Good sermon (SSPX)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pax_et_Caritas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, my edit function is not working. Look at article 3 in Ecclesia Dei, where the pope clearly stated that the “act” was schismatic and incurred the “penalty” of excommunication.

To my knowledge, it has never been retracted.
 
Unitas said:
An authoritative statement, “from the holy Father or his designee” stating they are not in schism would be proof they are not in schism. You are asking for it, therefore you are asking for proof they are not in schism.

There is no such statement because there is no need for one. There is no authoritative statement saying they are in schism, so who are we to assume they are? It is not up to us to prove those that say “the SSPX is in schism” wrong. It is up to them to prove themselves right. The burden of proof is on them.

That’s like me asking for an authoritative statement from the pope stating that YOU aren’t in schism. Would you be able to provide that? Am I to assume that if you cannot provide the statement that you indeed are in schism? Same thing.
Click to expand...
The only reason we ask is because we were told:
Ghoti said:
However “schismatic” Abp Lefebvre’s act may have been,** Rome has said that SSPX are not in schism**, only that their status is “irregular”. I pray that this is as bad as it gets – for there has already been true schism:
Click to expand...
If I had not been told that Rome has put out a statement, then I would not ask for one. But when people come in here making such claims, I like them to back it up with fact
 
After a quick rereading of Ecclesia Dei, it seems the excommunication was soley based upon disobedience. Then the disobedience is extended to form a schism (incomplete communion, that in itself is a novel term).

What is the schism over then? What are the doctrinal issues and why have they yet to be specifically dealt with?

Gratia_Plena
 
Joysong said:
Sorry, my edit function is not working. Look at article 3 in Ecclesia Dei, where the pope clearly stated that the “act” was schismatic and incurred the “penalty” of excommunication.

To my knowledge, it has never been retracted.
Click to expand...
The “act” was disobedience.So the entire issue is over the consecration of four Bishops without Papal Mandate? That’s not what SSPX says it is about and I tend to agree with them.

Gratia_Plena
 
40.png
Joysong:
Sorry, my edit function is not working.
Click to expand...
I notice too that you never seem to be “online”. Are you a stealth moderator or something?
 
Gratia_Plena said:
The “act” was disobedience.So the entire issue is over the consecration of four Bishops without Papal Mandate? That’s not what SSPX says it is about and I tend to agree with them.

Gratia_Plena
Click to expand...
Believing these bishops over the Holy Father is not uncommon among the SSPX. But I have a news flash: the Holy Father is the head of the Church and is the** final** authority in matters of a disciplinary nature. If the SSPX says it is something different, then they are liars and show forth the fruit of their disobedience.
 
DISCLAIMER: This is my 2c. Which, being in Canadian currency, is worth only 1.6c in USD.

Seems to me there was a thread (or more) a while ago on whether or not it was licit for non-SSPX Catholics to assist at SSPX Masses. I had been of the opinion that the answer would be “no” as the SSPX were in “schism”. I believe the thread linked to Fr Z’s website – “What Does The Prayer Really Say” – and IIRC, the upshot was, wonder of wonders, that it was permitted. Now I have only been to Fr Z’s website a few times, and I get the impression that he is a traditional ortho Catholic in communion with the Holy Father, and not necessarily a big fan of the SSPX, so this would not be pro-SSPX propaganda. If it is the case that SSPX masses are OK for us garden-variety Micks, then it would seem to me that the SSPX is not in schism: their status being “canonically irregular”, i.e., the branch is bent but not yet broken, if you will.

If someone can find that thread, or the link to Fr Z’s blog, that’d be real cool.

As to where I’m coming from, I’m no apologist for the SSPX, being a fairly happy OF baby who has seen many actually quite nice felt banners in his day. I’m speaking only about what little I know (of which I may very well be wrong). So before either “side” gets out their “field canons” to bombard me, remember I’m just speaking as a lay schmuck piecing together what he has been able to glean in these fora.

If I’m wrong, I await your loving correction. 😃
 
SenorSalsa said:
If I had not been told that Rome has put out a statement, then I would not ask for one. But when people come in here making such claims, I like them to back it up with fact
Click to expand...
Well, I will be the first to admit that I can’t.

I first heard the term “canonically irregular” or whatnot here on these fora. From whom, I don’t know. Call it a symptom of Wikipeditis: I try to assume good faith – especially here on Catholic fora, on discussions :rolleyes: between Catholics.

Basically, I had assumed that Rome had stated that Abp Lefebvre’s consecration of the bishops was a “schismatic act” and that subsequently the status of SSPX became “irregular” – I assumed that to mean that Rome was not quite ready to put SSPX under interdict or declare them officially in full schism or whatever they do with bells, books, and sundry candles; that She was hoping to heal the wound before it became an amputation.

What little I know I have gotten here. I may have gotten the wrong end of the stick…definitely wouldn’t be the first time.

So, I do not assert that SSPX is/isn’t in schism, or that their status is/isn’t irregular…I don’t know (see my disclaimer in my sig). I just parroted what I heard here, which now apparently is about as useful as “I heard that…” or “I read on the 'Net…” or "I heard from a friend of a friend – no names – " 🤷

My apologies if I have fanned the flames here or detracted rather than contributed to the finding of answers here. 1100, 1100, 2100. :imsorry:
 
Ghoti said:
DISCLAIMER: This is my 2c. Which, being in Canadian currency, is worth only 1.6c in USD.

Seems to me there was a thread (or more) a while ago on whether or not it was licit for non-SSPX Catholics to assist at SSPX Masses. I had been of the opinion that the answer would be “no” as the SSPX were in “schism”. I believe the thread linked to Fr Z’s website – “What Does The Prayer Really Say” – and IIRC, the upshot was, wonder of wonders, that it was permitted. Now I have only been to Fr Z’s website a few times, and I get the impression that he is a traditional ortho Catholic in communion with the Holy Father, and not necessarily a big fan of the SSPX, so this would not be pro-SSPX propaganda. If it is the case that SSPX masses are OK for us garden-variety Micks, then it would seem to me that the SSPX is not in schism: their status being “canonically irregular”, i.e., the branch is bent but not yet broken, if you will.

If someone can find that thread, or the link to Fr Z’s blog, that’d be real cool.

As to where I’m coming from, I’m no apologist for the SSPX, being a fairly happy OF baby who has seen many actually quite nice felt banners in his day. I’m speaking only about what little I know (of which I may very well be wrong). So before either “side” gets out their “field canons” to bombard me, remember I’m just speaking as a lay schmuck piecing together what he has been able to glean in these fora.

If I’m wrong, I await your loving correction. 😃
Click to expand...
I read something about this too. As far as I can understand, the SSPX priests and bishops have valid orders, and so their Masses are valid but illicit. I think only in cases of necessity can one assist at them. So if you are in danger of death, you can certainly receive the last rites from an SSPX priest, or if there is no parish but an SSPX one near you, you can assist at their masses.

That is the gist of what I read; does anyone have better understanding of this to share?
 
jfallaw said:
I read something about this too. As far as I can understand, the SSPX priests and bishops have valid orders, and so their Masses are valid but illicit. I think only in cases of necessity can one assist at them. So if you are in danger of death, you can certainly receive the last rites from an SSPX priest, or if there is no parish but an SSPX one near you, you can assist at their masses.

That is the gist of what I read; does anyone have better understanding of this to share?
Click to expand...
I think I found it- at unavoce
 
jfallaw said:
I read something about this too. As far as I can understand, the SSPX priests and bishops have valid orders, and so their Masses are valid but illicit. I think only in cases of necessity can one assist at them. So if you are in danger of death, you can certainly receive the last rites from an SSPX priest, or if there is no parish but an SSPX one near you, you can assist at their masses.

That is the gist of what I read; does anyone have better understanding of this to share?
Click to expand...
This is very close. What he said is much looser than that. Msgr. Perl said that you may assist at an SSPX mass if your intention is merely to assist at a TLM. But if you attend their masses out of a desire to separate communion with the Holy Father, meaning you attend to manifest a belief that the SSPX alone is the one true Church, then it would be a sin.
 
Unitas said:
This is very close. What he said is much looser than that. Msgr. Perl said that you may assist at an SSPX mass if your intention is merely to assist at a TLM. But if you attend their masses out of a desire to separate communion with the Holy Father, meaning you attend to manifest a belief that the SSPX alone is the one true Church, then it would be a sin.
Click to expand...
Unitas! You sound like you think that the priests of the SSPX desire separation from the Holy Father. There could be nothing further from the truth.

All the Society desires is for a return to tradition in the Church. The Society, in now way, shape or form, has ever said or implied, that they are the only remaining remnant of the Church.
 
603304529 said:
Unitas! You sound like you think that the priests of the SSPX desire separation from the Holy Father. There could be nothing further from the truth.

All the Society desires is for a return to tradition in the Church. The Society, in now way, shape or form, has ever said or implied, that they are the only remaining remnant of the Church.
Click to expand...
Hi 603304529,
I think you may have mis-read Unitas’ post.
 
603304529 said:
Unitas! You sound like you think that the priests of the SSPX desire separation from the Holy Father. There could be nothing further from the truth.

All the Society desires is for a return to tradition in the Church. The Society, in now way, shape or form, has ever said or implied, that they are the only remaining remnant of the Church.
Click to expand...
As they define tradition. We must be clear on that.
 
ByzCath said:
As they define tradition. We must be clear on that.
Click to expand...
We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.
 
603304529 said:
We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I do not think so. But that is a topic for another thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top