“Prove they are not in schism” = proving a negativewhat if i just flip the wording and say
prove that they are in full union with the church
or
prove that they are not in full union with the church
which is the positive and which the negative?
ByzCath was right when he said the negative would be “prove that they haven’t said that they are not in schism”
In other words, we are looking for a statement, a postive thing, the negative would be asking to prove there is no such statement
That is not what we are asking to prove though.“Prove they are not in schism” = proving a negative
“Prove they are in schism” = proving a positive.
Prove you are not a space alien.
Prove you are not an adulterer.
Prove you are not a figment of my imagination.
All examples of this fallacy.
I don’t think we are too far apart. I surely do not want to go more than the truth of the matter. Surely I see that the idea of a defined formal schism has not happened. But in several instances the word has been used to describe them and their behavior. In all cases that I have read from Rome association with them is discouraged, though. That is why I was hopeful that something formal had been said.If you don’t accept that the letter’s authenticity, then at least accept that the lack of decree means that the SSPX cannot be called schismatic. All that can be said, factually, is the their Bishops were declared 20 years ago to have been automatically excommunicated.
EvidentlyIs there a statute of limitations on Church decrees?
With the foregoing considerations in mind, to which We have given careful thought, We now, in the full consciousness of Our Office and in virtue of Our authority, decree and command the following:
Responsibility for enforcement
- Bishops and superiors-general of religious orders shall take pains to ensure that in their seminaries and in their schools where adolescents are trained for the priesthood, all shall studiously observe the Apostolic See’s decision in this matter and obey these Our prescriptions most carefully.
adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html
- In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the Liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See’s will in this regard or interprets it falsely.
I don’t judge them based on what I’ve heard from others. I judge the SSPX by the actions of it’s leader, Bishop Bernard Fellay. I do not doubt that the SSPX has a great love for the Church, and that those who follow this group desire nothing more than full communion with the Successor of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff. However, the only thing that is preventing the SSPX from returning to full communion is pride. Bishop Fellay is too proud to submit humbly to the legitimate authority of his holiness, Pope Benedict XVI. The Holy Father has shown his desire for the SSPX to return, but Bishop Fellay refuses to compromise. Sooner or later, Bishop Fellay must decide whether to submit to the teachings of the Pope concerning Vatican II and the legitimacy of the New Mass or not. He must not be obsinate and he must remember that the Holy Spirit guides the Church from teaching error. He should submit faithfully to the Magisterium, and he will find that the SSPX will be welcomed back with open arms.Not so. People don’t go around praying rosaries and novenas and doing pilgrammages because of pride. They don’t donate huge amounts of money because they don’t have better use of it either. One shouldn’t be so quick to judge based on what he hears from others. Visit a local SSPX chapel, even if it’s not for Mass. There are real people there with feelings and love for God, believe me.
But isn’t this at the heart of the problem? Everything you mention has been pushed away for the past 20 years. What makes people think that the sspx will change and that Pope Benedict, the one who was in the middle of the negotiations back in the 80’s and who is apparently well versed in the mentality and mindset of the sspx, will simply say “Pope John Paul’s excommunication of your leaders is invalid (a very bold step, IMO), everything is kosher, so come back to us,” when they turned their noses at his most generous offer a few months ago? In my opinion, the politics involved will not let him do that. To be Catholic is to be in full communion with the Pope, something that the sspx have not been in the past 20 years. Can it all be swept under the rug and pretend like it never happened? What happens the first time the Pope does something the sspx doesn’t like? Do they open their mouths in defiance or remain humble and silent?Sooner or later, Bishop Fellay must decide whether to submit to the teachings of the Pope concerning Vatican II and the legitimacy of the New Mass or not. He must not be obsinate and he must remember that the Holy Spirit guides the Church from teaching error. He should submit faithfully to the Magisterium, and he will find that the SSPX will be welcomed back with open arms.
Canon Law said:Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
I have noticed something else…Using the definition of schism that is contained in the Church’s Canon Law, I don’t think there needs to be a formal declaration that Lefebvre is in schism, since it is commonly understood. Those who support him prefer to diminish the gravity of his act and call it simply “an excommunication.”
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.We are asking to prove there IS a statement that they are not in schism.
You have yet to provide an official statement that you are not in schism. Until you can provide it I have no other choice but to believe you are in schism. It is your responsilibty to prove you are not in schism.A lot of people deny that the SSPX is in schism and either say that there is an official statement that says this (which they have yet to provide) or they point to the lack of an official statement stating that the SSPX is in schism.
Kitty-footin’?I sense that there’s a lot of kitty-footin’ around
I may be misunderstanding here, but it seems that if you need no official declaration of schism, then you need no official declaration of heresy, nor of apostasy. Is that your position?I have noticed something else…
A lot of people deny that the SSPX is in schism and either say that there is an official statement that says this (which they have yet to provide) or they point to the lack of an official statement stating that the SSPX is in schism, but then many of those same people are quick to call faithful bishops who are in communion and obedient to Rome heretics when there is no official statements to such.
I will stop saying that the SSPX is in schism when they stop pointing out what they perceive as heresy.
You seem to be the one who is “kitty-footin” as you cannot produce a clear official declaration of schism to those you wish to label as schismatics.There is no such statement? I sense that there’s a lot of kitty-footin’ around in order to make the Abp’s act look simply “irregular.” Schism is the terminology for the “act” … excommunication is terminology for the just penalty. These are two separate linguistic applications developed in Canon Law and used by the hierarchy.
I posted a link from Cardinal Levada earlier in this thread, where one can see that he correctly applied the Church’s terminology and labeled the “act” schism.
Produce the document then. Show it to us.Maybe I’m missing something, but wasn’t Ecclesia Dei the official document? I am puzzled why it hasn’t been mentioned. Is it no longer valid because the Pope has not issued a follow-up encyclical saying it still holds? A simple search in Ask An Apologist together with solid links from This Rock reinforces that which most Catholics know to be the Church’s position.
And a one who obstinately holds a heretical position is *ipso facto *excommunicated. Can you tell us what that means?Schism is the terminology for the “act” … excommunication is terminology for the just penalty. These are two separate linguistic applications developed in Canon Law and used by the hierarchy.
Take your pick: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4197667&postcount=1Produce the document then. Show it to us.
Gratia_Plena
Specifically, how are these cases similar?Has anyone ever read (or at least read about) St. Hippolytus’ biography of Pope St. Callistus I (as well as his accusations against Pope St. Zephyerinius)? It’s very similar to what the SSPX leadership has to say about recent Pontiffs. For those who do not know, Hippolytus was a great theologian and defender of the faith who became a “rigorist” and accused the Popes (and really the rest of the Church) on his time of being too worldly, and lax both doctrinally and disciplinarily. He also accused them of heresy or at least of favoring heretics.
I think the way the SSPX will reconcile with the Bishop of Rome will come about in a similar was as St. Hippolytus and his followers.
When St. Hippolytus and Pope St. Pontian (who succeeded Callistus I after St. Urban I) met in the salt mines during the persecutions, Hippolytus was won over not by subtle and complex doctrinal arguments, but by the personal holiness and compassion for him showed by Pontian.