Are the SSPX in schism?

[GerardP]

I well know what the stand-off is about and I needn’t ever read Lefebvre since the man was excommunicated long before he died.

Doesn’t that mean that you only know one side of what the "stand-off " is about? Yes it does.

I don’t fathom why someone would purposely remain ignorant and then proceed to give opinions that display that ignorance.

He founded a society within the Church (the Catholic Church) and then he chose actions to break with the Church.

LeFebvre reacted to heretics and responded to the requests of the faithful. An apostolic visit from Rome where the inspectors started to provoke LeFebvre by casting doubt on the historicity of the Resurrection was just one of those actions that caused a reaction.

The real question is why didn’t Paul VI and JPII champion him instead of feeding him to the sharks?

As it stands sspx might be better described as a warped tradition, or eventually, as a schismatic group as long as its members decide to stay loyal to Lefebvre.

No. It wouldn’t be better described as that. That’s just an attack against them by you.

There has never been a doctrinal censure or a correction issued about anything the SSPX has ever said or published. Contrast that to constant reinterpretations of the documents of Vatican II and references to “deformations” and “liturgical ruins” that the Holy Father has had to issue. Those are his descriptions, not mine.

That’s the only issue at hand. There is no “Vat II Church” and no “Vat II religion” unless Lefebvre invented one.

No. That’ not the only issue at hand and that’s not what the current Holy Father thinks or said in 1988:

"The idea that all religions are – if you talk seriously – only symbols of what ultimately is incomprehensible is rapidly gaining ground in theology, and has already penetrated into liturgical practice. When things get to this point, faith is left behind, because faith really consists in the fact that I am committing myself to the truth so far as it is known. So in this matter also there is every motive to return to the right path.

“If once again WE succeed in pointing out and living the fullness of the Catholic religion with regard to these points, we may hope that the schism of Lefebvre will not be of long duration.”

You’ll notice the admission on then Cardinal-Ratzinger’s part is that the problem with LeFebvre is the problem the rest of the Church is suffering with. Earlier in the statement, he admits that what he percieves to be LeFebvre’s overreaction was "provoked’ by liberals who were not properly disciplined.

Bishop Fellay told Card. Castrillon and the Holy Father in 2005, “Fix the problem in the Church and you will have no problem with us.”

That is essentially what Card. Ratzinger was trying to encourage and is now trying to encourage as Pope.

The truth is there are multiple “Vatican II” churches that have not been formally censured and are spreading their errors throughout the Church structure.

 

[TNT]

I’m not sure this is actually correct. T, are you really a sedevacantist now or did you make some sarcastic remark someone didn’t understand?

Who could possibly understand me???
I was accused on several occasions. I’m doin my best to live up to it.

Didn’t you read my eloquent posts on Sedevacantists answer to Church restoration? And here? And specialee here ?http://www.websmileys.com/sm/fingers/fing03.gif
No?
For shame.http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/1361.gif

 

[Dauphin]

Bishop Fellay admits that the SSPX are outside the Church. So why the talk of re-entering if they are still within the Church?

see here: wdtprs.com/blog/2007/10/is-bp-fellay-saying-the-sspx-is-outside-the-church/

If they aren’t in schism, then are they outside the Church somehow without being in schism?

What about SSPX is necessary if they are outside the Church that you cannot find from within?

The Bishop was speaking informally. He believes firmly in “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”, so I’m sure he would re-enter the church if he felt he were outside it.

 

[Dauphin]

---

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.

Definitely not. I’m sure it pained the Archbishop, but the decision was between obeying the Pope and leaving the SSPX with no Bishops. He made the choice that he felt would be of greatest service to the Church. I’m absolutely certain that, if it weren’t for his disobedient decision, the SSPX would have been forced to gradually dissolve and the TLM would still be forbidden by the Church’s authorities.

We owe a tremendous debt to the SSPX, no matter how questionable their status is.

 

[down_under]

Ridiculous. SSPX is Catholic.

actually they are not. They are outside the church according to there leaders, and the pope who excommunicated. Hence there masses are valid but not licit. You cannot have it both ways. You are either not catholic and outside the church trying to get the church to change her ways to be more like yours because you think V 2 was a big mistake. or you are a movement inside the church which recognizes the athority of the pope and V2. there is no other third option. they are schimatics who are not formally in schism…yet. and the faithful have been warned it could go either way. So choose one, and be that. in or out. With V2 or against. but there is no middle ground my friend.

 

[BobP123]

they are schimatics who are not formally in schism…yet.

How about those bishops who threaten to leave the Church or openly defy the Pope? Would you attend one of their Novus Ordo Masses?

 

[bear06]

I was accused on several occasions.

I’m reminded of the time we did the same thing. The nerve of some people to be sarcastic and expect people to understand! You should know by now, T, that we are few and far between.

So, for the record, T is sarcastic not a sedevacantist no matter what he lets you to believe. Don’t know about TCBO1.

 

[bear06]

The Bishop was speaking informally. He believes firmly in “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus”, so I’m sure he would re-enter the church if he felt he were outside it.

Wait, stop the presses. We’re to ignore Bishop Fellay in an article but we are supposed to bow to Cardinal Castillon-Hoyos’ interview? Holy double standard, Batman!

 

[bear06]

Definitely not. I’m sure it pained the Archbishop, but the decision was between obeying the Pope and leaving the SSPX with no Bishops. He made the choice that he felt would be of greatest service to the Church. I’m absolutely certain that, if it weren’t for his disobedient decision, the SSPX would have been forced to gradually dissolve and the TLM would still be forbidden by the Church’s authorities.

We owe a tremendous debt to the SSPX, no matter how questionable their status is.

Did he deny the papacy or did he deny the Pope’s authority or put his authority over that of the Holy Father?

 

[dizzy_dave]

Actually, no. Only the Holy Father can declare that and he hasn’t done so.

Two words … Ecclesia Dei

 

[bear06]

How about those bishops who threaten to leave the Church or openly defy the Pope? Would you attend one of their Novus Ordo Masses?

Only if I was there to catch him on videotape. There’s no double standard here. If they threaten to leave or defy the Holy Father in a matter where he has jurisdiction then he should be avoided. We don’t go to Mass with Cardinal Mahoney, Fr. Greeley, et. al.

 

[bear06]

I’m absolutely certain that, if it weren’t for his disobedient decision, the SSPX would have been forced to gradually dissolve and the TLM would still be forbidden by the Church’s authorities.

And yet the FSSP emerged. They did so out of obedience and a desire to remain in union with Rome and they still have the TLM and, living in an FSSP area, I can tell you that they’ve done a lot more to further the TLM in our area than the SSPX.

 

[catharina]

Doesn’t that mean that you only know one side of what the "stand-off " is about? Yes it does.

I don’t fathom why someone would purposely remain ignorant and then proceed to give opinions that display that ignorance.

LeFebvre reacted to heretics and responded to the requests of the faithful. An apostolic visit from Rome where the inspectors started to provoke LeFebvre by casting doubt on the historicity of the Resurrection was just one of those actions that caused a reaction.

**
The real question is why didn’t Paul VI and JPII champion him instead of feeding him to the sharks? **

**
I could guess that his disobedience was the deciding factor.**

No. It wouldn’t be better described as that. That’s just an attack against them by you.

There has never been a doctrinal censure or a correction issued about anything the SSPX has ever said or published. Contrast that to constant reinterpretations of the documents of Vatican II and references to “deformations” and “liturgical ruins” that the Holy Father has had to issue. Those are his descriptions, not mine.

No. That’ not the only issue at hand and that’s not what the current Holy Father thinks or said in 1988:

"The idea that all religions are – if you talk seriously – only symbols of what ultimately is incomprehensible is rapidly gaining ground in theology, and has already penetrated into liturgical practice. When things get to this point, faith is left behind, because faith really consists in the fact that I am committing myself to the truth so far as it is known. So in this matter also there is every motive to return to the right path.

“If once again WE succeed in pointing out and living the fullness of the Catholic religion with regard to these points, we may hope that the schism of Lefebvre will not be of long duration.”

**Is there some part of this conclusion that you don’t understand? “If we succeed in pointing out …” " … When things get to this point, faith is left behind, because faith really consists in the fact that I am committing myself to the truth so far as it is known," yep, I get it - the truth wins, successfully pointed out to me. Not to Fellay, it seems. I give zero credence to Fellay. The man has been excommunicated. Is there something about that fact that you find uncertain. **

You’ll notice the admission on then Cardinal-Ratzinger’s part is that the problem with LeFebvre is the problem the rest of the Church is suffering with. Earlier in the statement, he admits that what he percieves to be LeFebvre’s overreaction was "provoked’ by liberals who were not properly disciplined.

The “rest of the Church” remained obedient. It’s that simple.

Bishop Fellay told Card. Castrillon and the Holy Father in 2005, “Fix the problem in the Church and you will have no problem with us.”

Always to be recommended? Issue an order to the Holy Father?

That is essentially what Card. Ratzinger was trying to encourage and is now trying to encourage as Pope.

The truth is there are multiple “Vatican II” churches that have not been formally censured and are spreading their errors throughout the Church structure.

 

[catharina]

Two words … Ecclesia Dei

Definitely.

 

[Sure]

How about those bishops who threaten to leave the Church or openly defy the Pope? Would you attend one of their Novus Ordo Masses?

Absolutely not.

Nor would I oppose the Pope from suspending or removing such a bishop for threatening schism.

I apply these principles evenly and I don’t understand why many traditionalists do not do the same.

There is a right way to protest and appeal (see Padre Pio and his suspension from public ministry) and there is a wrong way. The SSPX chose the wrong way.

 

[Sure]

All,

My apologies to Therecanbeonly1, for calling him a sedvacantist. Apparently, he is not.

As for TNT, I’m not sure where you stand, perhaps you could enlighten us.

God bless!

 

[down_under]

How about those bishops who threaten to leave the Church or openly defy the Pope? Would you attend one of their Novus Ordo Masses?

in a word no. I don’t like to sit and second guess what i am hearing or listen to someone badmouth the vicor of christ. that is just my opinion though.

 

[Sure]

Wait, stop the presses. We’re to ignore Bishop Fellay in an article but we are supposed to bow to Cardinal Castillon-Hoyos’ interview? Holy double standard, Batman!

That is really very funny. I never thought of that!

This whole situation is endless double standards.

 

[bear06]

That is really very funny. I never thought of that!

This whole situation is endless double standards.

And there lies the problem.

 

[down_under]

And there lies the problem.

The holy father is allowing this to go on so that there will be a real chance for reconcilliation. He probably should have taken the final step already, but he has chosen not to. It is his call. perhaps he thinks they will reconcile. don’t know like I said it is his call. Not ours. what we do know is that we are advised to stay away because this may go badly for the sspx and the pope wants as few possible to be lost if this eventually occours. right now sspx is not entirly in commioun and not entirely out of commioun (at least offically) with rome. so buyer beware.