Are the SSPX in schism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikellie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mikellie

Guest
If so, which I believe that they are… how is it more or less different from the Eastern Orthodox relationship?

Are the sedevacantists in schism or are the heretics? both?

Just curious to get your opinion(s).
 
If so, which I believe that they are… how is it more or less different from the Eastern Orthodox relationship?

Are the sedevacantists in schism or are the heretics? both?

Just curious to get your opinion(s).
:yawn: :sleep: :sleep: :yawn: :sleep:
 
The Archbishop and the bishops were excommunicated and remain so. The priests are suspended ad divinis and have no faculties. The faithful are warned against the sin of schism by association with them.
 
how is it more or less different from the Eastern Orthodox relationship?
Most Orthodox Christians today were born Orthodox. Most (if not all) SSPX followers were born Catholic, but have chosen to go to SSPX Masses instead, despite the warning from the pope. That is the big difference.
 
Most Orthodox Christians today were born Orthodox. Most (if not all) SSPX followers were born Catholic, but have chosen to go to SSPX Masses instead, despite the warning from the pope. That is the big difference.
wait guys let me get the popcorn this should be a good fight. I say this because I just asked a innocent question and it went on for 11 pages and is still going strong. almost at the name calling spot now. and you mentioned the truth about what the offical position is. and it is true as stated that is the actual offical position of the vaticant. that does not mean this wont go around and around.
 
Hope this helps. A schismatic mindset of a few maybe, but not a schism.
“Regarding the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, Castrillón said:
“They are **not **schismatics, the priests are under a suspension for illicit exercise, and the Bishops are excommunicated because the ordination of new bishops without a permission from Rome received this punishment latæ sententiæ.””
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/200…nterviews.html
“CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism.”
“The Fraternity has always recognized in John Paul II, and now in Benedict XVI, the legitimate successor of Saint Peter. That is not a problem.”
30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360
“Later in the March 17 interview, Cardinal Castrillón affirmed once again publicly, “The Fraternity of St. Pius X is not a consolidated schism per se, but its history has included some schismatic actions…””
ecclesiacatholica.blogspot.co…in-latino.html
“We are not facing a heresy. One **cannot say **in correct, exact, precise terms that there is a schism [here]. There is a schismatic attitude in the consecration of bishops without a pontifical mandate. They are inside the Church; there is only lacking a full, a more perfect — as was said in the meeting with Msgr. Fellay — a fuller communion, because there is communion”
qien.free.fr/2005/200511/20051113_hoyos_eng.htm
“We take care of those who did not wish to follow Archbishop Lefebvre – **which is not exactly a schism **[sic].”
qien.free.fr/2007/200702/20070204_rorate.htm
This from a letter from Monsignor Perl:
“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…”
“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.”
matt1618.freeyellow.com/schism.html
 
…only if twas brillig, the slythy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe, all mimsy were the borogroves and the mome rathes outgrabe…:eek: 😃

…but I love going round and round and round and round and round…
 
No matter how some will spin it (by selective quotations, etc.), they are in schism because they are not in full communion with Rome.
 
Most Orthodox Christians today were born Orthodox. Most (if not all) SSPX followers were born Catholic, but have chosen to go to SSPX Masses instead, despite the warning from the pope. That is the big difference.
My understanding is that they are not in formal schism although those who have willingly decided to follow after the excommunicated “bishops” are in grave jeopardy of schism and could be declared so at any time. One might think, acc to this forum, that those who follow the four “bishops” are many but maybe those who do follow not the bishops keep silent here. Some who defend the bishops seem to deny the fact of schism.

As to that big difference, yes. Those who were born into a separted faith are in a very different category form those who give up their faith and choose to break from the Church
 
If they aren’t in schism, what about this:

“c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law. [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1364.]”

That’s 5c of Ecclesia Dei (1988) here:

newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02ed.htm

How can you say that that aren’t in schism when JPII stated otherwise?
 
If they aren’t in schism, what about this:

“c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill the grave duty of remaining united to the vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law. [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1364.]”

That’s 5c of Ecclesia Dei (1988) here:

newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02ed.htm

How can you say that that aren’t in schism when JPII stated otherwise?
This can be described as a warning.
There has not been a declaration of schism.

It is for sspx devotees to act in accordance with the warning, to turn away from the excommunicated “bishops.” Lefebvre too received a warning. He chose to defy it. Then he was put out of the Church.
 
I’m not sure that I follow. The Pope clearly stated that this was a schismatic act (see bullet 4 in Ecclesia Dei). What would have to happen for SSPX to be “offically declared” schismatic? Do you have any examples of similar declarations?

It appears that the Pope did so in this letter. I also know that we are not permitted to attend an SSPX chapel nor partake in the their valid but illicit sacraments. If they aren’t schismatic, then why are we prohibited from attending their masses?

Please help me to understand why they aren’t officially considered schismatic and provide the appropriate Vatican documentation so that I may read it.

Thanks!
 
forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/collapse_tcat.gif Similar Threads ThreadThread StarterForumRepliesLast PostCardinal Castrillon: SSPX Not in SchismmarycelesteTraditional Catholicism107Apr 15, '07 3:20 pmhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc/subscribed.gif The SSPX and True CatholicismMissa SolemnisTraditional Catholicism432Feb 17, '07 10:08 pmhttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc/subscribed.gif Who, if anybody, supervises SSPX Seminaries?AurelioTraditional Catholicism10Feb 5, '07 9:49 pmSorry, but SSPX Masses DO NOT normally fulfill the Sunday obligationDavidJosephTraditional Catholicism120Feb 1, '07 4:51 pmSSPX NOT in SchismJKirkLVNVTraditional Catholicism42Jan 15, '06 8:37 am
 
I’m not sure that I follow. The Pope clearly stated that this was a schismatic act (see bullet 4 in Ecclesia Dei). What would have to happen for SSPX to be “offically declared” schismatic? Do you have any examples of similar declarations?

It appears that the Pope did so in this letter. I also know that we are not permitted to attend an SSPX chapel nor partake in the their valid but illicit sacraments. If they aren’t schismatic, then why are we prohibited from attending their masses?

Please help me to understand why they aren’t officially considered schismatic and provide the appropriate Vatican documentation so that I may read it.

Thanks!
Sorry. I’m getting ready for work and haven’t time to get documentation from the Vatican. Yet you have documentation from Canon Law right here. Use it. “Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law. [Cf. Code of Canon Law, 1364.” This is a formal warning that says ‘if you do this, then this other will happen to you,’ Does that help?
 
Are the SSPX in schism? Ecclesia Dei specifically refers to SSPX in 5c when it says adherence to “the” schism, not “a” schism.

This was not a theoretical discussion about people choosing to adhere to a schism. It was a specific warning from the Pope for us to avoid the SSPX schism.

I’ve seen some post a Cardinal’s statement here and there, but for me if the Pope calls the SSPX a schism, which he did in Ecclesia Dei in 1988, then they are in schism.

Now people who choose to attend the chapels, I think that depends on their intent and knowledge of the status of SSPX. Although it is clear that we are not to attend. Why is that?

How is it that JPII refers to the SSPX directly as a schism, yet you say they are not? Are we splitting hairs here?
 
I’d also like to say that the entire SSPX problem is a sad and unfortunate turn of events. I wish nothing more for them to return to the Church. I fully sympathize with their view and hope that we can bring them home soon.

The unfortunate reality is that once someone breaks off from the Church, it is very difficult to get everyone back. I fear that some form of SSPX will exist even if the majority can come back one day.

I ask that we all pray for unity.
 
Here is a section from the Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent that gives a little overview of schism:
But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy.

Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy.

However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command. On the other hand, schism does not necessarily imply adhesion, either public or private, to a dissenting group or a distinct sect, much less the creation of such a group. Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian, rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the rejection of Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy.
So, reading this, I can see how the SSPX can be declared schismatic and yet not really in schism. They are schismatic in the sense that they have rebelled against legitimate authority. However, they preach no heresy (that I know of) and have not denied the Divine right of superiors to command.

What is definitely true is the line that “schism leads almost invariably to the denial of papal primacy”. There are SSPX priests, bishops and laity who have embraced sedevacantism. When one looks at it objectively, it’s probably the most honest position, as opposed to claiming loyalty to the Church while ignoring legitimate authority and doing as one pleases.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top