Are the SSPX in schism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikellie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Walking_Home said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is a tension between what Card. Castrillon has said in interviews and what is the official status according to the Church. It is safe to say, that the official teaching is what is in effect and is what should inform our opinions.

I keep thinking back to the mid 60’s when the issue of birth control was being discussed. Pope Paul VI was said to be in favor of allowing birth control and there was a committee convened that was said to agree that birth control should be allowed. Rumors were very strong that in fact birth control would be permitted. But the fact, through all of this the official teaching remained that birth control was NOT permitted. There were many problems of misinformation caused by people forming their opinions on the RUMORS and not on the official TEACHINGS. Now, let’s be clear, I am not attempting to draw a moral equivalency between the SSPX and birth control. But I think this is a good example of why it is a bad idea to base an opinion on a rumor (even if it seems well-founded).

Here is an interesting post from a solid traditionalist priest, Fr. Zuhlsdorf on the same tension that you have noticed:

wdtprs.com/blog/2007/02/card-castrillon-hoyos-interviewed-about-tridentine-indult/
 
Mike_NC said:
What was the SSPX preserving?

Their existence as people and Catholics was not at stake nor preserved through their actions.
Click to expand...
Mike,

Their argument was that they were preserving their own order and in a broader sense, the traditional liturgy of the Church.
 
Mike_NC said:
What was the SSPX preserving? Their existence as people and Catholics was not at stake nor preserved through their actions.

It’s not up to them whether they exist within the Church however the wanted to in spite of what the Pope wanted b/c the were supposed to be obedient.

What self-preservation? By that standard, Luther did that same thing.
Click to expand...
From what I understand—they are preserving the Faith as Catholics—from the mis-interpretation and mis-application of the Council.

The difference is Luther’s act resulted in heresy—a charge you cannot put on the SSPX. Now in the future—if they start “ordaining” women to the priesthood, or some other comparable act --they may loose the ability to consecrate—but until such time—pointing to Luther serves no purpose. In other words–don’t dump on them for what they have not yet done.
 
Luther and others who have left felt they were preserving or restoring the Church.
 
Here’s the bottom line for me:

I sympathize and like much of what the SSPX stands for but if Pope John Paul II declared them to be in schism*, then that’s enough for me.

IMO, SSPX should do everything in their power to reconcile and they are not in a position to dictate anything to Rome.

*which he did and we’ve seen enough documentation on this thread to prove that
 
Mike_NC said:
Luther and others who have left felt they were preserving or restoring the Church.
Click to expand...
It seems the problem with Luther and his group–is that they went into heresy. Something the SSPX has not done.

As I said prior --in may better serve justice to let the Pope handle the matter—and for us to let the SSPX be.
 
I’m letting them be…

But I will not pretend that the Pope didn’t refer to them as in schism.

I will also not pretend that it’s OK for Catholics to attend SSPX chapels because we have been told not to.

I hope that they come back and that this will all be over and done with. I think too many people want to believe that SSPX is in good standing when it clearly is not.
 
Walking_Home said:
It seems the problem with Luther and his group–is that they went into heresy. Something the SSPX has not done.

As I said prior --in may better serve justice to let the Pope handle the matter—and for us to let the SSPX be.
Click to expand...
Walking Home,

What do you mean “by let the SSPX be”? Is there a problem with accurately explaining what the Church has officially stated on this sad situation?

Please help me understand what you mean by this.

Thanks!
 
Sure said:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
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.

There is a tension between what Card. Castrillon has said in interviews and what is the official status according to the Church. It is safe to say, that the official teaching is what is in effect and is what should inform our opinions.

I keep thinking back to the mid 60’s when the issue of birth control was being discussed. Pope Paul VI was said to be in favor of allowing birth control and there was a committee convened that was said to agree that birth control should be allowed. Rumors were very strong that in fact birth control would be permitted. But the fact, through all of this the official teaching remained that birth control was NOT permitted. There were many problems of misinformation caused by people forming their opinions on the RUMORS and not on the official TEACHINGS. Now, let’s be clear, I am not attempting to draw a moral equivalency between the SSPX and birth control. But I think this is a good example of why it is a bad idea to base an opinion on a rumor (even if it seems well-founded).

Here is an interesting post from a solid traditionalist priest, Fr. Zuhlsdorf on the same tension that you have noticed:

wdtprs.com/blog/2007/02/card-castrillon-hoyos-interviewed-about-tridentine-indult/
Click to expand...
I have noticed a change—but I would not call it tension. It relates to what you and I have discussed. Since the time of Ecclesia Dei–a form of benevolence and change by Rome toward the SSPX --has been gradually happening. This would account for the statements by Card. Castrillon Hoyos.

While I respect Fr. Z for his work and the info he provides—it seems the tension is by Fr. Z toward the statements made by Card. Castrillon Hoyos.
 
Walking_Home said:
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.
Click to expand...
The first part of the section that I initially quoted said that schism is usually mixed - a combination of heresy and denial of legitimate authority. As I said, I know of no heresy that the SSPX has taught, but they have denied legitimate authority and continue to do so. So, as I was trying to say, I can understand how they can be considered schismatic but not yet in full schism.

There have been some in the SSPX who have gone into full schism, by denying the legitimacy of the pope (sedevacantism).

Rather than just concentrating on the section you highlighted in red, I’m also reading the section I highlighted in blue.

*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. *

Again, you can see a difference there between schism and schismatic. Probably nuanced, like most things theological, and probably only important to those who want to find a reason to attend SSPX masses.
 
mrdrifter said:
For the record, Fr. Z is not a “traditionalist” in the sense in which that term is normally used.
wdtprs.com/blog/2007/07/wdtprs-misrepresented-in-a-florida-newpaper/
Click to expand...
Well that clarifies the matter of “solid tranditionalist”.

From the link provided:

"The online site of Lakeland, FLorida’s paper The Ledger mentions this blog, but describes it inaccurately, calling it “a traditionalist Web site”.

While I clearly have great sympathy with many of the aspirations of some liturgical traditionalists, this is not a traditionalist site and I am not a traditionalist, as most well-informed people understand the term.

WDTPRS is simply a Catholic site."
 
tcraig said:
The first part of the section that I initially quoted said that schism is usually mixed - a combination of heresy and denial of legitimate authority. As I said, I know of no heresy that the SSPX has taught, but they have denied legitimate authority and continue to do so. So, as I was trying to say, I can understand how they can be considered schismatic but not yet in full schism.

There have been some in the SSPX who have gone into full schism, by denying the legitimacy of the pope (sedevacantism).

Rather than just concentrating on the section you highlighted in red, I’m also reading the section I highlighted in blue.

*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.

Again, you can see a difference there between schism and schismatic. Probably nuanced, like most things theological, and probably only important to those who want to find a reason to attend SSPX masses.
Click to expand...
It seems you need to take the blue highlighted section in context with what is said before. He is describing one who has qualified under both acts — 1. disobedience, 2 denial of Divine right to command --yet does not wish to leave the Christian religion. One who qualifies under both acts–and leaves Christianity altogether–goes into apostacy.

Becoming Orthodox would fit the profile of a schismatic.

So have the SSPX gone into heresy and/ or do they deny the Pope’s Divine right to command.
 
Mike_NC said:
IMO, SSPX should do everything in their power to reconcile and they are not in a position to dictate anything to Rome.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s see now… Hmmm. First they made a case for the wrongful abrogation of the Traditional Latin Mass. The Pope agreed. Then they presented a case for all priests to be able to say the TLM. Again the Pope agreed.

The only ones not in position to dictate anything to Rome are those that are opposed to the Pope’s MP. And the sooner the pope disposes of them, the better. They seem to be the ones who are the biggest obstacles to full reconciliation.
 
BobP123 said:
Well, let’s see now… Hmmm. First they made a case for the wrongful abrogation of the Traditional Latin Mass. The Pope agreed. Then they presented a case for all priests to be able to say the TLM. Again the Pope agreed.

The only ones not in position to dictate anything to Rome are those that are opposed to the Pope’s MP. And the sooner the pope disposes of them, the better. They seem to be the ones who are the biggest obstacles to full reconciliation.
Click to expand...
Good pt.
 
Wow, isn’t this thread amazing? Who would have thought that yet another thread on the SSPX would get so much attention? What will everyone do when they are reconciliated with Rome? There will be nothing to talk about on CAF. This whole forum will have to shut down. 🤷
 
paramedicgirl said:
What will everyone do when they are reconciliated with Rome?
Click to expand...
That will only complete stage 2. See my sig below. We’ll still have plenty of work to do. You’re not planning to do anything next year, are you? 😃
 
Sure said:
Walking Home,

What do you mean “by let the SSPX be”? Is there a problem with accurately explaining what the Church has officially stated on this sad situation?
Please help me understand what you mean by this.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
What I mean is ---- time has passed since Ecclesia Dei. From statements that have been made since --Rome may not consider the SSPX to be in formal schism—yet Ecclesia Dei is still thrown on the table. I am giving Card. Castrillon the credibility that he knows what he is talking about. So in the interest of justice and charity–maybe we should back off.
 
BobP123 said:
Well, let’s see now… Hmmm. First they made a case for the wrongful abrogation of the Traditional Latin Mass. The Pope agreed. Then they presented a case for all priests to be able to say the TLM. Again the Pope agreed.

The only ones not in position to dictate anything to Rome are those that are opposed to the Pope’s MP. And the sooner the pope disposes of them, the better. They seem to be the ones who are the biggest obstacles to full reconciliation.
Click to expand...
When he consecrated those 4 bishops… did the Pope agree? When the SSPX established a tribunal and granted annulments without Rome, did the Pope agree?

I noticed that you value the Pope’s assessment so the Ecclesia Dei should carry some weight in this discussion.

I understand why people sympathize with the SSPX. I want them back in the Church. But the events that have unfolded are unfortunate and people should refrain from attending SSPX chapels. Some dioceses have TLM and FSSP. Others do not, but pining for the TLM is not a reason to disregard the Pope’s and his Bishop’s warnings regarding the SSPX.

What is amazing to me is all the SSPX folks here that get annoyed when we quote Vatican documents that pertain to the SSPX. Just because you want them to be legitimate does not make them so…
 
BobP123 said:
That will only complete stage 2. See my sig below. We’ll still have plenty of work to do. You’re not planning to do anything next year, are you? 😃
Click to expand...
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Ah, I can see we are in stage one and two.😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top