Is sspx in schism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Famulus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ConcernedConvert said:
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.
Click to expand...
It would be nice, but it would take a long time for that to happen. I wouldn’t see that happening in a hundred years. I won’t live to see it, but my future grandchildren, Deo volente, will.
HomeschoolDad said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
Five words: they are not in schism .
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
For the Church to make a de jure declaration, or alternatively, for the community in question to declare that they are not in union with Rome.

I take it you are referring to the various independent communities, both non-sedevacantist and sedevacantist. I don’t think they’re in schism — ultimately, sedevacantism is simply an honest disagreement over whether the present occupant of the Chair of Peter is a Catholic and/or was elected validly — but others would disagree with me on this, and no other community has been “reached out to” and responded to this outreach with ongoing dialogue, the way the SSPX has. Rome has not granted faculties to any of these groups. They have no status within the Church and they have no juridical personality — they are basically self-styled “emergency” groups that came into being due to a perceived crisis of faith and sacramental validity. I don’t “read them out of the Church” any more than I would “read out of the Church” people who dissent from Humanae vitae or who have a notional acceptance of women’s ordination (some would) — they are highly temerarious but I hesitate to say “they are no longer Catholic”.
 

Religious order parishes are really Diocesan parishes, with a rectory that is Jesuit, Franciscan, or whatever. The laity are still under the bishop Ordinary, not any provincial, just as the Laity in parishes with diocesan priests. Local Diocesan regulations apply to Laity who attend those parishes, or chapels, oratories, shrines, schools, etc.

SSPX does not claim the district superior is ordinary of the laity (or even to have “parishes”). But is that gradually becoming the de facto situation?
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
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.
Click to expand...
In my US city, at least some of the Eastern clergy are bi ritual, their second priority is saying OF Mass and ministries at Latin parishes or other places. One of the Latin bishops is bi ritual. Many of the Eastern Laity are extensively involved (often leaders) with the larger regional efforts of prolife, Evangelism, or inner city ministry.

So yes, distinct, but not exactly a bubble.
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
For the Church to make a de jure declaration, or alternatively, for the community in question to declare that they are not in union with Rome.
Click to expand...
A third option is the gradual, unofficial separation becoming permanent, with no declaration.

An attached layperson in 1980 might say she is “from’” St John Diocesan Parish, but prefers to attend her Sunday Mass at St Luke’s SSPX chapel. She has far more Catholic friends outside than inside SSPX. She still reads the Diocesan paper, disagrees with some things, she is very interested in some things around her diocese. She doesn’t know anyone who grew up in SSPX.

But in years to come, her children get all their Religious training through SSPX. There isn’t some other “home parish” they are sort of connected to, or remember, just the chapel, and perhaps the SSPX school, if they attended there. They don’t criticize the diocese, they hardly think about it at all.

You can see changes happening, with no formal declaration by either side, with trend to the next generation and 2030. Things don’t stand still.
 
Last edited:
That doesn’t actually answer Rose’s question: are there any definitions of the term?
 
I thought the topic at hand was Is SSPX in schism? Don’t you have to know what schism is if you are going to answer this question?

Does SSPX recognize all the Catholic sacraments? For example, does SSPX recognize all the annulments granted by the Catholic tribunals? I thought that it did not as it has its own criteria for granting an annulment. So suppose that a man has a marriage annulment granted by the Catholic Church but not recognized by the SSPX. Now he remarries and the Catholic Church recognizes the second marriage but the SSPX does not. Would this not be a case where the SSPX does not recognize this particular Sacrament of Matrimony, but the Catholic Church does recognize it?
 
HomeschoolDad said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
For the Church to make a de jure declaration, or alternatively, for the community in question to declare that they are not in union with Rome.
Click to expand...
A third option is the gradual, unofficial separation becoming permanent, with no declaration.

An attached layperson in 1980 might say she is “from’” St John Diocesan Parish, but prefers to attend her Sunday Mass at St Luke’s SSPX chapel. She has far more Catholic friends outside than inside SSPX. She still reads the Diocesan paper, disagrees with some things, she is very interested in some things around her diocese. She doesn’t know anyone who grew up in SSPX.

But in years to come, her children get all their Religious training through SSPX. There isn’t some other “home parish” they are sort of connected to, or remember, just the chapel, and perhaps the SSPX school, if they attended there. They don’t criticize the diocese, they hardly think about it at all.

You can see changes happening, with no formal declaration by either side, with trend to the next generation and 2030. Things don’t stand still.
Click to expand...
Again, time will tell, but I don’t see the situation becoming as pronounced as you describe.

What you describe sounds similar to what happened some generations ago, mutatis mutandis, when Eastern Rite Catholics settled in areas where there were only Latin Rite churches. They tended to get integrated into the Latin Rite, even if they strictly and formally remained members of their own rite. You could even have a situation where a Catholic is totally unaware that they are, in fact, Maronite, Melkite, Ruthenian, or what have you — it may have been their great-grandparents who came from that rite. These people would fall away entirely from practice of their own rite and become, for all intents and purposes Latin Rite, even if according to the strict letter of the law, they are members of another rite (descent through one’s father).
 
Famulus said:
40.png
Famulus:
I was curious, is the sspx bad or in schism with Rome or the Pope in any way?
Click to expand...
Since this thread is devolving into a bit of a dumpster fire, I’m going to answer this question directly.

No, the SSPX is not in schism.

@camoderator We might need a moratorium on SSPX topics.
Click to expand...
This is no “dumpster fire”. It’s a good discussion, handled courteously and in Christian charity, over a disputed internal matter of the Church. Some people see it one way, and other people see it another way. There is nothing wrong with this discussion. The SSPX affair is one of the most worthwhile things in the Church to discuss at this time. They are working mightily to spread devotion to the Traditional Latin Mass and pre-Vatican II spirituality, and they are one of the few corners of the Church in developed Western cultures that is producing desperately needed vocations in relative abundance. Look at it this way — if the “mainline Church” were producing vocations pari passu at the rate the SSPX is producing them, we’d have all the priests we need. Someone please explain how that’s not a good thing.
 
I amend my term from saying they are in “partial communion” to that they are not in full communion which was supported with an ecclesiastical document.
 
Ask Pope Francis who hopes SSPX strives for full communion.
 
Last edited:
It’s possible some scholar could review a few hundred documents, and on the basis of three of them prove (in his interpretation) that the Old Catholic movement is right now technically in full Communion with the Catholic Church.

But in the real world, those people have gone on to lead permanently separate lives. Their temporary institutions became permanent. Vatican I is here to stay, and so are they. Structures established to meet a specific purpose tend to find reasons to self preserve, even apart from that purpose. It is not so much what happens in Rome or Utrecht, but gradual drifts apart in this town and that.

SSPX is not nearly as far along the path as they are.
 
Last edited:
Because it has been requested, here is some perhaps relevant discussion of the ptonciples of communion, full and partial.
They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion…

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God. They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.
Lumen Gentium 14-15
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Margaret_Ann said:
the SSPX supports Vatican I
Click to expand...
I have my doubts about this.
  • if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals , but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world;
  • or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness , of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful :let him be anathema.
    Pastor Aeternus 3.9
 
There are certainly disagreements about whether SSPX fully accepts “ecclesiastical governance.” Not only have they refused to affirm this on some occasions, they also seem comfortable affirming supposed “canonical facts” that have not been recognized by the Pope as Supreme legislator.

I do not see this as self evident; if it were the OP question would not be asked repeatedly. We share far more with SSPX than we do with Protestants and Orthodox, but there are elements we do not share, like teaching on ecumenism and religious liberty.
 
I did not mean to anathematize anyone; I was more concerned with the principles described. Negotiations with SSPX have come very close to full reconciliation, but the society seems to stop short of affirming the ecclesiastical governance from Vatican II and the subsequent Popes. This refusal sets them apart from individuals who may disobey, but have never declared they reject ecclesiastical governance “which concern the discipline and government of the church.”
 
Pastor aeternus, chapter 4, paragraph 6:
  1. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Source: EWTN
 
I posted this before, I have listened to it twice and IMHO much of the reason people do not believe SSPX are in communion with the Church is because they do not understand who Archbishop Lefebvre was, his history and what led him to start the SSPX. Many also do not realize what the reasons were, the crisis in the Church, that led him to continue the SSPX and that he was calling on canon law that stated what to do in an urgent situation.

 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
I do not see this as self evident; if it were the OP question would not be asked repeatedly.
Click to expand...
I believe that the question is asked repeatedly because of truths, half truths and inuendos that have floated around for so many years that people are not quite sure who the SSPX is. As more people are turning back to orthodoxy they want to know who are these priests that have continued this traditional Catholicism for so long, who is Archbishop Lefebvre and why did he do what he did.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top