Are the SSPX in schism?

[Mike_NC]

---

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.

The Pope hasn’t reversed anything regarding the schism, even if Cardinals may say things that appear to be contrary.

Also, what was changed with the SSPX and the Church since the Ecclesia Dei that would warrant a change in status?

It really doesn’t matter in schism or partially schismatic, that are not in a legitimate status. SSPX should be avoided until the matter is officially resolved.

 

[catharina]

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?

OK, Mike, I’ll attempt to address this.

First, might I request prayers of thanksgiving to our merciful God - for my little charge who has cancer of both eyes and who has endured a full year of chemo. (She’s only 14 months old.) Her parents flew her to L.A. yesterday to learn if the best option might be removal of (at least) one eye. Incredibly happy news: home today, family goes back tomorrow becauase UCLA doctors believe they can break up the few remaining cancers with laser.

Blessed be God and Deo gratias!

Now, sspx, history, schism.

Lefebvre introduced schism into sspx and the four bishops who were elevated by Lefebvre, without Papal permission, made it a group of five - who were excommunicated. sspx, despite what we often hear, is a society of priests. Laity are not and have never been “members” although as time passes sspx seminarians might be considered to be members (unsure of this detail).

The sspx schism involves those five (Lefebvre dead) and ANY who
“have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre” and who have remained linked in a supporting way with these excommunicated leaders, one of whom does lead the sspx congregation of priests. That is “the schism,” an action born of the the disobedience of a few who were members of sspx. (Lefebvre founded sspx.)

The warning states that such a schism exists and that all others must act in a way 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.” The warning is first to the sspx priests who can be welcomed anywhere as they seek others in legitimate authority. For priests who remain united to sspx, “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.” (as stated in the Code of Canon Law, 1364.)

For the laity (who cannot be members of sspx although some might imagine that they are members), a real duty also exists so that they who “have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre” might guard their own 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.”

Therefore, those not yet adjudged to be in schism were warned that their future actions and decisions regarding sspx are vitally important to their lives in the Catholic Church.

Hope that helps explain it.

I hope any and all will correct me if I’m mistaken in my understanding of this.

 

[Mike_NC]

Makes sense… and when I refer to the SSPX, I am referring to the Bishops, Priests and Deacons that are officially part of the SSPX.

Would Catholic Bishop permit an SSPX to concelebrate in his diocese for an occassion? I would think not due to their illicit status. What do you think?

 

[Mike_NC]

I will pray for your little one. My God Bless you…

 

[catharina]

Makes sense… and when I refer to the SSPX, I am referring to the Bishops, Priests and Deacons that are officially part of the SSPX.

Would Catholic Bishop permit an SSPX to concelebrate in his diocese for an occassion? I would think not due to their illicit status. What do you think?

I have no idea but I would think not.

However if an sspx priest arrived, literally seeking sanctuary and proper authority (permanently) for his faculties, then perhaps?

 

[catharina]

I will pray for your little one. My God Bless you…

Bless you too and thanks for the prayers.

It ain’t over 'til it’s over.

 

[TNT]

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.

How is it that JPII refers to the SSPX directly as a schism, yet you say they are not? Are we splitting hairs here?

Thank God he didn’t send out any warning at all about joining the EO!
You Go Zakka I

CARDINALS’ SYMPOSIUM, 15-18 OCTOBER 2003
“With regard to the Church of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the process which we have just mentioned began thanks to the mutual openness demonstrated by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI on the one hand, and by the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I and his successors on the other. The resulting change found its historical expression in the ecclesial act whereby 'there was removed from memory and from the midst of the Churches’ the remembrance of the excommunications which 900 years before, in 1054, had become the symbol of the schism between Rome and Constantinople”.

Just think, in a mere 870 years, the VAT II church will be able to see its way to removing "from memory and from the midst of the Churches’ the remembrance of the excommunications which 900 years before, in 1984, had become the symbol of the schism between Rome and SSPX".

Question, if it was a good thing to wipe out this excommunication which did ABSOLUTELY nothing to healing schism, why is the same person who admitted that, and removed it, turn right around and re-institute all over AGAIN, on yet another group?

Does this church just have some dogma that they have to keep a minimum of 1 declared group excommunication on the schism Ledger?
Oh, Oh, the schism Ledger is empty,…hurry. Now where did Innocent the III put that Schismator?

 

[bear06]

–Rome may not consider the SSPX to be in formal schism

Where’s the document, encyclical, etc. to back this up? Oh yeah, there is none. One usually gets laughed off the forums for using interviews as Magisterial pronouncements. Hopefully a document soon will follow. That said, until then we have to go with the documents given.

 

[Sure]

The proper course of action here is to form our opinions on the authoritative documents of the Church. Don’t give this group a free “pass” because you like the way they say Mass.

Rome will eventually decide this and some of them may come back and some might not. Either way, let’s line ourselves up in support of the Church and not opposed to it. If they come back, let’s welcome them. If they don’t come back and the excommunications are affirmed, let’s stop making excuses for them and regarding them as allies - they’re not.

There used to be a common theme among Catholics not to attack the Church and especially the Pope publically. Sure you’re free to disagree in some things, but you don’t have to air that to the world at large because it does harm to the Church as a whole.

God bless you all!

 

[catharina]

Where’s the document, encyclical, etc. to back this up? Oh yeah, there is none. One usually gets laughed off the forums for using interviews as Magisterial pronouncements. Hopefully a document soon will follow. That said, until then we have to go with the documents given.

bear - the Vatican needn’t announce a non-event. I attempted to explain (above, #62) based on quotes from Ecclesia Dei.

 

[Walking_Home]

The Pope hasn’t reversed anything regarding the schism, even if Cardinals may say things that appear to be contrary.

Also, what was changed with the SSPX and the Church since the Ecclesia Dei that would warrant a change in status?

It really doesn’t matter in schism or partially schismatic, that are not in a legitimate status. SSPX should be avoided until the matter is officially resolved.

---

I give the Card. the credibility to know what he speaks about–since he does work closely with the Pope. Are you trying to say that you know more than he does.

 

[catharina]

The proper course of action here is to form our opinions on the authoritative documents of the Church. Don’t give this group a free “pass” because you like the way they say Mass.

Rome will eventually decide this and some of them may come back and some might not. Either way, let’s line ourselves up in support of the Church and not opposed to it. If they come back, let’s welcome them. If they don’t come back and the excommunications are affirmed, let’s stop making excuses for them and regarding them as allies - they’re not.

There used to be a common theme among Catholics not to attack the Church and especially the Pope publically. Sure you’re free to disagree in some things, but you don’t have to air that to the world at large because it does harm to the Church as a whole.

God bless you all!

Agree, agree, agree and agree with you.

 

[Walking_Home]

Where’s the document, encyclical, etc. to back this up? Oh yeah, there is none. One usually gets laughed off the forums for using interviews as Magisterial pronouncements. Hopefully a document soon will follow. That said, until then we have to go with the documents given.

---

Well I am glad I may have raised your level of laughter. I guess you and a few others here would know more than Card. Castrillon who works directly with the Pope.

 

[catharina]

Sspx, history, schism.

Lefebvre introduced schism into sspx and the four bishops who were elevated by Lefebvre, without Papal permission, made it a group of five - who were excommunicated. sspx, despite what we often hear, is a society of priests. Laity are not and have never been “members” although as time passes sspx seminarians might be considered to be members (unsure of this detail).

The sspx schism involves those five (Lefebvre dead) and ANY who
“have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre” and who have remained linked in a supporting way with these excommunicated leaders, one of whom does lead the sspx congregation of priests. That is “the schism,” an action born of the the disobedience of a few who were members of sspx. (Lefebvre founded sspx.)

The warning states that such a schism exists and that all others must act in a way 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.” The warning is first to the sspx priests who can be welcomed anywhere as they seek others in legitimate authority. For priests who remain united to sspx, “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.” (as stated in the Code of Canon Law, 1364.)

For the laity (who cannot be members of sspx although some might imagine that they are members), a real duty also exists so that they who “have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre” might guard their own 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.”

Therefore, those not yet adjudged to be in schism were warned that their future actions and decisions regarding sspx are vitally important to continuing their lives in the Catholic Church.

 

[bear06]

bear - the Vatican needn’t announce a non-event. I attempted to explain (above, #62) based on quotes from Ecclesia Dei.

Catharina, they are referring to interviews given by Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos. The point is that interviews don’t hold Magisterial weight. Like I said, hopefully they’ll come out with something saying there is no formal schism but until then, we must base our beliefs on the formal teaching of the Church on the matter.

BTW, Msgr. Perl also worked directly with the Holy Father.

 

[bear06]

---

Well I am glad I may have raised your level of laughter. I guess you and a few others here would know more than Card. Castrillon who works directly with the Pope.

Answer the question. Are there any Magisterial documents that say they are not in schism?

 

[catharina]

Catharina, they are referring to interviews given by Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos. The point is that interviews don’t hold Magisterial weight. Like I said, hopefully they’ll come out with something saying there is no formal schism but until then, we must base our beliefs on the formal teaching of the Church on the matter.

BTW, Msgr. Perl also worked directly with the Holy Father.

Yes - yet no one has “overruled” the late Holy Father’s decisions. There is a schism that grew out of sspx. Lefebvre founded the sspx and he was excommunicated, remaining in that state unto his death. Others, priests, cardinals can offer opinions but none is able to lift the five excommunications that are standing.

Meanwhile the entire society is at great risk for the same unless they amend their ways. Does the Church hope for a positive resolution. Yes - but the words of any cardinal are no more binding to the actual future of sspx than yours or mine.

We agree.

 

[paramedicgirl]

The Pope hasn’t reversed anything regarding the schism, even if Cardinals may say things that appear to be contrary.

Also, what was changed with the SSPX and the Church since the Ecclesia Dei that would warrant a change in status?

It really doesn’t matter in schism or partially schismatic, that are not in a legitimate status. SSPX should be avoided until the matter is officially resolved.

Well, one could look at it this way: remember how girl altar boys and communion in the hand started out as an abuse and Rome caved in and now allows both? Maybe the SSPX is just following that post VII tradition.

 

[bear06]

Well, one could look at it this way: remember how girl altar boys and communion in the hand started out as an abuse and Rome caved in and now allows both? Maybe the SSPX is just following that post VII tradition.

Then you would think that is wrong too, right? Nice to see you around. Missed you!

 

[tcraig]

You know, the FSSP was initially formed of priests and seminarians who left the SSPX after the unlawful consecrations by Lefebvre. Ecclesia Dei is dated 2 July 1988, and the FSSP was formed on 18 July 1988.

Apparently they took Ecclesia Dei seriously!

And now they have this wonderful traditional society, fully in communion with Rome.