Sedevaticanism

[One Bad Pig]

In another thread, Catholicity26 posted:

In covering sedevaticanism, we cover a whole lot of different groups. They amount to numerous sects, some are the Independent Catholics which have split more recently from Rome over issues of openly homosexual priests, female priests, birth control, abortion, same sex marriage and divisions which counter the moral teachings the Roman Catholic Church holds so deeply. Secondly, we might also address the Society of St Pius X, Founded in 1970 out of defiance to the Second Vatican Council by French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The Primary Teaching of this society is the rejection of the second Vatican Council's Teaching's and has held that all pope's since The Council Under Blessed John XXIII were Led by the devil. They believe they are the true remnant of the Church and all other Catholics have been led astray. Archbishop Lefabvre was excommunicated in 1988 after the ordinance of 4 bishops when he was ordered not to By Pope John Paul II. Another priest in the society was excommunicated from the Church as a whole after making some very antisemitic remarks (the movement is known for its antisemitism) Some further explanation, Catholic priests in the Society, are recognized as validly Catholic and ordained but the priestly duties are invalid when they practice as members of this society. These are two of the sedevaticanists movements today.

How can members (let alone priests) of a group that believes the pope is led by the devil be considered in communion with him?

[apostoli]

How can members (let alone priests) of a group that believes the pope is led by the devil be considered in communion with him?

No one in the RCC is required to be in union with the Pope - he is just a fallible man. The unity is the church itself whom the Pope is said to head (albeit it is the magisterium that controls doctrine, rather than the presbyters).

Over the centuries there have been numerous popes & anti-popes (numerious simultaneous popes). It is just one of those scandels of the RCC, that has enabled it to survive its nearly 2000 years of history.

[ChemMJW]

In another thread, Catholicity26 posted:
How can members (let alone priests) of a group that believes the pope is led by the devil be considered in communion with him?

1. Regarding Catholicity26's original post, I've never heard or read any official source from the Society of St. Pius X claiming that the Pope is "led by the devil." Not that I've spent a great deal of time looking for any such nonsense, though. The Society does, I think, believe that the Devil's influence has led the Church astray since the 1970s (in the same way that the Devil can lead an individual to sin), but this is not at all the same thing as a person actively being led by the devil in a collaborative sense.

2. As far as I know, the Society does not consider the Chair of Peter to be unoccupied, and therefore they do not qualify as sedevacantists. In fact, three priests who joined the Society shortly after its founding who did hold to such beliefs were promptly expelled by the Society's founder Archbishop Lefebvre himself.

3. The Church absolutely does consider all sacraments (Masses, weddings, confessions, etc.) performed by Society priests to be valid, but also holds them to be illicit. The validity of their sacraments is a simple consequence of rudimentary sacramental theology. At the simplest level, the only thing required for a sacrament to be valid is that it is performed by a validly ordained minister who actually intends to do what the sacrament does (i.e., in confession the priest must actually intend to forgive sins, at Mass the priest must actually intend to consecrate the Eucharist, at a wedding, the bride and groom must actually intend to unite themselves in matrimony). There is no question that Archbishop Lefebvre was a validly ordained Catholic priest and a validly consecrated Catholic bishop, and therefore any men he ordained or consecrated down the line are also validly ordained or consecrated. Therefore, the validity of the Society's sacraments is a non-issue. Simple as that. However, the Catholic faithful are urged not to visit Society chapels or churches to receive their sacraments (however valid they are) unless in danger of imminent death, because the Society's clergy are not in full communion with the Church Universal, having willfully rejected the teaching authority of the Pope and the body of Bishops assembled in council. Therefore, the faithful are urged to participate in Church life in parishes in full communion with the Church. In layman's terms, if I'm an air force pilot, but the air force kicks me out, that doesn't mean I'm suddenly unable to fly anymore - I don't lose my flying skills just because the oversight body forbids me to exercise them. In the same way, Society sacraments are still valid, even though the Vatican has (to no avail) ordered them not to perform priestly functions.

[One Bad Pig]

1. Regarding Catholicity26's original post, I've never heard or read any official source from the Society of St. Pius X claiming that the Pope is "led by the devil." Not that I've spent a great deal of time looking for any such nonsense, though. The Society does, I think, believe that the Devil's influence has led the Church astray since the 1970s (in the same way that the Devil can lead an individual to sin), but this is not at all the same thing as a person actively being led by the devil in a collaborative sense.

2. As far as I know, the Society does not consider the Chair of Peter to be unoccupied, and therefore they do not qualify as sedevacantists. In fact, three priests who joined the Society shortly after its founding who did hold to such beliefs were promptly expelled by the Society's founder Archbishop Lefebvre himself.

Thanks.

3. The Church absolutely does consider all sacraments (Masses, weddings, confessions, etc.) performed by Society priests to be valid, but also holds them to be illicit. The validity of their sacraments is a simple consequence of rudimentary sacramental theology. At the simplest level, the only thing required for a sacrament to be valid is that it is performed by a validly ordained minister who actually intends to do what the sacrament does (i.e., in confession the priest must actually intend to forgive sins, at Mass the priest must actually intend to consecrate the Eucharist, at a wedding, the bride and groom must actually intend to unite themselves in matrimony). There is no question that Archbishop Lefebvre was a validly ordained Catholic priest and a validly consecrated Catholic bishop, and therefore any men he ordained or consecrated down the line are also validly ordained or consecrated. Therefore, the validity of the Society's sacraments is a non-issue. Simple as that. However, the Catholic faithful are urged not to visit Society chapels or churches to receive their sacraments (however valid they are) unless in danger of imminent death, because the Society's clergy are not in full communion with the Church Universal, having willfully rejected the teaching authority of the Pope and the body of Bishops assembled in council. Therefore, the faithful are urged to participate in Church life in parishes in full communion with the Church. In layman's terms, if I'm an air force pilot, but the air force kicks me out, that doesn't mean I'm suddenly unable to fly anymore - I don't lose my flying skills just because the oversight body forbids me to exercise them. In the same way, Society sacraments are still valid, even though the Vatican has (to no avail) ordered them not to perform priestly functions.

Interesting. How can one be considered in communion when one rejects the authority of the Church? To further your analogy, if my flying license is taken away and I keep flying regardless, the Air Force isn't going to merely urge people not to be a passenger on my flights; they're going to arrest me for even attempting to fly, and send me to jail. Then again, your analogy fails because the efficacy of sacraments is based on validity, not skill. One who rejects the authority of the Church should be excommunicated, and anything he does from that point forward would be invalid. Is the Roman church so short on priests that it is no longer willing to excommunicate those who stray?

[Rdr. Arsenios]

The Primary Teaching of this society is the rejection of the second Vatican Council's Teaching's and has held that all pope's since The Council Under Blessed John XXIII were Led by the devil.

Rejection as a Primary Teaching is a grave matter...

Sounds almost like Fundamentalist Protestants...

Are they just pre-Vatican II Catholics?

Catholic priests in the Society are recognized as validly Catholic and ordained
but the priestly duties are invalid when they practice as members of this society.

Latin Inclusivism???

On the one hand, they ARE ordained...
On the other, they ARE wrong...
Solution? Divide their persons...

Arsenios

[One Bad Pig]

Are they just pre-Vatican II Catholics?

If you consider HOCNA "pre-New Calendar Orthodox".

[Catholicity]

Thanks.

Umm....just an update....depending on who is in the confraternity and to whom you are speaking to they will tell you one or the other. Some will say The Primacy is "led by the devil" and therefore unoccupied, other's will say its "led by the devil" but occupied and The current leader I believe accepts Pope Benedict XVI's Primacy. (Did some digging read a little more on it)

Is the Roman church so short on priests that it is no longer willing to excommunicate those who stray?

No. In fact there was a recent case of excommunications of several priests involved in several different types of scandals.

Interesting. How can one be considered in communion when one rejects the authority of the Church?

ok. I have a hard time explaining this, The priests, if they were not ordained under the confraternity of the society are validly ordained, but have been explicitely told not to give the sacraments. They are illicitly given. If those in the society remain obedient to the papacy, they are in communion. If not they subject themselves to discipline

[Rdr. Arsenios]

If you consider HOCNA "pre-New Calendar Orthodox".

Great answer!

Thanks, OBP...

A.

[One Bad Pig]

Umm....just an update....depending on who is in the confraternity and to whom you are speaking to they will tell you one or the other. Some will say The Primacy is "led by the devil" and therefore unoccupied, other's will say its "led by the devil" but occupied and The current leader I believe accepts Pope Benedict XVI's Primacy. (Did some digging read a little more on it)

Thanks for the update.

No. In fact there was a recent case of excommunications of several priests involved in several different types of scandals.

Good to know you guys still have some discipline.

ok. I have a hard time explaining this, The priests, if they were not ordained under the confraternity of the society are validly ordained, but have been explicitely told not to give the sacraments. They are illicitly given. If those in the society remain obedient to the papacy, they are in communion. If not they subject themselves to discipline

I'm not sure this is helping my understanding. Per ChemMJW above, those ordained under the confraternity are also validly ordained, and those who receive communion from society members are in some sort of partial communion. I'm having a difficult time reconciling the two positions. Furay might be able to help us on this, if he'd come around; he likes them.

[ChemMJW]

Thanks.

You're quite welcome.

Interesting. How can one be considered in communion when one rejects the authority of the Church?

I don't know. I feel like "communion" here may be a matter of semantics. The SSPX is certainly not in full communion with Rome, because they refuse to obey certain edicts of the Church's legitimate governing authority. However, they are not fully broken with Rome, either, as they still profess and teach the historic Catholic faith, and they still profess the authority of the Pope and Bishops in principle. The difficulty is that the SSPX still holds to and teaches the Catholic faith, they just reject certain forms of expressing that faith (i.e., the Novus Ordo) in comparison to others.

To further your analogy, if my flying license is taken away and I keep flying regardless, the Air Force isn't going to merely urge people not to be a passenger on my flights; they're going to arrest me for even attempting to fly, and send me to jail.

Alas, this is simply a place where my imperfect metaphor fails. You may or may not be aware that the Church has no power to physically enforce its edict (nor should it). SSPX chapels are built with donations and owned directly by the SSPX, not the greater Catholic Church, and therefore it is not legally possible for the institutional Church to evict them or arrest them or lock them out. What do you suggest would be a reasonable physical step to enforce the Church's will? They were officially excommunicated for over 20 years, until quite recently in fact, but that did not stop like-minded Catholics from seeking them out and making the SSPX their faith home. Excommunication may have grave spiritual consequence, but physically, an excommunication is just a piece of paper; that paper can't actually do anything.

Then again, your analogy fails because the efficacy of sacraments is based on validity, not skill.

Not sure what you mean by this. I agree that the efficacy of the sacraments is based on validity. As I pointed out above, all SSPX priests and bishops are validly ordained, and therefore their sacraments are also valid.

One who rejects the authority of the Church should be excommunicated, and anything he does from that point forward would be invalid.

Perhaps this is a difference between Catholic sacramental theology and the Orthodox version. An excommunication would make a priest's sacraments illicit, not invalid. That is, celebrating the sacraments is something he should not do, not something he cannot do. That is what I was trying to communicate with my flying analogy. If the FAA revokes my pilot's license, it means that I no longer have the legal authority to fly; I should refrain from flying in the future. It does not mean that I cannot fly, i.e., that I no longer possess the ability to fly. Flying is something that I am still perfectly physically capable of doing, but it's now something I'm not sanctioned to do anymore.

Is the Roman church so short on priests that it is no longer willing to excommunicate those who stray?

As stated before, the four Bishops of the SSPX were officially excommunicated from 1988-2009. I think the excommunications were lifted in 2009 in response to the SSPX's willingness to enter official talks with the Vatican, but I'm not entirely sure.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't know. I feel like "communion" here may be a matter of semantics. The SSPX is certainly not in full communion with Rome, because they refuse to obey certain edicts of the Church's legitimate governing authority. However, they are not fully broken with Rome, either, as they still profess and teach the historic Catholic faith, and they still profess the authority of the Pope and Bishops in principle. The difficulty is that the SSPX still holds to and teaches the Catholic faith, they just reject certain forms of expressing that faith (i.e., the Novus Ordo) in comparison to others.

I don't understand how one can be considered in partial communion; either one is in communion or one is not. There are groups calling themselves the "True Orthodox Church" and "The Holy Orthodox Church of North America" that are fully Orthodox in their beliefs and profess the authority of bishops, but reject the shift to the New Calendar and participation in ecumenical discussions. They are not in any sense in communion with the Orthodox Church.

Alas, this is simply a place where my imperfect metaphor fails. You may or may not be aware that the Church has no power to physically enforce its edict (nor should it). SSPX chapels are built with donations and owned directly by the SSPX, not the greater Catholic Church, and therefore it is not legally possible for the institutional Church to evict them or arrest them or lock them out. What do you suggest would be a reasonable physical step to enforce the Church's will? They were officially excommunicated for over 20 years, until quite recently in fact, but that did not stop like-minded Catholics from seeking them out and making the SSPX their faith home. Excommunication may have grave spiritual consequence, but physically, an excommunication is just a piece of paper; that paper can't actually do anything.

A reasonable step would be to consider anyone who communes with the SSPX to be excommunicate, which is historically how the Church has treated schismatics.

Perhaps this is a difference between Catholic sacramental theology and the Orthodox version. An excommunication would make a priest's sacraments illicit, not invalid. That is, celebrating the sacraments is something he should not do, not something he cannot do. That is what I was trying to communicate with my flying analogy. If the FAA revokes my pilot's license, it means that I no longer have the legal authority to fly; I should refrain from flying in the future. It does not mean that I cannot fly, i.e., that I no longer possess the ability to fly. Flying is something that I am still perfectly physically capable of doing, but it's now something I'm not sanctioned to do anymore.

Yeah, I get what you were trying to communicate; I disagree with it. If a sacrament is spiritual in nature, and an excommunication has spiritual consequences, then an excommunicated priest's sacraments are invalid. He may go through the motions, but the motions don't mean anything without the spiritual component.

As stated before, the four Bishops of the SSPX were officially excommunicated from 1988-2009. I think the excommunications were lifted in 2009 in response to the SSPX's willingness to enter official talks with the Vatican, but I'm not entirely sure.

That's backwards, IMO. The excommunication should've been in effect until all differences were resolved by the talks.