinion when he talked about resisting the Devil. Other groups might argue the reverse.
__________________
ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, NY Times:
They do not speak for me.

Last edited by commenter; Apr 22, '17 at 7:47 pm.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old Apr 22, '17, 8:36 pm
Expatreprocedit Expatreprocedit is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 24, 2014
Posts: 1,119
Religion: Orthodox
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by PluniaZ View Post
A church council does not have the authority to judge the Pope.
Well, apparently the delegates to the Third Council of Constantinople, which included representations of the reigning Pope, never heard of this principle.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old Apr 22, '17, 11:35 pm
twf twf is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 5,655
Religion: Catholic (former Evangelical Protestant)
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by Expatreprocedit View Post
Well, apparently the delegates to the Third Council of Constantinople, which included representations of the reigning Pope, never heard of this principle.
They were judging a deceased pope, not the reigning pope, no? Hypothetically Pope Emeritus Benedict could now be judged. Pope Francis, on the other hand, could only be advised, not judged.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old Apr 23, '17, 7:23 am
PluniaZ's Avatar
PluniaZ PluniaZ is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2016
Posts: 937
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by Expatreprocedit View Post
Well, apparently the delegates to the Third Council of Constantinople, which included representations of the reigning Pope, never heard of this principle.
The council contradicted themselves on this point, since they also approved the letter of Pope Agatho to the council, which read:

Quote:
For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, Peter, Peter, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for you, that (your) faith fail not. And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren. Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter's faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all. Wherefore the predecessors of Apostolic memory of my littleness, learned in the doctrine of the Lord, ever since the prelates of the Church of Constantinople have been trying to introduce into the immaculate Church of Christ an heretical innovation, have never ceased to exhort and warn them with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma, lest from this they make the beginning of a split in the unity of the Church, by asserting one will, and one operation of the two natures in the one Jesus Christ our Lord: a thing which the Arians and the Apollinarists, the Eutychians, the Timotheans, the Acephali, the Theodosians and the Gaianitę taught, and every heretical madness, whether of those who confound, or of those who divide the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

Of course the hostility and rebellion of Constantinople against the successors of Saint Peter had already been made manifest in the controversy that gave rise to the council when they murdered Pope Martin I.
__________________
"Mary attests that the mercy of the Son of God knows no bounds and extends to everyone, without exception."

-Pope Francis

Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old Apr 23, '17, 10:00 am
commenter commenter is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Posts: 3,404
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Vatican I disproves sspx

Quote:
Originally Posted by PluniaZ View Post
The council contradicted themselves on this point, since they also approved the letter of Pope Agatho to the council, which read:



http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

Of course the hostility and rebellion of Constantinople against the successors of Saint Peter had already been made manifest in the controversy that gave rise to the council when they murdered Pope Martin I.
There are some interesting opinions and info added in this thread, that might better be addressed in a thread of their own.

For this thread, let's try to focus on how Vatican I and its ongoing interpretation may, or may not, affect the current status and future of the FSSPX or SSPX, a "Western" organization that has existed since the early 1970s. Or you could post on how the SSPX affects future interpretation of Vatican I.

Relations between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and historic controversy from that era, is still important - but consider posting on another thread.
__________________
ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, NY Times:
They do not speak for me.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Traditional Catholicism

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
6628CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: Vim71
6217Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
5190Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
4631Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4309Poems and Reflections
Last by: Purgatory Pete
4055OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: Fischli
3293For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: GLam8833
3261Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Herculees
2828Let's Empty Purgatory 2
Last by: Tis Bearself
2449SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 9:35 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.