Are the SSPX in schism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikellie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
:nope: ---- :banghead: -----:coffeeread: ----:yawn:---------- :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :
 
JKirkLVNV said:
:confused: 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.:confused:
Click to expand...
 
Finally…--------------------------------------------------------------:sleep:
 
tcraig said:
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.
.
Click to expand...
In reference to Arch. Lefebvre case --reconcile what you said with the highlighted section from St. Jerome.

In order for a disobedience to possess the character of schism (to be schism) ----it Must Include (requires both to be schism)
1.) transgression of the command of superiors–the disobedience
2.) denial of their Divine right to command— basicly denial of the papacy.

Arch. Lefebvre went ahead with consecrations----but did he deny the papacy.
 
Define denying the papacy.

I think establishing a church outside the Church and having JPII refer to SSPX as a schism matters.

If the SSPX follow the Pope as they claim, where did they get the authority to grant annulments? This was not under their purview prior to their departure.

How can they hold tribunals for annulments if Rome is not involved?
 
Mike_NC said:
Define denying the papacy.

I think establishing a church outside the Church and having JPII refer to SSPX as a schism matters.

If the SSPX follow the Pope as they claim, where did they get the authority to grant annulments? This was not under their purview prior to their departure.

How can they hold tribunals for annulments if Rome is not involved?
Click to expand...
They did not establish a church outside the Church. This came as a result of Ecclesia Dei. In other words–JPII was the one who created what is now seen by some as a separate group.
 
Actually SSPX actions made them separate from the Church. The whole consecrating Bishops without papal authority thing (is that denial of Papal authority?)

Oh right… extreme fear permitted this…

OK - so now tell me… if the current SSPX is not schismatic, how are they able to hold tribunals for annulments without Rome involved?

I have no axe to grind with SSPX, but I do think it is misleading to pretend as if they are still within in the Church and that its OK for Catholic to attend their masses.
 
Mike_NC said:
Actually SSPX actions made them separate from the Church. The whole consecrating Bishops without papal authority thing (is that denial of Papal authority?)

Oh right… extreme fear permitted this…

OK - so now tell me… if the current SSPX is not schismatic, how are they able to hold tribunals for annulments without Rome involved?

I have no axe to grind with SSPX, but I do think it is misleading to pretend as if they are still within in the Church and that its OK for Catholic to attend their masses.
Click to expand...

“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.”​

If you read the section by St. Jerome provided above—you will note that St. Jerome specifies 2 separate acts. The denial of the Divine right of command is not included within the transgression of the command (disobedience). It is a separate act on its own. St. Jerome does not incorporate the two acts into one.

Concerning the papacy—denial of the Divine right to command–would be :
  1. rejecting the papacy altogether—there is no such office as the papacy—ex. the protestants.
  2. primacy of honor—there is a type of office—but has only primacy of honor. —ex. the Orthodox.
 
Then why did JPII refer to the Archbishop’s acts as schismatic?

Why did he warn us from joining the schism in Ecclesia Dei?**

Is it possible to claim to follow the Pope with words, yet have the actions not follow suit?

And once again, why do you refuse to answer my question regarding the establishment of tribunals to consider annulments and other issues of Canon law without Papal Authority?
  1. How is that just mere disobedience? Where is the line?
  2. How does the SSPX justify doing so if they follow the Pope and yield to his Divine right of authority as they claim?
 
Walking_Home said:

“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.”​

If you read the section by St. Jerome provided above—you will note that St. Jerome specifies 2 separate acts. The denial of the Divine right of command is not included within the transgression of the command (disobedience). It is a separate act on its own. St. Jerome does not incorporate the two acts into one.

Concerning the papacy—denial of the Divine right to command–would be :
  1. rejecting the papacy altogether—there is no such office as the papacy—ex. the protestants.
  2. primacy of honor—there is a type of office—but has only primacy of honor. —ex. the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
So to sum up. They are schismitc without fully being in schism. there masses are valid but not licit. there bishops are excommunicated but trying to reconcile. The faithful are warned away without actually being told not to go. The sspx is outside of the church to an extent, but hope is not lost on a reunioun.

in other words sspx is in deep du du. and if they don’t straighten up and fly right they will be in formal schism. As for now the faithful are warned that this could go either way.
 
Mike_NC said:
Then why did JPII refer to the Archbishop’s acts as schismatic?

Why did he warn us from joining the schism in Ecclesia Dei?**

Is it possible to claim to follow the Pope with words, yet have the actions not follow suit?

And once again, why do you refuse to answer my question regarding the establishment of tribunals to consider annulments and other issues of Canon law without Papal Authority?
  1. How is that just mere disobedience? Where is the line?
  2. How does the SSPX justify doing so if they follow the Pope and yield to his Divine right of authority as they claim?
Click to expand...
I am trying to get a clearer picture of what initially happened. Everything stems from the consecrations. Was this an act of schism or not. What you ask of the tribunals, etc stems from this act. So you see–it can not be easily determined if the tribunals/annulments are an act of direct denial of papal authority—or acts of self–preservation.

Can one believe in the Divine right to command and then disobey–by St. Jerome it seems to be yes—otherwise it would not be two separate acts he speaks off. Remember St. Jerome states–“not every disobedience is schism” then goes forth to define the two acts—one being the disobedience itself, the other the denial of the Divine right to command.

The act of disobedience If on its own were to be schism–then St. Jerome would not have stated “not every disobedience is schism”.

You ask about JPII and Ecclesia Dei. ---- I don’t know why—just that he did. I am just trying to get a clearer picture of what happened initially based on on St. Jerome.
 
down_under said:
So to sum up. They are schismitc without fully being in schism. there masses are valid but not licit. there bishops are excommunicated but trying to reconcile. The faithful are warned away without actually being told not to go. The sspx is outside of the church to an extent, but hope is not lost on a reunioun.

in other words sspx is in deep du du. and if they don’t straighten up and fly right they will be in formal schism. As for now the faithful are warned that this could go either way.
Click to expand...
I guess --If one wanted to see the SSPX in the most negative light possible. It may just be better to leave SSPX to the Pope and let them be.
 
Yes but some disobedience is schism.

What I am trying to say is:

JPII referred to SSPX as a schism

If SSPX was not originally in schism when the Archbishop consecrated those four bishops, then did SSPX enter into it when they established tribunals for annulments without Papal Authority?

Are the establishment of those tribunals mere disobedience or something more? Do you see where I am going?

Some disobedience can also be denying the Divine right…

JPII words carry a great deal of weight since the other areas are gray.
 
Walking_Home said:
I am trying to get a clearer picture of what initially happened. Everything stems from the consecrations. Was this an act of schism or not. What you ask of the tribunals, etc stems from this act. So you see–it can not be easily determined if the tribunals/annulments are an act of direct denial of papal authority—or acts of self–preservation.

Can one believe in the Divine right to command and then disobey–by St. Jerome it seems to be yes—otherwise it would not be two separate acts he speaks off. Remember St. Jerome states–“not every disobedience is schism” then goes forth to define the two acts—one being the disobedience itself, the other the denial of the Divine right to command.

The act of disobedience If on its own were to be schism–then St. Jerome would not have stated “not every disobedience is schism”.

You ask about JPII and Ecclesia Dei. ---- I don’t know why—just that he did. I am just trying to get a clearer picture of what happened initially based on on St. Jerome.
Click to expand...
Self preservation from what? The Church? The Pope? What is the “Self” that they were “preserving”? If not an entity outside the Church?
 
Walking_Home said:
I am trying to get a clearer picture of what initially happened. Everything stems from the consecrations. Was this an act of schism or not. What you ask of the tribunals, etc stems from this act. So you see–it can not be easily determined if the tribunals/annulments are an act of direct denial of papal authority—or acts of self–preservation.

Can one believe in the Divine right to command and then disobey–by St. Jerome it seems to be yes—otherwise it would not be two separate acts he speaks off. Remember St. Jerome states–“not every disobedience is schism” then goes forth to define the two acts—one being the disobedience itself, the other the denial of the Divine right to command.

The act of disobedience If on its own were to be schism–then St. Jerome would not have stated “not every disobedience is schism”.

You ask about JPII and Ecclesia Dei. ---- I don’t know why—just that he did. I am just trying to get a clearer picture of what happened initially based on on St. Jerome.
Click to expand...
It’s probably best to look to the appropriate Church documents to make our determination. The motu proprio Ecclesia Dei calls the act of consecration a “schismatic act” so there is really no debate there.

The only other document that has been issued is the response from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts whose role it is to interpret documents. They say: “As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion, the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter.”

They also state clearly: “Doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree.”

We should avoid forming our opinions based on rumors and hearsay and form them on current authoritative Church teaching.

Of course, as we have discussed elsewhere, the above rulings could be changed at any moment by Pope Benedict.
 
Of course, as we have discussed elsewhere, the above rulings could be changed at any moment by Pope Benedict.
Click to expand...
And here’s to praying they will be.👍
 
Mike_NC said:
Self preservation from what? The Church? The Pope? What is the “Self” that they were “preserving”? If not an entity outside the Church?
Click to expand...
Self preservation in the context of existing. Self preservation in being able to exist.

You exist–and have the instinct of self -preservation (do what is necessary to exist)—does this automaticly put you outside the Church.

Currently–there have been some statements from Card. Castrillon Hoyos–that they are not in formal schism. So frankly it would better serve justice to let the Pope handle the matter—and let the SSPX be.
 
What was the SSPX preserving?

Their existence as people and Catholics was not at stake nor preserved through their actions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top