Fssp/icksp/sspx

[otjm]

There is a difference between being “in schism”, as in being formally declared schismatic, and being schismatic, but not “in schism”.

One is a formal declaration by the Church; the other is a day to day existence. The latter may or may not lead to a formal declaration, depending on whether Rome sees this as a positive move or not.

Several years ago in a public statement, made, if I recall correctly, in an interview, Cardinal Muller said that the SSPX were “schismatic”, using the term to describe the day to day position of the SSPX. He made clear that they were not being declared schismatic. But he was acknowledging that their positions and their rejection of the overtures to reconciliation were de facto schismatic.

One can quibble about words all day; sophistry is not yet dead. Pope Benedict outlined what was needed to break the impasse and the SSPX refused to move forward on the offer. They are in irregular status not over some mundane, esoteric issues, but over some specific and important issues; and unless and until they move forward on the reconciliation, they are in practical schism. Not legal schism, but practical.

And they are not in legal schism for lack of evidence for Rome to make the call, but rather because Rome has seen fit to not make the the matter “cast in stone”, as it were; reconciliation is easier if one does not have that barrier to remove.

Rome has seen fit to move in caritas; they have been intransigent. It is not a matter that the SSPX thinks that Rome has made some errors in prudential judgement; they think and profess that Rome has erred in matters concerning Faith and Morals.

Somewhere along the line, there will come a time where the SSPX will have another issue to deal with, and that is appointing one or more new bishops. If they are not reconciled with Rome by then, one would expect the current status would be in danger of moving farther part rather than maintaining a minimal status quo, or a move towards reconciliation. And that is simply a matter of time, for all of those issues.

So, it is correct that they are not formally schismatic; but when the head of the dicastery says they are de facto schismatic, and does so publicly, that should fairly well settle the matter for those who accept the authority of Rome; and for those who do not, well, there is always the game of parsing words.

I prefer to differ to Rome on the opinion and matter.

 

[Cider]

I only clicked on your first link, but it was very easy to determine that Peter Galadza is not an SSPX priest, so I have no idea why you are using him as an example of what " SSPX members" think. He’s an Eastern Catholic priest with no ties to the SSPX I could find.

 

[commenter]

The SSPX does regard Francis as a validly elected pope, and no one else. They are not sedevacantist in the formal sense. But sedevacantism can be considered as a continuum. The SSPX consider the Chair of their local bishop-ordinary as empty: in other words, they accept the bishop appointed by the Pope for their city as a valid sacramental minister, but not as their Ordinary of their diocese. I doubt they accept Francis’ authority as Ordinary in the Diocese of Rome, other than in the Vatican itself.

Their websites regard Francis as Pope, but not as they regard other popes. For instance, they often refer to him not as “the” pope, but as “this” pope. They sometimes approve of what he teaches, but don’t allow themselves to be influenced by what he teaches. For instance, they often refer to teachings or even comments of popes before 1958 as important, even when not intended to be infallible, but with Francis they say, this is not infallible, this is not applicable, this needs to be studied further (in other words, ignore it, we should await a really authoritative directive from his successor).

So it’s a continuum. The SSPX evaluates the pope based on (good) criteria for what is true and important, but they don’t include, or add the pope’s guidance, as part of deciding what’s true and important, which is what Catholics have traditionally done with current popes.

 

[Cider]

Well mine has only been positive. The SSPX masses I’ve been to have been reverent and the homilies have always been faithful to Catholic teaching and cover issues of morality that I rarely hear otherwise at mass.

 

[Cider]

The SSPX does regard Francis as a validly elected pope, and no one else. They are not sedevacantist in the formal sense. But sedevacantism can be considered as a continuum. The SSPX consider the Chair of their local bishop-ordinary as empty: in other words, they accept the bishop appointed by the Pope for their city as a valid sacramental minister, but not as their Ordinary of their diocese. I doubt they accept Francis’ authority as Ordinary in the Diocese of Rome, other than in the Vatican itself.

Their websites regard Francis as Pope, but not as they regard other popes. For instance, they often refer to him not as “the” pope, but as “this” pope. They sometimes approve of what he teaches, but don’t allow themselves to be influenced by what he teaches. For instance, they often refer to teachings or even comments of popes before 1958 as important, even when not intended to be infallible, but with Francis they say, this is not infallible, this is not applicable, this needs to be studied further (in other words, ignore it, we should await a really authoritative directive from his successor).

So it’s a continuum. The SSPX evaluates the pope based on (good) criteria for what is true and important, but they don’t include, or add the pope’s guidance, as part of deciding what’s true and important, which is what Catholics have traditionally done with current popes.

Has Pope Francis even made any ex cathedra proclamations? Not everything a Pope says is infallible. We aren’t required to assent to every word a pope utters.

 

[landon13]

The one youtube link to “Vatican Catholic” is a sedevacantist group called Most Holy Family Monastery which even on their website they speak out against the SSPX, so these are mostly sedevacantist links, not SSPX. To my knowledge, the page Defeat Modernism is also sede, but don’t quote me on that.

Pax.

 

[commenter]

Has Pope Francis even made any ex cathedra proclamations? Not everything a Pope says is infallible. We aren’t required to assent to every word a pope utters.

“Ex Cathedra”, the Extraordinary Magisterium, is one aspect of the papal office. For people in the FSSP and ICKSP, and other traditional type Catholics, other aspects of the papal charism are also important, in addition to this.

 

[commenter]

Well mine has only been positive. The SSPX masses I’ve been to have been reverent and the homilies have always been faithful to Catholic teaching and cover issues of morality that I rarely hear otherwise at mass.

As a personal request, could you capitalize “Mass”?

 

[commenter]

The SSPX officially is not sedevacantist regarding the pope, though they are a kind of “sedevacantist” regarding bishop-ordinaries. (They recognize few, if any, in the world, as ordinaries). I would argue that, de facto, their line of argument leads some people to a point where they, on their own, take the final step to become formally sedevacantist. I also believe sedevacantism is a matter of degree; some may consider Benedict to have been more authoritative as pope than Francis, but less so than Pius XII.

When you say SSPX are Catholics, remember laity don’t belong to the SSPX. Some laity are regarded as adherents or attached to SSPX chapels, and identify more or less with that body - but aren’t members, thought there is something like a third order, which I don’t know about.

Clerics and religious of course are Catholics. It’s unfair to make a sweeping statement about SSPX, as there appears to be a wide range of views.