Difference between SSPX and Henry VIII's anglican church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sarpedon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no comparison between the SSPX–an internal Church dispute, according to Rome–and schismatic/heretical sects such as the Anglicans, Charismatic Episcopal Church, Old Catholics, Polish National Catholic Church, etc.

The SSPX is not heretical, first of all–and anyone who knows anything about them admits this. Secondly, the SSPX is strictly a religious order–a “fraternal society” of priests. They aren’t a separate “Church”, don’t claim to be their own Church, and do not claim jurisdiction. Everyone in the SSPX is a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
 
saint_rafael said:
Ridiculous to say that the SSPX rejects Papal leadership. The SSPX have a huge body of working defending the Papacy from Sedevacantism. They prayed two million rosaries for the Pope in wake of Summorum Pontificum. This a group that made a pilgrimage to St. Peter’s Basilica to pray for the Pope in 2000.
Click to expand...
Matthew 21:28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
Click to expand...
29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
Click to expand...
30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
Click to expand...
31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
Click to expand...
32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.
Click to expand...
let us not forget that the whole confusion of their canonical status started with a deliberate act of disobedience. It continues today because the attempt at reconcilliation was rejected by SSPX leadership this summer, so it appears little has changed.

Actions will say more than rhetoric.
 
Henry rejected Roman Authority openly. He openly seized the assets of the Church in England. He openly entered schism, and taught heresy.

The SSPX tried to go beyond what they were allowed to do. ABp Lefebvre, and the 4 priests he ordained to the episcopacy, all suffered immediate excommunication under the law itself, and formal excommunication later. But they did not intend to leave the church.

The Leadership of the SSPX have bumbled their way to schism, and possibly heresy. (Open denial of Petrine Authority is denial of Roman Doctrine, and thus heresy.)

So in intent alone, they are opposites.
 
Aramis said:
Henry rejected Roman Authority openly. He openly seized the assets of the Church in England. He openly entered schism, and taught heresy.

The SSPX tried to go beyond what they were allowed to do. ABp Lefebvre, and the 4 priests he ordained to the episcopacy, all suffered immediate excommunication under the law itself, and formal excommunication later. But they did not intend to leave the church.

The Leadership of the SSPX have bumbled their way to schism, and possibly heresy. (Open denial of Petrine Authority is denial of Roman Doctrine, and thus heresy.)

So in intent alone, they are opposites.
Click to expand...
SSPX has not “bumbled their way to schism” since they are not in schism but in irregular communion. They are also not in heresy since they certainly do not deny Petrine authority. They obey the Pope and pray for the Pope.

Henry VIII acted out of his own desire to marry who he wanted to marry. What he wanted to do was to commit a sin with it being accepted. SSPX attempted to remain true to the Tradition of the Church and keep the traditional Mass. Their intent was to preserve what was seemingly being lost.

Pax Christi tecum.
 
Aramis said:
The Leadership of the SSPX have bumbled their way to schism, and possibly heresy. (Open denial of Petrine Authority is denial of Roman Doctrine, and thus heresy.)
Click to expand...
Has the SSPX openly denied Petrine Authority? I can disobey my parents without denying that they have authority over me, can’t I?

The Orthodox I can understand; Lutherans and Methodists, certainly, but to claim the SSPX denies authority or even might be? I think that might be a little slanderous.

Last I heard, all the SSPX Masses are using the 1962 Missal per Papal instructions and also include the Pope’s name inside the Mass. So how disobedient is this? Frankly I don’t know why the priests themselves have been put on suspension but then, it’s an internal matter so I won’t judge.
 
ProVobis said:
Has the SSPX openly denied Petrine Authority? I can disobey my parents without denying that they have authority over me, can’t I?
Click to expand...
You are right and therein is the big difference. “Denied” is not “defied”. However it should also be pointed out that in defying the authority of the Pope, the SSPX founders also took that defiance to the level of disobedience. Still, that is not a denial of his authority.
 
I’ve never heard of the house-keeper of msgr Lefevre.
But then again I could be mistaken.🙂
 
pnewton said:
You are right and therein is the big difference. “Denied” is not “defied”. However it should also be pointed out that in defying the authority of the Pope, the SSPX founders also took that defiance to the level of disobedience. Still, that is not a denial of his authority.
Click to expand...
One of Bishop Williamson’s letters denied the excommunication as invalidly issued. If the sitting pope can not issue a valid excommunication, who can?

The practical matter is that in ignoring and rejecting the sanctions, they de facto deny Rome’s authority by neither demanding trial (their right under canon law) nor acceding to obey the sanctions, and insisted simply stating the sanctions to be invalid.

They hold that they do not need Rome’s nor the Local Bishop’s permission to say public masses, to hear confessions of the faithful, nor to build chapels. Requirements set in the old canon law, and continued in the 1983 CIC.

So at least one of their leaders rejects Rome’s authority, as does every SSPX priest who hears a non-emergency confession.
 
Aramis said:
One of Bishop Williamson’s letters denied the excommunication as invalidly issued. If the sitting pope can not issue a valid excommunication, who can?
Click to expand...
When you are an authority unto yourself, you can believe what you want. That is one commonality between the Anglicans and the SSPX, but this also embraces many Catholics today.
 
Aramis said:
One of Bishop Williamson’s letters denied the excommunication as invalidly issued. If the sitting pope can not issue a valid excommunication, who can?
Click to expand...
The sitting Pope had also approved the 1983 Canon Law and it is this canon law the Archbishop and the bishops cited, not their own. If they made up their own Canon Law, then you might have a valid argument.

If anything it was JPII who in effect denied one of his own canon laws, that being the one of “necessity.”

And, please, no “but he can do that, he’s Pope” arguments. The Church does need to preserve some level of integrity in order to prevail against the gates of Hell.
 
I remember reading once that King Henry VIII probably would have gotten his annulment if it wasn’t for the fact that he was married to the sister of the Emperor Charles V, who was already giving the Holy See a hard time and probably wouldn’t have taken too well to his sister being tossed aside! Once again, we see how politics has been the instigation of a major problem for the Church. Imagine if this wouldn’t have happened, would England, to this day, have remained Catholic???
 
ProVobis said:
The sitting Pope had also approved the 1983 Canon Law and it is this canon law the Archbishop and the bishops cited, not their own. If they made up their own Canon Law, then you might have a valid argument.

If anything it was JPII who in effect denied one of his own canon laws, that being the one of “necessity.”

And, please, no “but he can do that, he’s Pope” arguments. The Church does need to preserve some level of integrity in order to prevail against the gates of Hell.
Click to expand...
That same said law automatically excommunicates those ordained bishops and those ordaining them, unless said ordination is done with the express permission of the pope or one of the Sui Iuris Patriarchs. And in the latter case, only for within that patriarch’s Church.

Necessity is hard to show. Direct disobedience is easily shown in this case. Direct disobedience in violation of the law, and then attempting to use the law to justify breaking it. Then refusing to admit error. (The sin of Pride?) Then, further, refusing to allow the law to be used properly and not requesting nor allowing trial (a burden on the defendant).

The direct disobedience is the strongest correlation between the Anglicans and the SSPX.

The SSPX have far more in common with the Lutherans: a founding based on a desire for proper liturgy, over disagreements with Rome over the appropriateness of its course and abuses endemic at the time. Now, mind you, the two would violently disagree on what constitutes said proper liturgy and abuses. 😉
 
Timothysis;:
Once again, we see how politics has been the instigation of a major problem for the Church.
Click to expand...
Schisms surivve the first generation only when politics interceeds.

xan

jonathon
 
Aramis said:
That same said law automatically excommunicates those ordained bishops and those ordaining them, unless said ordination is done with the express permission of the pope or one of the Sui Iuris Patriarchs. And in the latter case, only for within that patriarch’s Church.
Click to expand...
See this thread, Myth #1.
 
Binx said:
See this thread, Myth #1.
Click to expand...
Sorry, your SSPX apologetics didn’t establish then, nor now, great fear.

That the latter pomulgation of formal excomunication occurred makes it valid, anyway, until trial.

They have not presented themselves for trial.
 
pnewton said:
I wonder why anyone would want to be an apologist for the SSPX.
Click to expand...
I cannot speak for anyone, but some possibilities are as follows: Concern for the truth. Inclination toward justice. Gratitude for fidelity. Admiration for clarity. Love of neighbor. Love of God. Love of the Church…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top