Not schismatic, not in union

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaGorettiGrl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MariaGorettiGrl

Guest
In another thread, people (like me :extrahappy: ) started talking about this and I think it would be a good discussion to continue. I think this is the first thread I’ve started, so let’s hope it goes well! 👍 Keep it clean! :tsktsk:

The SSPX church is not in schism. However that does not mean that it is fine to attend an SSPX Mass. It has been forbidden by Rome and is a sin (barring emergency situations).

I think some people get confused, thinking SSPX is in schism and that’s why it’s illicit or that if it isn’t in schism, then it’s fine to attend. While the SSPX church isn’t in schism, it still is not in union with Rome. That’s why there’s all this talk about reuniting and the MP and such. :hug1: Let’s all pray for reunion!

❤️
 
While the SSPX church isn’t in schism, it still is not in union with Rome.
Click to expand...
Can anyone define this in traditional terms? It seems that post V2 we have a new definition of separation from the Church.
 
TraditionalCath said:
John Paul II put out Ecclesia Dei. that document specifically states the situation with the SSPX. the situation is not going to change with the SSPX unless certain things are met.For info about Ecclesia Dei

look it up at the vatican website.

here it is:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
Click to expand...
That’s my point…what does this mean?

Ecclesia Dei said:
1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre.
Click to expand...
 
Well, it sounds to me like there were serious issues with the SSPX and Rome that were probably being negotiated and the efforts were just being frustrated on the side of the SSPX. The Church is very clear on the the situation of the SSPX. Ecclesia Dei irons out the entire situation. it is self explanatory. The pope made a decree and that is that. He declared the Archbishop and the 4 he ordained as excommunicated and so on. re read the document. Everything about the situation is in there.
 
TraditionalCath said:
Well, it sounds to me like there were serious issues with the SSPX and Rome that were probably being negotiated and the efforts were just being frustrated on the side of the SSPX. The Church is very clear on the the situation of the SSPX. Ecclesia Dei irons out the entire situation. it is self explanatory. The pope made a decree and that is that. He declared the Archbishop and the 4 he ordained as excommunicated and so on. re read the document. Everything about the situation is in there.
Click to expand...
Ecclesia Dei was issued in 1988. As various “opinions” are being expressed by Cardinal Hoyos and others, it is obvious that the canonical SSPX status is entirely different nineteen years later. I’ll admit it still is in a “we don’t trust Rome” mode but nevertheless at least those who attend the SSPX are no worse off than those that assist at some “schismatic” activities of the new order. And there seem to be plenty of those too.

And another thing, as long as we’re going back to past events, let’s go back and focus on all those who have tried to undermine Trent in the past 40 years. Wasn’t that council just as important as Vatican II?
 
opinions are just that, opinions. the pope has the final word. period.
 
yes he does. but one cannot ignore what John Paul II stated in Ecclesia Dei either. and unless Benedict XVI changes the status of the SSPX, Ecclesia Dei is still valid 19 years later.
 
Ecclesia Dei said:
1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre.
Click to expand...

You miss the point…what does “full communion” mean? It implies a possibility of “partial communion”. Try to find this idea prior to Vatican II…it is a novel idea. If it is not, then find some reference for it.

Gorman
 
For people who are sick of liturgical abuses, and for those who desire reverence in Mass, the SSPX is a very attractive option. What is worse for your soul, going to an SSPX Mass or going to a Mass where there are countless abuses?
 
MariaGorettiGrl said:
In another thread, people (like me :extrahappy: ) started talking about this and I think it would be a good discussion to continue. I think this is the first thread I’ve started, so let’s hope it goes well! 👍 Keep it clean! :tsktsk:

The SSPX church is not in schism. However that does not mean that it is fine to attend an SSPX Mass. It has been forbidden by Rome and is a sin (barring emergency situations).

I think some people get confused, thinking SSPX is in schism and that’s why it’s illicit or that if it isn’t in schism, then it’s fine to attend. While the SSPX church isn’t in schism, it still is not in union with Rome. That’s why there’s all this talk about reuniting and the MP and such. :hug1: Let’s all pray for reunion!

❤️
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as the SSPX Church. The SSPX is not a Church. It is a schismatic group. It put itself into schism by blatant disobedience to the the Pope.
 
paramedicgirl said:
For people who are sick of liturgical abuses, and for those who desire reverence in Mass, the SSPX is a very attractive option. What is worse for your soul, going to an SSPX Mass or going to a Mass where there are countless abuses?
Click to expand...
People can always make the tough decision of moving. This would be a true sacrifice and would keep us out from choosing between two poor solutions.
 
Cristiano said:
People can always make the tough decision of moving. This would be a true sacrifice and would keep us out from choosing between two poor solutions.
Click to expand...
Yes, but still, are we not entitled, as Catholics, to a properly said, valid and licit Mass that is free of abuses?
 
paramedicgirl said:
For people who are sick of liturgical abuses, and for those who desire reverence in Mass, the SSPX is a very attractive option. What is worse for your soul, going to an SSPX Mass or going to a Mass where there are countless abuses?
Click to expand...
You are not going to like my answer, but it is going to an SSPX Mass which is valid but illicit (plus the priests are suspended). Even with the abuses, the current Mass is both valid and licit.
 
WanderAimlessly said:
You are not going to like my answer, but it is going to an SSPX Mass which is valid but illicit (plus the priests are suspended). Even with the abuses, the current Mass is both valid and licit.
Click to expand...
Masses with abuses are licit?

I dont think so.
 
thistle said:
There is no such thing as the SSPX Church. The SSPX is not a Church. It is a schismatic group. It put itself into schism by blatant disobedience to the the Pope.
Click to expand...
It’s true…as long as they hold that a catholic can be something other than a true VATII embracing person or a sedevacantist.
There is no “middle way” as the SSPX wants to hold. That is, the Conciliar Church and its leaders are heretical, but never mind, they are still valid clergy including popes.
Accepting reality can be as hard as any physical feat.
 
paramedicgirl said:
Yes, but still, are we not entitled, as Catholics, to a properly said, valid and licit Mass that is free of abuses?
Click to expand...
In my opinion we are not entitled to that! That is a right that we have been gifted with. Whomever withholds this right from us is in a state of sin.

Again, this is just my understanding.:o
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top