Question re SSPX

[Michael85]

They are the very definition of schism, which means not submitting to the authority of the Pope.

Schism is not simply refusing to obey the Pope, it is the denial that the Pope has the authority to command. Disobeying the Pope is not schism, but saying that the Pope is not the head of the Church and/or doesn’t have any authority over you is.

If they were schismatic, how could the Pope give them the faculties to hear confessions?

They are not schismatic, but it’s a good idea to avoid them unless there is no other Traditional Mass in one’s area. I personally disagree with them on certain issues, such as abstinence from television.

 

[Jestersage]

Okay, okay – I got it.

I guess it may also have been a partial reaction to my liberal, anti-life-anti-family past (not going to use the pro word)… and a browse on r/TraditionalCatholics/ is probably a bad idea too, I guess…

I guess I was worried – what if the Pope does take away FSSP? I really do not want to spend all my summer Mass with my eyes closed to prevent my eyes wandering. It’s from this PoV I start to wonder if SSPX is really bad.

 

[BroIgnatius]

Schism is not simply refusing to obey the Pope, it is the denial that the Pope has the authority to command. Disobeying the Pope is not schism, but saying that the Pope is not the head of the Church and/or doesn’t have any authority over you is.

If they were schismatic, how could the Pope give them the faculties to hear confessions?

They are not schismatic, but it’s a good idea to avoid them unless there is no other Traditional Mass in one’s area. I personally disagree with them on certain issues, such as abstinence from television.

You are not really correct in your definition of schism. Consecrating bishops without the permission of the Pope is an act of schism.

Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." [Code of Canon Law c.751]

As I have already stated, several popes have bent over backwards to get this arrogant group to return to the Church, but to no avail. Giving them faculties to hear confession was one of those concessions. The priest in the SSPX have valid, even it not licit, Holy Orders. To grant or not to grant faculties is a disciplinary issue, not doctrinal, and the Pope can grant it if he wants.

Hopefully, the SSPX will swallow their pride and recognize that several popes have indeed bent over backwards to accommodate them.

See the excellent post #18

 

[reggieM]

Wikipedia offers this.

Apart from the formal declarations by the Catholic Church, Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, president of the PCED, commented about the status of the SSPX in a 2005 interview that the 1988 consecrations, without a pontifical mandate, created a “situation of separation …] even if it was not a formal schism.”[17] Castrillón Hoyos commented in 2005, about a 2004 meeting between Benedict XVI and Fellay, that it was said at that meeting that, in Castrillón Hoyos words, “It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. …] They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking …] a fuller communion, because communion does exist.”[18] Castrillón Hoyos commented in 2007, when asked “Does the Indult support ecumenism, ‘ad intra’ (internal)?” Castrillón Hoyos answered that he “reject the term ’ ecumenism ad intra '.” **He explained that the SSPX priests and adherents “are not schismatics” **since it was Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics. I do, however, share St Jerome’s fear that heresy leads to schism and vice versa. The danger of a schism is big, such as a systematic disobedience vis-à-vis the Holy Father or by a denial of his authority. It is after all a service of charity, so that the Priestly Society gains full communion with the Holy Father by acknowledging the sanctity of the new Mass."[19]

 

[reggieM]

I really do not want to spend all my summer Mass with my eyes closed to prevent my eyes wandering.

I know what you mean and it certainly does make one wonder.
But for now, just keep praying that the FSSP will thrive and remain unharmed and we will trust the God will do the rest.

 

[ProVobis]

I guess I was worried – what if the Pope does take away FSSP?

Consider this.

lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-rumblings-pope-francis-aiming-to-end-latin-mass-permission

Wouldn’t it be ironic (once a Personal Prelature is established) that the FSSPX ends up being the only legitimate source of the Latin Mass?

 

[reggieM]

Consider this.

lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-rumblings-pope-francis-aiming-to-end-latin-mass-permission

This blog written by an FSSP priest says that the above is not true.

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/07/fake-news-fever-in-catholic-world-no.html

Wouldn’t it be ironic (once a Personal Prelature is established) that the FSSPX ends up being the only legitimate source of the Latin Mass?

It would be ironic. Not a good thing overall because it would limit the TLM, in my opinion and highly unlikely to happen, but yes certainly ironic.

 

[commenter]

• re: “schism” - this is a technical term, which very few are qualified to use. The Vatican seems to be very, very reluctant to use that term for anyone nowadays, and to my knowledge has not said they were in schism. Best for us not to use that term then.
• re: “arrogant” - I understand people are frustrated over the SSPX, but it is counterproductive to describe others as arrogant, or any other negative term. It strengthens their attachment to that organization. (You think **we’re **not arrogant at times?)
• re: the organization itself - is it part of the Catholic Church?
  This is a yes/no. 35 years ago the SSPX leaders and seminary teachers had spent most of their training and priestly lives serving in a diocese, with bishop-ordinaries, alongside religious orders, work in the Church itself. Today most leaders and seminary teachers have never worked with a bishop-ordinary, never worked with religious orders or a diocese, no training from or work in the Church itself. So 1982, yes, mostly still part of the Church;
  2017, no, less and less a part of the Church.
• What is frustrating about SSPX threads is there is no mention of families. In my diocese, SSPX families tend to be absent from anything connected to the diocese (prolife, home schooling, religious liberty, other supports). They not only avoid liberal stuff, they avoid everything. What is the SSPX impact on families?

 

[ProVobis]

• What is frustrating about SSPX threads is there is no mention of families. In my diocese, SSPX families tend to be absent from anything connected to the diocese (prolife, home schooling, religious liberty, other supports). They not only avoid liberal stuff, they avoid everything. What is the SSPX impact on families?

Probably would be true under a Personal Prelature as well.

 

[Michael85]

You are not really correct in your definition of schism. Consecrating bishops without the permission of the Pope is an act of schism.

Regardless of whether this is true, those excommunications have been lifted.

A priest I knew many years ago (RIP) was a canon lawyer and no friend of the SSPX. He said that they weren’t in schism (this was before 2009).

I think the SSPX are doing a good job of preserving the Catholic faith the way it was before Vatican II. If it wasn’t for Archbishop Lefebvre, we probably wouldn’t have the FSSP, ICKSP, IBP or diocesan Traditional Latin Masses.

By the way, it is permissible to attend a SSPX Mass. Monsignor Camille Perl from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei wrote the following:

“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.”

 

[BroIgnatius]

Regardless of whether this is true, those excommunications have been lifted.

I know that, It was another concession to hopefully bring them back in the fold. But, they continue to separate themselves from the Church. I am not going to argue about it, and I will continue to advise people (already done so to 1000s) to avoid the SSPX and any other group that is not in communion with the Church.

Don’t want to used the word schism? Okay, let us put it this way. The SSPX refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. Same thing, just not using the “s” word.

Whatever. The SSPX is not in communion with the Church. If they were the Church would not be taking with them.

I have no respect for people who go into schism, or refuse submission to the Pope and go their own way, or lack communion with the pope, or whatever political correct term is in vogue. I don’t care what word is used. Let us call it poopzadittle. That will work. The SSPX is in poopzadittle.

Whatever description is use they dishonor themselves with their pride in refusing to return to the Church despite concession after concession after concession after concession.

No respect is due for poopzadittles.

 

[commenter]

I think the SSPX are doing a good job of preserving the Catholic faith the way it was before Vatican II. If it wasn’t for Archbishop Lefebvre, we probably wouldn’t have the FSSP, ICKSP, IBP or diocesan Traditional Latin Masses.

But in 2017 those alternatives are available in most places. Should people stay outside **in **2017, because a few decades ago there were few opportunities for the TLM?

The SSPX in my city was founded when there was no opportunity for the TLM. Today there are 2 diocesan TLM’s a short distance away from the chapel. But the chapel goes on. It has taken on a life of its own, “justified” forever by the lack of the TLM in the 1970s. It is completely absent from the regional struggle for prolife, evangelism and religious liberty.

Families who could benefit from orthodox programs in the diocese aren’t there, the chapel is almost hermetically sealed off from the Catholic life of the community. Once an institution like SSPX gains its **own **momentum (not just the momentum of the Church) then it becomes oblivious to the needs of families. All efforts and energy go into maintaining the institution. Even if Cardinal Burke were elected the next pope, or if Bishop Schneider assigned as our local bishop, the chapel in my city would keep all priority to continuing the chapel. Even if the diocese met every one of their demands, they would say, “OK, but now we came up with more demands”.

 

[BroIgnatius]

• re: “schism” - this is a technical term, which very few are qualified to use. The Vatican seems to be very, very reluctant to use that term for anyone nowadays, and to my knowledge has not said they were in schism. Best for us not to use that term then.

I can agree with that only because the Holy See does not like the term. But, the definition of the term still objectively applies. I know there are other aspects in the formal state of schism, but material schism seems to apply maybe. In any event, whatever the term, SSPX is not in “full” communion with Rome and so far refuses to return despite many concessions (such refusal is the very definition of pride and arrogance. They need some humility).

• re: “arrogant” - I understand people are frustrated over the SSPX, but it is counterproductive to describe others as arrogant, or any other negative term. It strengthens their attachment to that organization. (You think **we’re **not arrogant at times?)

Yes, we are all arrogant at times, but this arrogance is about refusing full communion, which is critically important and this is a continuing arrogance. I would be just as hard on anyone who persists in arrogance as oppose to incidents of arrogance that we all have.

I call a spade a spade. It is for the diplomats to use pretty language. Not being upfront with the ontological realities is what has lead people to think they can receive communion although remarried without an annulment. Harshness is not required, but truthfulness is required, rather than hiding behind Newspeak to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. In the long run, that hippie-dippy flower child, fake pastoral approach harms rather than heals.

In confession, for example, we are to name the sin, not beat around the bush about it or use euphemisms or negotiate what language to use.

• re: the organization itself - is it part of the Catholic Church?
  This is a yes/no. 35 years ago the SSPX leaders and seminary teachers had spent most of their training and priestly lives serving in a diocese, with bishop-ordinaries, alongside religious orders, work in the Church itself. Today most leaders and seminary teachers have never worked with a bishop-ordinary, never worked with religious orders or a diocese, no training from or work in the Church itself. So 1982, yes, mostly still part of the Church; 2017, no, less and less a part of the Church.

I am not sure what you are saying here. Lefebvre committed a schismatic act creating illicit bishops, who in turn can create illicit priests and bishop. This act is one of arrogance and lack of faith. It is lack to faith that people leave the full communion with the Church. The faithful stay and persevere through the hard and difficult times.

 

[otjm]

Schism is not simply refusing to obey the Pope, it is the denial that the Pope has the authority to command. Disobeying the Pope is not schism, but saying that the Pope is not the head of the Church and/or doesn’t have any authority over you is.

If they were schismatic, how could the Pope give them the faculties to hear confessions?

They are not schismatic, but it’s a good idea to avoid them unless there is no other Traditional Mass in one’s area. I personally disagree with them on certain issues, such as abstinence from television.

There is a difference between being formally (as in, legally) declared in schism, and being de facto in schism that has not been formally declared.

Cardinal Mueller in an interview some time ago said that they are factually in schism, but have not been declared as such.

As to your question concerning faculties, there is nothing in particular that prevents the Pope from granting faculties to hear confessions. That does not resolve other matters, and it can be withdrawn.

And as a matter of fact and history, the Church recognizes the validity of the sacraments as confected by the Orthodox Churches, which have been in formal, declared schism for centuries.

 

[Michael85]

But in 2017 those alternatives are available in most places. Should people stay outside **in **2017, because a few decades ago there were few opportunities for the TLM?

In New Zealand, the capital city Wellington currently has no diocesan Latin Mass due to ill health of the priest. The only option there is the SSPX, who are based out of a smaller town called Wanganui. One of their priests travels over 100 miles every weekend to bring the Mass of the Ages there.

Do you think that people should not go to the SSPX when they are the only option for a reverent Mass and all the other Catholic churches in the area have irreverent Novus Ordo Masses with guitars and drums, armies of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and all sorts of abuses?

I am not an SSPX supporter, although I did attend their chapel for a while and know a couple of their priests. I wish that Pope Francis would hurry up and grant them a personal prelature. However, I would attend their Masses if they were the only Latin Mass in the area (although I would try to avoid getting a job in a city with only an SSPX Mass, like Wellington).

 

[commenter]

In New Zealand, the capital city Wellington currently has no diocesan Latin Mass due to ill health of the priest. The only option there is the SSPX, who are based out of a smaller town called Wanganui. One of their priests travels over 100 miles every weekend to bring the Mass of the Ages there.

Do you think that people should not go to the SSPX when they are the only option for a reverent Mass and all the other Catholic churches in the area have irreverent Novus Ordo Masses with guitars and drums, armies of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and all sorts of abuses?

I am not an SSPX supporter, although I did attend their chapel for a while and know a couple of their priests. I wish that Pope Francis would hurry up and grant them a personal prelature. However, I would attend their Masses if they were the only Latin Mass in the area (although I would try to avoid getting a job in a city with only an SSPX Mass, like Wellington).

• We can pray for the priest who is in poor health;
• “Novus Ordo Masses” are sometimes offered in an irreverent way. But the Ordinary Form is not inherently irreverent. It can be offered in a way that is very devout. In many places laity have worked with bishops and pastors towards some reduction in abuses.
• As long as people fill the SSPX pews, this makes it harder for an SSPX priest to “swim the Tiber” and help meet the shortage for your diocesan TLM Mass.
• The Mass is not intended to be a standalone religious activity. It is supposed to be rooted in the larger fabric: priest in union with his bishop-ordinary, laity worshiping with their fellow prolifers, families are under attack by the secular establishment.
• I support bishops making the TLM much more widely available.
• Read what St. Pius X wrote about Catholic Action. It’s not specifically about liturgy but about dioceses.

 

[ProVobis]

• I support bishops making the TLM much more widely available.
• Read what St. Pius X wrote about Catholic Action. It’s not specifically about liturgy but about dioceses.

But the whole point of Summorum Pontificum was to free up the Latin Mass so that permission of the local bishop was not needed, yet the Latin Mass would be part of the diocese. If I’m reading the latest article right, many of the bishops are still opposed to this arrangement. That’s why I feel the days of SP are numbered, whether under this Pope or the next. What happens to the FSSP and ICRSS and diocesan priests dedicated to the LM remains to be seen, especially since there seems to be a growing need for priests, and for them to say the OF.

Personally though I would like to see more people learn the LM and the LM to grow.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This is completely erroneous.

The text of the apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei, edited for length and with bolding:

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. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.

1. This affliction was particularly felt by the Successor Peter to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the Church, even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few. /…/

The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted, provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to his Church.

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. 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.

1. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. /…/.

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.

1. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church’s Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. /…/

To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded.

However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: of that blended “harmony” which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

c) In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.

/…/

1. Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my Apostolic Authority I decree the following:

a) a Commission is instituted whose task it will be to collaborate with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Mons. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor Peter in the Catholic Church, while preserving their spiritual and liturgical traditions, in the light of the Protocol signed on 5 May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Mons. Lefebvre

/…/

Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s. 2 July 1988, the tenth year of the pontificate

Joannes Paulus PP. II

 

[e_c]

This is completely erroneous.

The text of the apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei, edited for length and with bolding:

It seems to affirm exactly what JReed said - it is a schismatic act. “Par excellence.”

 

[e_c]

The SSPX are currently canonically irregular, not schismatic. There are important differences in law and morals.