Are the SSPX schismatics or heretics?

[BHawkes]

Are the SSPX schismatics or heretics? How about those who were specifically excommunicated when they left, like Lefebvre?

I would think those who were excommunicated would have been cast into the world of heresy, but I now hear a lot of people talking about them “never having their day in court” (whatever that means.)

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Are the SSPX schismatics or heretics? How about those who were specifically excommunicated when they left, like Lefebvre?

I would think those who were excommunicated would have been cast into the world of heresy, but I now hear a lot of people talking about them “never having their day in court” (whatever that means.)

Did you try searching for previous threads on this topic? There are tons. You don’t even have to use the Search feature, just scan the threads within the past few pages.

 

[Caesar]

Archbishop Lefebvre, the bishops he consecrated and the co-consecrator bishops were excommunicated, hence are in schism. The status of the clergy of the SSPX is questionable (unless I am incorrect, a priest ordained by a schismatic bishop is himself in schism). The laity who attend the SSPX chapels are not in schism, according to the findings of a commission headed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

The SSPX are not heretics, as they do not teach or profess anything contrary to the doctrines of the Church.

 

[BHawkes]

Archbishop Lefebvre, the bishops he consecrated and the co-consecrator bishops were excommunicated, hence are in schism. The status of the clergy of the SSPX is questionable (unless I am incorrect, a priest ordained by a schismatic bishop is himself in schism). The laity who attend the SSPX chapels are not in schism, according to the findings of a commission headed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

The SSPX are not heretics, as they do not teach or profess anything contrary to the doctrines of the Church.

Do you happen to know the name of the report of findings by that commission? I’m curious as to how someone who attends services at a chapel run by schismatic/heretical ministers are not themselves schismatics or heretics? It sounds very complicated.

What did sound definitely wrong to me was the “they did not have their day in court” comment I heard in real life.

 

[Cristiano]

Please stop putting schismatics and heretics in the same bucket. It is not the same thing and the Church handles them in different manners.

If you are concerned about SSPX first do a search and then ask questions. If you are concerned about schismatics talk only about them, or if you are concerned about heretics then you should talk only about them too.

Putting things together will just create confusion and misunderstanding.

Thanks

 

[bpbasilphx]

We must certainly admit that the relationship between SSPX, and their Byzantine equivalent, the Society of St. Josaphat Kuntsevitch (SSJK), is strained,

Furthermore, it follows that SSPX/SSJK and the Holy See (and by extension, the rest of the Catholic Church), are not in full regular visible communion with each other.

Rather than wasting energy deciding if they are schismatics or heretics, we should pray they will be soon reconciled.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The safest thing to say about the Society is that the Archbishop (deceased) and bishops are excommunicated, the priests are suspended ad divinis and have no faculties, and the laity are warned that schism is a grave offense against God and carries the same penalty incurred by the Archbishop and the bishops.

 

[kell0618]

Regardless of the situation, I think we all need to pray that our fractured community be one again.

 

[scylla]

We need to pray for all those who have been driven to refuge in the SSPX or similar. They are usually good people who have just seen one too many abuses, heard one too many heretical homilies, one too many scandals.

We need to be examples that yes you can be a Catholic, attend the Novus Ordo Mass and be faithful. Some of us actually do believe in the Eucharist. we need to act like it, and promote faithful Catholicism. Or else all of us who go to the Novus Ordo come close to proving the point of the SSPX, that it is necessary to hide out to protect the faith.

The SSPX believe that since there has been so much heresy promoted by the clergy lately that they need to hide out and protect it. We need to stand up and stop just allowing abuses to occur and protect the faith from the inside, not separating ourselves.

We need to encourage piety, pray, have devotion to the Eucharist, stamp out abuse, and work at healing what is dividing us.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[mao_now]

I have been to SSPX chapels in the past…I have no doubt, I will go back. That is if I find their chapel, to be the only one in my area offering the TLM.

I dont understand why people just keep beating up on them. Look at the title of this thread, Schismatic and Heretic, all in the same sentence…Heretic, they most definitely are not. Schismatic, I leave that to the Roman curia, and the Supreme Pontiff. And at best, the Vatican SEEMS to be avoiding the word “Schismatic”.

IMHO it seems the Vatican is trying to absorb them gradually and slowly…Thats just my opinion…I say that before I get flamed, by all the Theologians, Canon Lawyers, and high ranking members of the Curia, who regularly post on this forum…

Just leave em alone people!..They are doing no harm. possibly doing good…They are despised, reviled, calumniated, everywhere there is not a hand that is not raised against them…

If you doubt it…read the letter from a well known Bishop, (beloved of Traditionalists) responding to a priest of the SSPX, who was about to open a chapel, in the Diocese. He (the priest) was asking for faculties, (all SSPX priests do this) The Bishop said some uncharitable things. The priests response? I will continue to name you by name along with our Holy Father, in the canon of the Mass…sounds Catholic to me…
Leave em alone people…

The letter can be accessed on the SSPX usa website

 

[bear06]

Just leave em alone people!..

Yikes! Britney Spears is coming to mind!

They are doing no harm. possibly doing good…They are despised, reviled, calumniated, everywhere there is not a hand that is not raised against them…

Sigh! Yes, they are doing harm. Many invalid marriages, confessions and annullments are very harmful. The usual people to despise them are the people who are doing harm on the opposite end of the spectrum. The rest of us in the middle don’t want people choosing either disobedient group and would rejoice if both factions got it right.

If you doubt it…read the letter from a well known Bishop, (beloved of Traditionalists) responding to a priest of the SSPX, who was about to open a chapel, in the Diocese. He (the priest) was asking for faculties, (all SSPX priests do this) The Bishop said some uncharitable things. The priests response? I will continue to name you by name along with our Holy Father, in the canon of the Mass…sounds Catholic to me…
Leave em alone people…

The letter can be accessed on the SSPX usa website

How about a link to it then? Vague accusations don’t mean a heck of alot. BTW, just because someone says “I’ll pray for you” doesn’t mean that they are the cornerstone of charity. What I’d like to know is what the priest did when faculties were refused? Somehow I’m betting he went right on to open a chapel without the faculties he needed.

 

[Sure]

Just leave em alone people!..They are doing no harm. possibly doing good…They are despised, reviled, calumniated, everywhere there is not a hand that is not raised against them…

If you doubt it…read the letter from a well known Bishop, (beloved of Traditionalists) responding to a priest of the SSPX, who was about to open a chapel, in the Diocese. He (the priest) was asking for faculties, (all SSPX priests do this) The Bishop said some uncharitable things. The priests response? I will continue to name you by name along with our Holy Father, in the canon of the Mass…sounds Catholic to me…
Leave em alone people…

The letter can be accessed on the SSPX usa website

Two points on this…

First, don’t give the priest some pass just because the bishop was “mean.” It’s not a valid defense to say, “Well, I excommunicated myself by committing the ecclesiastical crime of schism, but it was warranted because the bishops said ‘mean’ things to me.” Also, priests who commit mortal sins aren’t “holy.”

Second, let’s keep in mind what is leading these priests and bishops to commit acts of schism. It’s not the Holy Spirit. It’s satan and it’s a good idea to stay away from any organization that is led by something other than the Holy Spirit.

That being said, we must pray everyday that the SSPX will come back to the Church. All those families devoted to traditional forms of piety could be a tremendously good influence on the rest of the Catholic community.

St. Michael, slay these demons and bring them home!

 

[GerardP]

Sigh! Yes, they are doing harm.

Untrue.

Many invalid marriages, confessions and annullments are very harmful.

The Marriages are not invalid. Confessions are given by supplied jurisdiction from the Church either through common error or through the spritual benefit of the person requesting the confession. The SSPX declarations of annulments are rare, they are often reviewing annulments already granted by the Church in which they are looking for error on the part of the diocese. Errors and abuses acknowledged by the recent Popes.

The problem is the crisis in the Church is well known so, you have invalid marriages being performed with diocesan approval, I myself have been in the confessional where the priest did not use the proper form for absolution. I had to go find another priest and make a second confession in the same day.

We have annulments being handed out like candy when objectively speaking in many circumstances, the marriages are probably valid.

The usual people to despise them are the people who are doing harm on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Actually it’s a lot of self-professed “conservatives” that despise them. Richard McBrien of Notre Dame said that the conservatives did the work for the liberals by fighting the traditionalists.

The rest of us in the middle don’t want people choosing either disobedient group and would rejoice if both factions got it right.

That’s because you have a good heart. The problem is that the crisis in the Church has to be acknowledged in the full scope that it is.

How about a link to it then?

It sounds like it was the Bruskewitz vs. Fr. Scott back and forth.

Vague accusations don’t mean a heck of alot. BTW, just because someone says “I’ll pray for you” doesn’t mean that they are the cornerstone of charity.

Follow that logic through. Just because a prelate says they want “unity” and “reconciliation” doesn’t mean they are being charitable either.

What I’d like to know is what the priest did when faculties were refused? Somehow I’m betting he went right on to open a chapel without the faculties he needed.

Since it was evident that the bishop was not going to tend to the flock that needed him, the faithful can in good conscience ask a priest without faculties to supply the sacraments and spiritual guidance, the Church supplies the faculties.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Actually it’s a lot of self-professed “conservatives” that despise them. Richard McBrien of Notre Dame said that the conservatives did the work for the liberals by fighting the traditionalists.

For once I agree with Fr. McBrien. Do you know when he said this, or where I can find the quote?

Thanks,

 

[Sure]

For once I agree with Fr. McBrien. Do you know when he said this, or where I can find the quote?

Thanks,

It’s interesting that McBrien and the SSPX share the same theological viewpoint that the morality of an action is determined by weighing the consequences. They both believe that sometimes it’s okay to do something that we would commonly call evil (like pre-marital sex or schism), if good consequences will flow from it.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The Marriages are not invalid. Confessions are given by supplied jurisdiction from the Church either through common error or through the spritual benefit of the person requesting the confession.

Which part of can. 144 mentions this vague notion of spiritual benefit?

Can. 144 §1. In factual or legal common error and in positive and probable doubt of law or of fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and internal forum.
§2. The same norm is applied to the faculties mentioned in cann. ⇒ 882, ⇒ 883, ⇒ 966, and ⇒ 1111, §1.

Since it was evident that the bishop was not going to tend to the flock that needed him, the faithful can in good conscience ask a priest without faculties to supply the sacraments and spiritual guidance, the Church supplies the faculties.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. A priest without faculties can perform certain sacraments in danger of death, or, to cover another situation, if that priest dupes Catholics into thinking he has faculties (say, by going into a Catholic Church in union with the diocese and sitting in the confessional during regular confession times), the Church will supply faculties because of the common error. If a person or group of people knows a priest does not have faculties, ecclesia supplet most certainly does not apply. It is designed to protect people from good faith errors, not secure them in their intentional malfeasance.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

It’s interesting that McBrien and the SSPX share the same theological viewpoint that the morality of an action is determined by weighing the consequences.

That’s not a theological position of the SSPX. The consequences of an act of nothing to do with the morality of the act.

They both believe that sometimes it’s okay to do something that we would commonly call evil (like pre-marital sex or schism), if good consequences will flow from it.

The SSPX is strongly against both premarital relations and schism. The situation with the SSPX is “irregular”, but certainly not formal schism, as Rome itself is now beginning to admit publicly.

 

[GerardP]

Which part of can. 144 mentions this vague notion of spiritual benefit?

Where did I say it was part of canon 144? The just cause is a reference to canon 1335.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. A priest without faculties can perform certain sacraments in danger of death, or, to cover another situation, if that priest dupes Catholics into thinking he has faculties (say, by going into a Catholic Church in union with the diocese and sitting in the confessional during regular confession times), the Church will supply faculties because of the common error.

You are arbitrarily limiting the argument only to support your conclusion. This is Jimmy Akin’s argument. John Salza provided a rebuttal to it.

catholicintl.com/catholicissues/sspxconfessions.pdf

If a person or group of people knows a priest does not have faculties, ecclesia supplet most certainly does not apply.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The situation only has to be present where a reasonable community would be induced to believe that a priest has faculties.

It is designed to protect people from good faith errors, not secure them in their intentional malfeasance.

Protect people from Intentional malfeasance? THAT is a laugh! What do you think makes people seek out the SSPX in the first place?

Ecclesia Supplet doesn’t do squat in the local parish where the priest doesn’t give the proper form for absolution.

I have two choices, neither of which are perfect. I can attend an illicit Mass from the SSPX that has a certitude of orthodoxy or I can attend an illicit Mass of dubious orthodoxy that is in some vague and for all practical purposes meaningless “communion” with the local bishops who are theologically ignorant and pastorally deficient shepherds.

 

[GerardP]

It’s interesting that McBrien and the SSPX share the same theological viewpoint that the morality of an action is determined by weighing the consequences. They both believe that sometimes it’s okay to do something that we would commonly call evil (like pre-marital sex or schism), if good consequences will flow from it.

Faulty logic, errors of fact and an attempt at guilt by association. Bad form.

 

[Sure]

That’s not a theological position of the SSPX. The consequences of an act of nothing to do with the morality of the act.

The SSPX is strongly against both premarital relations and schism. The situation with the SSPX is “irregular”, but certainly not formal schism, as Rome itself is now beginning to admit publicly.

Priests who celebrate the sacraments when suspended or excommunicated commit a sin of schism, at least according to the traditionalist-friendly prominent canonist and member of the Apostolic Signatura, Archbishop Burke:

A priest, who knowingly and willingly chooses to attempt to exercise priestly ministry outside of the communion of the Church and, thereby, assists and encourages others in breaking communion with the Church, clearly **also commits the ecclesiastical crime of schism. **--------------------
**Those who commit the ecclesiastical crime of schism incur automatically the penalty of excommunication **(cf. can. 1364, §1; and 1314). The excommunicated person is forbidden “to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the Sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever” (can. 1331, §1, 1º); “to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals, and to receive the sacraments” (can. 1331, §1, 2º); and “to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance” (can. 1331, §1, 3º). The various elements of the penalty underline the fact that the party in question has broken communion with the Church. The prohibition of receiving the sacraments or sacramentals is suspended when the party under sanction is in danger of death, given that he is otherwise properly disposed (cf. can. 1352, §1).​

The ordained priest who goes into schism, in addition to being bound by the above-listed prohibitions, is also rendered irregular for the exercise of Holy Orders (cf. can. 1044, §1, 2º). In other words, he may not exercise the Sacrament of Holy Orders which he has received. Any Mass celebrated by a suspended and excommunicated priest is valid, but illicit. To knowingly and willingly celebrate the Holy Mass, when one is legitimately prohibited from doing so, is a most grave sin. A priest under the penalty of excommunication does not give valid sacramental absolution (cf. can. 966, §1). Neither can he validly officiate at a wedding (cf. can. 1108, §1).​

The faithful who approach a schismatic priest for the reception of the sacraments, except in the case of danger of death, commit a mortal sin.