Is the society of Saint Pius really schismatic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Questioner28
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Questioner28

Guest
Or are they just trying to preserve traditions of the church ?The Society of Saint Pius X
 
The Society of Saint Pius V most definitely is, and so far as I know have no intention of coming back into the fold.

The Society of Saint Pius X is at the moment (sort of…long story), but they are in talks with Rome.
 
Well, people have different opinions as to whether they’re schismatic, or just at odds with the Church (mostly those opinions come from outside the Church). It’s confusing, but, they are not schismatic, and there have been documents clarifying this. The Priests of the SSPX are validly ordained, BUT, they are illicit. Therefore, the Priests of SSPX are suspended, and can not legally perform sacraments within the Church. BUT, that does not make them schismatic. They are inside the Church, though, I would say it is a sort of imperfect (soon to be perfect, please God) unity.

God Bless :signofcross::byzsoc:
 
Let’s just put it this way - if the Church and SSPX were people on Facebook, their relationship status would be “It’s complicated.” 🙂
 
LoyalViews said:
The Priests of the SSPX are validly ordained, BUT, they are illicit. Therefore, the Priests of SSPX are suspended, and can not legally perform sacraments within the Church. BUT, that does not make them schismatic. They are inside the Church, though.
Click to expand...
It’s not really that simple: the Old Catholic Church, for instance, also has valid but illicit ordinations and I don’t think anyone could claim that they are not schismatic. (It can be claimed that they have lost their valid sacraments recently, but that’s a whole other discussion).

The SSPX are inside the Church, but anyone attending one of their masses commits a sin within the Church, and they commit a sin every time they celebrate mass. Seek out the FSSP if you desire a truly Catholic version of this same charism.

Of course many will disagree with my assessment, but I have arrived at my opinion by listening to the successor of Peter.
 
Thank you for correcting me, and thank you for elaborating! I agree with you, and perhaps the way I phrased that was incorrect! God Bless :signofcross::byzsoc:
 
TuAutem said:
It’s not really that simple: the Old Catholic Church, for instance, also has valid but illicit ordinations and I don’t think anyone could claim that they are not schismatic. (It can be claimed that they have lost their valid sacraments recently, but that’s a whole other discussion).

The SSPX are inside the Church, but anyone attending one of their masses commits a sin within the Church, and they commit a sin every time they celebrate mass. Seek out the FSSP if you desire a truly Catholic version of this same charism.

Of course many will disagree with my assessment, but I have arrived at my opinion by listening to the successor of Peter.
Click to expand...
It seems to me they’re in kind of a limbo state right now. They’re not schismatic, exactly, and certaintly don’t claim to be. Illicit some of their sacraments might be. Their bishops and priests are valid, and their sacraments are valid.

When you peel away all the details and distracting things, it seems to me the core issue is submission to the bishops of the dioceses in which they are found. Their whole thing began when one bishop did not want to follow, in full, some of the directives of Vatican II. He said he would consecrate some like-minded priests as bishops and did so in defiance of the then Pope. There have been reconciliation efforts that are still going on, but as near as I can tell, it’s still fundamentally about the bishops. Their priests and bishops don’t want to be subject to the local bishops and want something like the “personal prelature” that, say, Opus Dei has. Their reasoning, as I understand it, is that they think the very first thing a local bishop will do is scatter them around, away from the congregations they have established, and order them to do things they don’t think are proper. In some instances, they would almost certainly be right about that. In some, they wouldn’t. From Rome’s standpoint, they are being defiant of the organizational structure of the Church; specifically that they should submit themselves to the bishops of the various dioceses.

As I understand it, the entirely licit FSSP is a personal prelature, and the SSPX could end up as one as well. However, from Rome’s standpoint, it is surely hard to do that with an organization that began with defiance.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It seems to me they’re in kind of a limbo state right now.

As I understand it, the entirely licit FSSP is a personal prelature, and the SSPX could end up as one as well. However, from Rome’s standpoint, it is surely hard to do that with an organization that began with defiance.
Click to expand...
The FSSP is a priestly society. The only personal prelature in the Catholic Church is Opus Dei.
 
TuAutem said:
The SSPX are inside the Church, but anyone attending one of their masses commits a sin within the Church
Click to expand...
If this were true then the Holy See would have to tell people that they may not attend SSPX Masses for any reason whatsoever, but that is not what the Holy See has said.

Instead, the faithful are advised that they may attend SSPX Masses for a good reason (such as no other available traditional Mass), but that they must avoid a “schismatic mentality”.
 
Fully Catholic, not schismatic, but priest don’t have canonical status either.
 
Extract from Ecclesia Dei by Pope John Paul II:
  1. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)
 
thistle said:
Extract from Ecclesia Dei by Pope John Paul II:
  1. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)
Click to expand...
And yet, the Holy See has refused to declare the SSPX in a state of formal schism, the SSPX itself denies all schismatic intent, and the excommunications have been lifted.

The only word that correctly applies to the SSPX in its relationship with the Holy See is disobedient.
 
thistle said:
Extract from Ecclesia Dei by Pope John Paul II:
  1. **In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - **which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy **** constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)
This implication was only that, an implication. None of the bishops explicitly rejected the Roman primacy (but this wasn’t demonstrated till later.) Not that it was legitimate to perpetuate the Apostolic Succession, the disobedience was explicit, but can we say then, that it ultimately didn’t prove to be a schismatic act? Starting a parallel church would have been explicitly rejecting the Roman primacy. At the time, it looked like it was but as it turned out, no such parallel church was formed. No further consecrations have been performed since 1988.

One of these days I’ll look at the Latin behind this.
Click to expand...
 
ProVobis said:
Fully Catholic, not schismatic, but priest don’t have canonical status either.
Click to expand...
SCHISMATIC, pertinaciously refuses to submit the Supreme Pontiff … resisting Papal Authority or refusing to participate in Catholic life and worship.
 
“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”
Click to expand...
latinmas.s701.sureserver.com/perl-011803.htm
 
garygodin said:
SCHISMATIC, pertinaciously refuses to submit the Supreme Pontiff
Click to expand...
Not quite. Do you see a parallel Church with the perpetuation of bishops? As it stands right now, they are like Catholic laymen, able to receive the Sacraments just like all Catholics.
 
Ever notice how folks say trads try to back step and ignore more recent rulings on certain matters ? And then when it comes to the SSPX, they do the same thing, ignoring what has come from Rome since H.H. BXVI became pope ?

:cool:
 
garygodin said:
SCHISMATIC, pertinaciously refuses to submit the Supreme Pontiff … resisting Papal Authority or refusing to participate in Catholic life and worship.
Click to expand...
So is the pope stupid in your opinion ?

Let’s see. The excommunications are lifted, and the document refers to the four bishops as, Bishops. So, if the SSPX isn’t Catholic, how can a pope lift excommunications, and why are they called Bishops ?

If your opinion is correct, then apostolic succession is a big lie. :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top