a 23 year old decree ?All followers of Lefebrve “Incur the very grave penalty of excommunication.”
SSPX Decree of Excommunication
In virtue of the faculties that have been expressly conceded to me by the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present decree, I lift from Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of excommunication latae sententiae declared by this congregation on July 1, 1988, and declare void of juridical effects beginning today the decree published then.
Rome, Congregation for the Bishops,
Jan. 21, 2009
Those in schism do not have their excommunications lifted Carlos. That decree you present has been declared void.Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re
Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
zenit.org/article-24901?l=english
I answered the question as the question was stated. The question was how can a bishop be in schism if he is not excommunicated. Well, there are hundreds of Orthodox Bishops today who are in schism from the Catholic Church who are not excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Its a simple question with a simple answer. I am not equating the Orthodox with the SSPX. The Orthodox at least has been truthful about their stance about the Papacy.The position of the SSPX is unique, and very unlike the position that we see in the Orthodox. To look at them as equals in their transgressions would be an error.
That is the excommunication lifting of the bishops, but the Society is still in schism.a 23 year old decree ?
Those in schism do not have their excommunications lifted Carlos. That decree you present has been declared void.
The SSPX is not in schism. If you want to claim they are schismatic for certain reasons, that is understandable to a point. But to state they are in schism is false.
Pleas note the document refers to them as Bishops.
The Society is not now nor ever was in schism. In fact Cardinal Hoyos as President of the PCED said repeatedly they were not in schism.That is the excommunication lifting of the bishops, but the Society is still in schism.
The Orthodox church’s existence is an act of disobedience, yet Canon law allows for reception of their sacraments in certain circumstances.This is a very important point that those who support the sspx breeze past.
If you’ve ever attended a NO Mass where the priest said one word wrong or got one rubric wrong you’ve attended an “illicit” Mass. If you regularly attend a Mass where Eucharistic Ministers are used but are not absolutely needed, you are attending an “illicit” Mass.To many people here the notion of a Mass being “illicit” means next to nothing.
I have never understood how one can claim to be on the side of the Church when they knowingly and purposely attend Masses that they know are illicit. That, coupled with the fact that sspx priests are suspended of their duties and act in disobedience every time they celebrate Mass would seem (to me, at least) to be cause for concern.
But that’s just me.
Alright, I stand corrected in the case of the schism, but a public SSPX liturgy (as I have already said) is a public form of disobedience.The Society is not now nor ever was in schism. In fact Cardinal Hoyos as President of the PCED said repeatedly they were not in schism.
It is amazing that a Cardinal of the Church says a group is not in schism years ago and still people are repeating this untruth.
I’m not too sure, but I think you are using the word “illicit” a little too loosely. Of course I would be seriously concerned if I attended a parish where this happened, and thank God I attend an orthodox parish- we resist the pressure to include girls as altar servers, we’ve resisted the pressure to remove our altar rail, and we’ve resisted pressure to remove the high altar.If you’ve ever attended a NO Mass where the priest said one word wrong or got one rubric wrong you’ve attended an “illicit” Mass. If you regularly attend a Mass where Eucharistic Ministers are used but are not absolutely needed, you are attending an “illicit” Mass.
This statement shows complete lack of knowledge of the history of the Church.The Orthodox church’s existence is an act of disobedience, yet Canon law allows for reception of their sacraments in certain circumstances.
How, what are the facts?This statement shows complete lack of knowledge of the history of the Church.
Really? What part of it is not true?This statement shows complete lack of knowledge of the history of the Church.
“Illicit” means illegal or unlawful. The only way Mass is allowed to be said is by the book. One deviation and it is an illicit Mass. I lived in a diocese where almsot every NO Mass was illicit because the priests and laity could care less about liturgical rules.I’m not too sure, but I think you are using the word “illicit” a little too loosely. Of course I would be seriously concerned if I attended a parish where this happened, and thank God I attend an orthodox parish- we resist the pressure to include girls as altar servers, we’ve resisted the pressure to remove our altar rail, and we’ve resisted pressure to remove the high altar.
Just because we are not pro-SSPX, does not mean we are pro-modernism.
I refuse to participate in the side issue of whether SSPX Mass is valid or licit etc. but valiantly cling to OP.Im sorry, I didnt mean to imply that the bishop is hostile to the idea. In the interest of charity I cannot state that the Bishop is “hiding” the mass just that it is frustrating and can seem like that is the case. One could say that the Bishop would be no friend to the traditional movement. The EF is not available closer but it is in demand, several of us have tried. I was toying with the idea of writing the Bishop a letter seeking his guidance, but I’m not sure how that would go over.
The Orthodox are true schismatics, denying the Pope has any authority over them. They were formed out of disobedience and they continue in it to this day. They are also heretics as they deny Papal authority and filoque.How, what are the facts?
The SSPX was also formed in disobedience.The Orthodox are true schematics, denying the Pope has any authority over them. They were formed out of disobedience and they continue in it to this day. They are also heretics as they deny Papal authority and filoque.
The SSPX is in the Church and does not deny Papal authority. If one can receive Orthodox sacraments it is ridiculous to say they can’t receive Society sacraments.
Not true. The Society was formed with full approval by the local Bishop.The SSPX was also formed in disobedience.
It was originally formed as a pio unio under the diocese of Fribourg, and remained in this provisional state (which can be revoked by the sponsoring bishop). Now, had the then-bishop of Fribourg granted Diocesan Right status, his successor would not have been able to rescind that recognition in 1975 without specific permission from Rome. Had it been granted Pontifical Right status, the local bishop would not have been involved at all.Not true. The Society was formed with full approval by the local Bishop.
No offense, but please educate yourself on this before making claims to the public.
sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Appendix_V.htmIt was originally formed as a pio unio under the diocese of Fribourg, and remained in this provisional state (which can be revoked by the sponsoring bishop). Now, had the then-bishop of Fribourg granted Diocesan Right status, his successor would not have been able to rescind that recognition in 1975 without specific permission from Rome. Had it been granted Pontifical Right status, the local bishop would not have been involved at all.
It’s possible that if Mgr Lefebvre hadn’t attempted to “fast track” things and try for an immediate jump from pia unio to Pontifical Right, (thereby bypassing Diocesan Right), the events of 1975 would never have happened.
That would apply if it had been granted the status of Diocesan Right.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Appendix_V.htm
“The Society of St. Pius X, according to its Statutes approved by Bishop Charrière, is a priestly society “of common life without vows,” coming under the provisions of canons 673-674 and 488, o3,o4. As such the Society of St. Pius X could only be suppressed by the Holy See, which alone has the power to suppress such an institute erected under diocesan law (c. 493).”