Bishop Schneider backs the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter smead2942
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My last few posts have admittedly been on the cranky side, less engaging or persuasive than my earlier posts. I need to take a leave of absence from CAF periodically, we all should, as sometimes we get caught up in “Take that!” and That! But I hope this interesting thread will continue. Remember our purpose is not to win arguments, but to tempt our fellow posters towards Heaven, to learn something we did not know before, and have fun. Keep the thread going.
 
commenter said:
My last few posts have admittedly been on the cranky side, less engaging or persuasive than my earlier posts. I need to take a leave of absence from CAF periodically, we all should, as sometimes we get caught up in “Take that!” and That! But I hope this interesting thread will continue. Remember our purpose is not to win arguments, but to tempt our fellow posters towards Heaven, to learn something we did not know before, and have fun. Keep the thread going.
Click to expand...
Your ability to practice prudence and self control is admirable! Something we all need to be reminded of! Thank you for humbly pointing that out and leading by example!
 
otjm said:
Cardinal Mueller has said publicly that the SSPX are “schismatic”, and he also made it clear that this was not an official determination and declaration of schism, but rather an assessment of their positions viz a viz the Church. And the Cardinal is not a “loose cannon on the deck”, firing off at will. He is not head of the dicastery because he is casual with statements.

And less anyone go off about the Cardinal being a liberal, he just took on, openly and explicitly, his current problems with the LCWR.

His comment: "as reported in the Corriere della Sera on December 22, 2013 : “The canonical excommunication of the bishops for their illegal ordinations was revoked, but a de facto sacramental excommunication remains for their schism; they put themselves out of communion with the Church. After that we are not closing the door and never will, but we are inviting them to be reconciled. But they too must change their attitude, accept the conditions of the Catholic Church, and the Supreme Pontiff as the definitive criterion for membership.”
Click to expand...
There is a difference between being officially declared “in schism” and being schismatic, and a very simple one is that the Church has seen fit to not declare the SSPX in schism as it is far easier to reconcile without the barrier of an official statement; the same can be seen in the excommunications being lifted on the bishops. Pope Benedict never made any statement indicating that the excommunications were morally or technically wrong; he lifted them as a means of making the first move towards reconciliation.

Likewise, not declaring the SSPX in schism officially is a move to open reconciliation.

The failure to declare a group in schism is in no way proof that they are not practically so. That is about the equivalent of saying that one who has , for example, murdered someone has not committed a mortal sin if a priest has not publicly said so.

And for Cardinal Mueller’s statement, see post 212 reproduced here above.
 
otjm said:
There is a difference between being officially declared “in schism” and being schismatic, and a very simple one is that the Church has seen fit to not declare the SSPX in schism as it is far easier to reconcile without the barrier of an official statement; the same can be seen in the excommunications being lifted on the bishops. Pope Benedict never made any statement indicating that the excommunications were morally or technically wrong; he lifted them as a means of making the first move towards reconciliation.

Likewise, not declaring the SSPX in schism officially is a move to open reconciliation.

The failure to declare a group in schism is in no way proof that they are not practically so. That is about the equivalent of saying that one who has , for example, murdered someone has not committed a mortal sin if a priest has not publicly said so.

And for Cardinal Mueller’s statement, see post 212 reproduced here above.
Click to expand...
I have often thought of the idea of excommunication. If one dissects the word it means to be placed outside of communion. And in a way, we can excommunicate ourselves when we sin and are not in a state of Grace. But that is not how the Church defines it. It is a formal declaration (or even an automatic one) but it has a specific meaning and purpose to it. It is not accurate to say one who commits a sin is excommunicated unless the Church has declared it so (i.e. procuring an abortion) And even though we could dissect the word and make a case for being “placed outside of communion” with our other sins that we must confess the Church Herself does not use that term that way.

I think the same could be said for being “in Schism” There is no formal declaration even thought there may be some schismatic acts or signs. To say aspects of some of the SSPX clergy are schismatic is not the same as saying the group is in schism.
 
commenter said:
The Church’s position is that individual priests and bishops in SSPX should stop saying illicit Masses, and illicit ordinations, and individually seek full union with the Church, generally beginning through their local ordinary. The Church’s position is that laity not attend SSPX Masses.
Click to expand...
That does not constitute schism. There are certainly issues regarding the SSPX, but the Church regards the SSPX as being part of the Church.

Would the Church appoint Bishop Fellay to be the first-instance judge in a case involving a Catholic priest and make canonical decisions on behalf of the Church if they regarded the SSPX as being in schism? Would a Catholic bishop and a Catholic cardinal visit SSPX seminaries and compliment them on the quality of their seminarians if those seminarians were in schism? Would the Church give permission for a schismatic group to say Mass in St Peter’s Basilica?

The SSPX are not in schism, and the Church does not treat them as such. Yes, there are some obedience issues, but this does not constitute schism.
 
Are there any SPPX churches that are listed as working under the auspices of any Diocese or Archdiocese in the U.S.?
If so, that would be a good indicator of how the Bishops in the U.S, view them.
In our Archdiocese, no mention.
They do, however list and give the directions to the parish that the Bishop has established for those who desire the TLM.
No mention or promotion of the SSPX church. I went there once, about 30 years ago at the behest of a woman who wanted me to leave my parish. I can’t even remember the name of it.
Are they listed in any other Diocese?
 
pianistclare said:
Are there any SPPX churches that are listed as working under the auspices of any Diocese or Archdiocese in the U.S.?
If so, that would be a good indicator of how the Bishops in the U.S, view them.
In our Archdiocese, no mention.
Click to expand...
Right.
 
sspx.org/en/media/video/should-catholics-attend-the-new-mass-sspx-faq-ep15-2-

This is a video on the SSPX website.

I ask- how can an organization who publicly posts such garbage be reconciled?

They claim in this video that:
It is a sin to attend the OF
If one does attend they should be a “passive participant”.
That the Sunday Obligation is dispensed if there is no EF available

They are putting souls at risk and claiming that they can form their own parallel Canon Law.

So again, how can the Church reconcile with such a group?
 
Tomdstone said:
I don’t think that is true. For example, there is a group called the True Catholic Church which has elected its own Pope. They hold to all of the other Catholic beliefs except for Vatican II. Obviously, they must be in schism even though there has not been any official declaration.
Click to expand...
I assume, then, that this group called the True Catholic Church (which I’ve never heard of) doesn’t pray for the Pope and local ordinary (bishop) at their Masses, nor do they have a photo of Pope Francis is their churches, as the SSPX does, right?

Also, does this group you mentioned believe that they have ordinary jurisdiction, or supplied jurisdiction? There’s a big difference, IMO, between the two. The SSPX believes that it has supplied (emergency) jurisdiction, not ordinary jurisdiction.
 
pianistclare said:
Are there any SPPX churches that are listed as working under the auspices of any Diocese or Archdiocese in the U.S.?
If so, that would be a good indicator of how the Bishops in the U.S, view them.
In our Archdiocese, no mention.
Click to expand...
That is because the SSPX is canonically irregular. The fact that their churches are not listed under normal diocesan list does not put them outside of the Church. The bottom line is that they are part of the Catholic Church, they are not in schism.
 
Brendan_64 said:
That is because the SSPX is canonically irregular. The fact that their churches are not listed under normal diocesan list does not put them outside of the Church. The bottom line is that they are part of the Catholic Church, they are not in schism.
Click to expand...
So you say.
But I have to tell you, the one and only time I went to one of their Masses, they made a big deal of saying that the Mass I usually went to was the Mass of Satan.
Enough to let me know that they were to be avoided.
 
Based on the videos and comments coming out of the SSPX I would guess that they- or at least a large percentage of their group- doesn’t even desire re-unification with Rome.

Otherwise they wouldn’t publish such antagonistic things on their official website.
 
ringil said:
Based on the videos and comments coming out of the SSPX I would guess that they- or at least a large percentage of their group- doesn’t even desire re-unification with Rome.

Otherwise they wouldn’t publish such antagonistic things on their official website.
Click to expand...
The SSPX considers themselves to be above the rest of us. It is not the Church that is making it nearly impossible for reconciliation, it’s their attitude. There could have been a solution to this situation years ago, but according to the SSPX, it will only occur if the Church allows them to go on exactly as they are now. Thankfully, Papa Francis does not seem very interested in playing their forty year old game of semantics. That’s a good Jesuit!!!👍
 
ringil said:
Based on the videos and comments coming out of the SSPX I would guess that they- or at least a large percentage of their group- doesn’t even desire re-unification with Rome.
Click to expand...
As I understood it, the excommunications would be lifted if they promised to tone down their criticisms of the Pope among other things. Apparently Pope Benedict was satisfied with their actions, enough to lift the excommunications against the bishops. Also I understand many of their congregations are praying millions of rosaries for some kind of canonical and viable resolution to their situation.
 
pianistclare said:
So you say.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not what I think that matters, or what you think that matters. The Church has not declared the SSPX to be in schism, therefore they are not in schism. Would the Church appoint Bishop Fellay to act as the first-instamce judgr to make canonical judgements in a case involving a traditionalist Catholic priest? Could the Church even grant this authority to a bishop who was outside of the Church?

Schism doesn’t simply mean disobedience, it means complete separation.
 
pianistclare said:
So you say.
But I have to tell you, the one and only time I went to one of their Masses, they made a big deal of saying that the Mass I usually went to was the Mass of Satan.
Enough to let me know that they were to be avoided.
Click to expand...
The priests said that?
 
Brendan_64 said:
No, it’s not what I think that matters, or what you think that matters. The Church has not declared the SSPX to be in schism, therefore they are not in schism. Would the Church appoint Bishop Fellay to act as the Church’s legal representative to make canonical judgements in a case involving a traditionalist Catholic priest? Could the Church even grant this authority to a bishop who was outside of the Church?

Schism doesn’t simply mean disobedience, it means complete separation.
Click to expand...
Which I do NOT desire. I do not know why anyone would.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top