Is sspx in schism

[adamhovey1988]

I always get in trouble when I give my opinion on this, so I’m just going to State a fact that isn’t disputed, they are canonically irregular

 

[dochawk]

Briefly, the SSPX is half in and half out, one foot in and one foot out.

And put your left foot in, and you shake it all about!
You do the Catholic Pokey; to that we all astound–
and that’s what it’s all about!



Tongue in cheek, but that’s abut how the past couple of decades have gone on this . .

 

[otjm]

That’s one way of putting it. As things have morphed over the years, what seems to be playing out now, is something like “all right, SSPX, we will give you basically everything you want, valid sacraments and everything, all you have to do now, is to sign off that you do accept Vatican II, you can have your dubia , you can have your analogia fidei , fine and dandy, just sign off on this, OK?”.

According to Pope Benedict’s last comment about the SSPX, they are in a doctrinal dispute with Rome. and at this point, it has been going on for 50 years… They have not be adjudged de jure in schism because Rome, under now 5 Popes, has had hopes of reconciliation. It is far more than “just sign off on this, ok?”.

There is a bit of a difference between de jure schism and de fact schism. They are not de jure.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

They are “inside the Church” as per the CDF decree in 1996.

And as I’ve posted before, if the SSPX is “schismatic”, then they’re the only “schismatics” who pray for Pope Francis at every Mass, Benediction, retreat etc. If I couldn’t attend the Divine Liturgy I’d definitely go to the SSPX.

God used a SSPX priest to save me from getting into a bad marriage almost 20 years ago otherwise I wouldn’t be posting this today.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Some good information on who Archbishop LeFebvre was:

 

[otjm]

Archbishop Lefebvre died excommunicated. No one is saying he was a horrible person; nor is anyone saying what his place/position is in the afterlife.

But excommunication is not a badge of courage.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Archbishop Lefebvre died excommunicated. No one is saying he was a horrible person; nor is anyone saying what his place/position is in the afterlife.

I didn’t say anyone was saying he was a horrible person but that the video had some good and correct information about him.

But excommunication is not a badge of courage.

St. Joan of Arc, though it was later declared null, died excommunicated.

I am not saying Archbishop Lefebvre is a saint but there have been other saints besides St. Joan of Arc who were excommunicated but the exommunication was lifted before they died.

 

[otjm]

I am not here to condemn them nor to defend them; I simply rely on what has been said by individuals in the Church, to wit:

No one in the hierarchy has said they are de jure (by law) in schism.

Pope Benedict has said that the dispute with the SPPX is doctrinal.

Cardinal Mueller has said they are de facto in schism.

Cardinal Burke has said they are de facto in schism.

Numerous people will say they “are in communion”, but “irregular”.

That irregularity is as the two Cardinals have noted, and is about the subject matter which the Pope Emeritus has pointed out.

The discussions concerning the SSPX issues with Vatican 2 have been ongoing for 50 years. Since 1981, they have had the opportunity to hash out and resolve their issues with one of the brightest, if not the most bright theologians alive today - then Cardinal Ratzinger, subsequently Pope Benedict.

I would hope and pray that the three SSPX bishops can come to terms with the Magisterium of the Church, and resolve their doctrinal dispute with the Church. Given the 50 year record and the 39 year opportunity with the strong desire Pope Benedict has had, it is more than just, as one poster put it

As things have morphed over the years, what seems to be playing out now, is something like “all right, SSPX, we will give you basically everything you want, valid sacraments and everything, all you have to do now, is to sign off that you do accept Vatican II, you can have your dubia , you can have your analogia fidei , fine and dandy, just sign off on this, OK?”.

I think anyone asking if the SSPX are in schism deserves a straightforward answer, not one that hedges with statements like “irregularities” or a “dubia”. Their “dubia” has been answered repeatedly. They have not accepted the answer.

It is a bit like talking about someone who has committed an act which is a felony. They have not gone through a trial yet. They are not convicted of the crime; but lack of conviction does not mean they did not commit the crime. This is not about “mere technicalities”, it is about reality. And for the reality, I will listen to the three Church leaders noted above.

And as to the previous statement, if an individual has committed a crime, it does not mean he or she has no redeeming qualities. But the reality is a bit more than “well, they did something they shouldn’t have”. For all their redeeming qualities, that felony is still a felony.

 

[Minks]

I would suggest using the search feature.

I second that suggestion. Varying your wording may bring up additional threads. Also, searching through another search engine (such as Google) will often bring up CAF threads that aren’t found through the CAF search engine, even though identical words have been used.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

One thing we can credit the SSPX for, is keeping the TLM going.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I am not here to condemn them nor to defend them; I simply rely on what has been said by individuals in the Church, to wit:

No one in the hierarchy has said they are de jure (by law) in schism.

Pope Benedict has said that the dispute with the SPPX is doctrinal.

Cardinal Mueller has said they are de facto in schism.

Cardinal Burke has said they are de facto in schism.

Numerous people will say they “are in communion”, but “irregular”.

That irregularity is as the two Cardinals have noted, and is about the subject matter which the Pope Emeritus has pointed out.

The discussions concerning the SSPX issues with Vatican 2 have been ongoing for 50 years. Since 1981, they have had the opportunity to hash out and resolve their issues with one of the brightest, if not the most bright theologians alive today - then Cardinal Ratzinger, subsequently Pope Benedict.

I would hope and pray that the three SSPX bishops can come to terms with the Magisterium of the Church, and resolve their doctrinal dispute with the Church. Given the 50 year record and the 39 year opportunity with the strong desire Pope Benedict has had, it is more than just, as one poster put it

HomeschoolDad:

As things have morphed over the years, what seems to be playing out now, is something like “all right, SSPX, we will give you basically everything you want, valid sacraments and everything, all you have to do now, is to sign off that you do accept Vatican II, you can have your dubia , you can have your analogia fidei , fine and dandy, just sign off on this, OK?”.

I think anyone asking if the SSPX are in schism deserves a straightforward answer, not one that hedges with statements like “irregularities” or a “dubia”. Their “dubia” has been answered repeatedly. They have not accepted the answer.

It is a bit like talking about someone who has committed an act which is a felony. They have not gone through a trial yet. They are not convicted of the crime; but lack of conviction does not mean they did not commit the crime. This is not about “mere technicalities”, it is about reality. And for the reality, I will listen to the three Church leaders noted above.

And as to the previous statement, if an individual has committed a crime, it does not mean he or she has no redeeming qualities. But the reality is a bit more than “well, they did something they shouldn’t have”. For all their redeeming qualities, that felony is still a felony.

Five words: they are not in schism.

“De facto” is a hedge also. Schism does not act the way the SSPX acts. Schism doesn’t profess union with the Holy Father and does not state the name of the diocesan bishop in the Mass prayers. Schism doesn’t have Rome granting it faculties to hear confessions. Schism doesn’t have the Pope appointing one of its bishops to the Roman Rota.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

It is a sui generis situation that is presently hung up on certain doctrinal matters. It may stay that way for awhile. Have the Canadian bishops ever repudiated the Winnipeg Statement? It’s just as serious as the SSPX’s dubia about ecumenism and religious liberty — souls hang in the balance over an issue that affects any married couple, whereas the SSPX’s dubia are about abstract theological interpretations that people generally don’t think much about.

 

[commenter]

It is a sui generis situation that is presently hung up on certain doctrinal matters. It may stay that way for awhile.

Things just don’t stay that way.
Archbishop L, and his early recruits to teach at his seminary and lead his order, had a wealth of practical experience in many different areas of Diocesan education, life and ministry. They knew personally many bishops and priests outside SSPX, had gone to seminary with them, had ministered alongside. No one had grown up in SSPX.

The current leaders, and most clergy, have mostly been trained and worked only in SSPX. There’s a slow drift apart each year. Things don’t “stay that way”.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Exactly. Without +Lefebvre and the SSPX, there would be no FSSP (literally and figuratively - the founders of the FSSP were originally from the SSPX), no ICKSP or any other community that has the TLM.

 

[otjm]

Well, I don’t know, perhaps you want to call the two Cardinals and the Pope Emeritus either fools of liars.

De facto is no hedge; no one goes to de jure schism without being de facto in schism.
Schism is not about a “way of acting” it is a dispute over doctrine - as Pope Benedict pointed out. The only reason that they are not de jure declared to be in schism is that Pope John Paul 2, (and presumably John Paul 1), Benedict and Francis have all decided that reconciliation has a far better chance of occurring if that final step is not made.

Schism doesn’t have the Pope appointing one of its bishops to the Roman Rota.

And who might that be? James Bogle claims that Bishop Fellay was named to the Rota;’ interestingly, no one else seems to know of such an appointment. Bishop Fellay was made a judge of first instance for a matter, apparently of an SSPX priest. That is most definitely not the same as being a member of the Rota.

As Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei said: 'The decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does not imply that existing problems have been resolved, but it is a sign of benevolence and magnanimity. I see no contradiction here, but rather, a step toward reconciliation.”

Overstatements of matters which happen can often be made in more enthusiasm than reality. The reality is other than the enthusiastic statements. Archbishop Sample, of the Archdiocese of Oregon acted as a judge of first instance on a matter leading to the laicization of a priest, but Archbishop Sample did not have to ask Rome for permission as that was part of his juridical duties as archbishop. Bishop Fellay, as bishop does not exercise that juridical authority, which is why he was given permission to do so by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Neither the Bishop nor the Archbishop are members of the Rota.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

I will go out on a big limb here… I do not attend an SSPX parish, it is still clear to me that he nearly single handedly helped preserve the Latin mass. I foresee him someday being declared a saint.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

The SSPX has a prayer card for Archbishop Lefebvre if anyone wants to ask for favors through his intercession.

+Lefebvre died on the Feast of the Annunciation March 25, 1991. And considering that he was always devoted to Our Lady, it seems fitting that he passed away on Her feast day.

 

[AlNg]

Five words: they are not in schism .

What determines whether or not a community is in schism?
Suppose for example a community does not recognize some (a small number say) of the sacraments of the Catholic Church as valid, but they have apostolic succession and otherwise believe everything that was taught before Vatican II.

 

[MarkRome]

Pope Francis in 2016 wrote an encyclical which said, “For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins. For the pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion with the Catholic Church, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”

They aren’t in full communion with the Catholic Church, yet.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

It is a sui generis situation that is presently hung up on certain doctrinal matters. It may stay that way for awhile.

Things just don’t stay that way .
Archbishop L, and his early recruits to teach at his seminary and lead his order, had a wealth of practical experience in many different areas of Diocesan education, life and ministry. They knew personally many bishops and priests outside SSPX, had gone to seminary with them, had ministered alongside. No one had grown up in SSPX.

The current leaders, and most clergy, have mostly been trained and worked only in SSPX. There’s a slow drift apart each year. Things don’t “stay that way”.

Well, then, it will remain to be seen. I hear what you are saying, but I don’t think separate development of a rite or a sui juris church (to which the SSPX might be loosely compared) savors of schism. Eastern Rite dioceses and parishes, their bishops and priests, more or less “live in a bubble” vis-a-vis their local Latin Rite structure — they’re distinct rites and jurisdictions both in union with Rome.

Well, I don’t know, perhaps you want to call the two Cardinals and the Pope Emeritus either fools of liars.

De facto is no hedge; no one goes to de jure schism without being de facto in schism.
Schism is not about a “way of acting” it is a dispute over doctrine - as Pope Benedict pointed out. The only reason that they are not de jure declared to be in schism is that Pope John Paul 2, (and presumably John Paul 1), Benedict and Francis have all decided that reconciliation has a far better chance of occurring if that final step is not made.

I will concede that schism doesn’t happen all in one day, but I don’t think there is a bishop or priest in the SSPX who wants schism or regards themselves as schismatic.

HomeschoolDad:

Schism doesn’t have the Pope appointing one of its bishops to the Roman Rota.

And who might that be? James Bogle claims that Bishop Fellay was named to the Rota;’ interestingly, no one else seems to know of such an appointment. Bishop Fellay was made a judge of first instance for a matter, apparently of an SSPX priest. That is most definitely not the same as being a member of the Rota.

That would be Bishop Fellay in the example you cite. A clarification of his role in this is welcome. Thanks for pointing this out. But this, all by itself, does not vitiate my contention that there is no schism.