Ok thnk u. Didnt know that. This would have been about a year ago.
The way that Fr. Gregory Hesse describes it is, the SSPX recognizes the pope as valid because the election of a pope is an act of administration, not a sacrament. It is not a theological procedure of the Church, therefore, there cannot be some sort of “infallible” pronouncement of it. All elections in the Church are acts of admnistration. For example, in a monastery, when the members vote to elect an abbot, it is known as a canonical election within that community. In the same way, the election of the Supreme Pontiff is a canonical procedure carried out by the Cardinals of the Church. This is why the rules/laws for electing a pope can be changed and have been many times thorught the history of the Catholic Church. At one point, it was the people living in Rome who elected the pope, then in another period, the clergy of Rome were the ones who elected popes. It was not until about ~1300 years after the death of our Lord that only Cardinals were the ones to elect a pope.
I hope this helps…
The faculties granted by Pope Francis to the SSPX for confessions were extended beyond the Year of Mercy to be continued indefinitely. As for marriages, the SSPX has also been granted the faculties, with certain restrictions, to validly celebrate the sacrament of Holy Matrimony indefinitely.
If Sedevacantism is true and the Church has been easily dismantled by the addition of the Novus Ordo Missae then I think that would give more credence to Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy then a small remnant of Catholicism.
From what I understand Sedevacantist are an extremely isolated population mostly in Northern America.
There are more SSPX in SSPX Resistance then there are Sedevacantist.
Also I would say that the Renaissance Era with the Borgia Pope’s and other extremely evil and immoral men that have led the Church is proof against Sedevacantism.
I don’t believe in Sedevacantism and I’m not SSPX or SSPX Resistance but I sympathize a great deal and have come close to leaving the Church to become Orthodox or either SSPX or Sedevacantist.
Regarding confessions and marriages with the SSPX, even with the recent decisions by Pope Francis regarding these has some nuance to it.
Not correct. SSPX has had no grant given them relative Marriage
Rather, a provision has been made – exceedingly graciously and generously – by which the laity might validly contract marriage, if they are faithful to expressing their submission to the Bishop who has governance and juridiction over their souls and by whose leave canonically they contract marriage validly and if the SSPX clergy submit themselves to the competent ecclesiastical authority, as is always their obligation, canonically and morally.
The letter of the Holy See, with emphasis added:
As you are aware, for some time various meetings and other initiatives have been ongoing in order to bring the Society of St. Pius X into full communion. Recently, the Holy Father decided, for example, to grant all priests of said Society the faculty to validly administer the Sacrament of Penance to the faithful (Letter Misericordia et misera, n.12), such as to ensure the validity and liceity of the Sacrament and allay any concerns on the part of the faithful.
Following the same pastoral outlook which seeks to reassure the conscience of the faithful, despite the objective persistence of the canonical irregularity in which for the time being the Society of St. Pius X finds itself, the Holy Father, following a proposal by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has decided to authorize Local Ordinaries the possibility to grant faculties for the celebration of marriages of faithful who follow the pastoral activity of the Society, according to the following provisions.
Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite, followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo, by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society.
Where the above is not possible, or if there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass, reminding him of the duty to forward the relevant documents to the Diocesan Curia as soon as possible.
Certain that in this way any uneasiness of conscience on the part of the faithful who adhere to the Society of St. Pius X as well as any uncertainty regarding the validity of the sacrament of marriage may be alleviated, and at the same time that the process towards full institutional regularization may be facilitated, this Dicastery relies on Your cooperation.
The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on 24 March 2017, confirmed his approval of the present letter and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 27 March 2017.
Best arguments for Sedevecantism?
By all means, we should keep everything civil and respect the individuals on this thread. I think this thread is interesting. The problem is that, unlike Protestants and Orthodox, sedes do recognize the need for the papacy. So what leads them in the meantime?
I wonder if there are degrees of sedevacantism. It seems there are some people who regard all popes since 1958, or maybe only the pope since 2013, as “popes”…in a way…sort of administrative place holders. But not really as “Popes”, in the teaching, authoritative way Pope Pius XII was Pope.
It seems like, if someone regarded the recent popes as Popes, then they would now regard their local bishop as their Ordinary (given the close connection between Pope and Ordinary). But there are many who do regard their local bishop (or Eastern bishop) as a valid bishop, but not him or anyone as their valid Ordinary. I suggest there should be an intermediate category, sort of semi-sedevacantist.
Whilst sedevacantism isn’t a position I hold or entertain (for reasons I won’t bother getting into as most haven’t);
I’m not entirely convinced that ‘belief’ in it reaches to extent of hyperbole such as 'it being ‘proof of hell prevailing over the church’.
Catholicism has had some entirely ridiculous people occupy the seat in times long past. Yet it has endured. The Pope doesn’t carry the faith. He takes a physical seat, in the stead of a ‘physical’ representative / Jesus, as many have before him. Which is not the same as being God himself…
If all men are sinners, just how much would you like a man to be guilty of before he is deemed unworthy. Don’t misread; that’s not a likely point of view/reality. But to a sede, the extreme ‘conclusion’ might be the utter destruction of the church. At which point someone might turn and say ‘hmm maybe he wasn’t the best bloke for job you think?’
That’s in no way meant to downplay the severity of the issue or claim. But to say the faith wouldn’t survive the lack of its figurehead, i think is overstated.
People should be open to all angles for the sake of education alone. To do otherwise seems immoral and not in line with the greater good, whether you deem it stupid or not.
How do these different groups differ? I have never heard of any of them before.
In a way, all Protestants are sedevacantists. They regard Peter as having been somewhat authoritative in his commission by Jesus in the Gospel of Mathew, other passages in the gospels, the Book of Acts, and in the 2 epistles he wrote. But there is no successor in our time. In a way, you could say all sedevacantists are Protestant. If effect, they practice private interpretation of Bible and Tradition.
The papacy is not affected by the personal good or bad of popes. Even those with questionable morality did not teach anything wrong on faith and morals.
A Christian community with no bishops might survive without a pope or patriarch. But the Catholic Church is a hierarchical institution. It, like the Orthodox Church, does need bishops Ordinary, so it does need a current pope or patriarch (which the pope also is).
Exact, relevant documentation is appreciated. We all tend to go off on our guesses as to what the Church actually said, or did, without consulting factual evidence.
Well… he DID paste a letter from The Offices of the Congregation. It’s the whole post starting with “Your Eminence” and going to the end.
Don_Ruggero posted Cardinal Müller’s letter, so he provided exactly what you were looking for.
Vatican Radio also has the text of Cardinal Muller’s letter,
"Insofar as possible, the Local Ordinary is to grant the delegation to assist at the marriage to a priest of the Diocese (or in any event, to a fully regular priest), such that the priest may receive the consent of the parties during the marriage rite, followed, in keeping with the liturgy of the Vetus ordo, by the celebration of Mass, which may be celebrated by a priest of the Society.
Where the above is not possible, or if there are no priests in the Diocese able to receive the consent of the parties, the Ordinary may grant the necessary faculties to the priest of the Society who is also to celebrate the Holy Mass, reminding him of the duty to forward the relevant documents to the Diocesan Curia as soon as possible."
Marriages must still be performed by a priest who is not suspended and has faculties. Following the marriage, a SSPX priest can celebrate Mass.
If there’s no other priest available (which seems unlikely), the SSPX priest can celebrate the marriage.
So they don’t exactly have the faculties to perform valid marriages as of yet. The reports of them being able to fully celebrate valid marriages 100% of the time is overblown.
It rare. The majority here faithfully acknowledge the lawfully seated pope. A significant minority are non-Catholics interested in dialog. Very few Catholics, however, hold that there is no lawfully seated pope.
Thanks for the clarification.
I understand that until recent years there was an issue with SSPX, but I wasn’t aware of any issue with FSSP or ICRSS and can’t figure out why they would be on am examination of conscience form.
I seem to recall the Feeneyites continued to take the position that only Catholics go to heaven, after the Magisterium had moved on from that view. I may be remembering wrong but I thought Fr. Feeney had some issues with the Church but was back in full communion before he died.
In the very
first paragraph pointed out what is obvious: we must avoid private
interpretation of Scripture – for that is strictly Protestant. But
then the letter said we must also avoid private interpretation of the
official texts of the Church. To insist on our own private
interpretation, especially when the Church contradicts that, is pure
Note this all happened prior to Vatican II and the rise of sedevacantism.
Yeah, that’s weird. The FSSP has never been in schism. They were breakaways from the SSPX who wanted to return to Rome.
I’m not aware of any problem with the ICRSS either, although admittedly I know less about them than I do about SSPX and FSSP.