Questions about the SSPX

[PaulinVA]

I agree, Paul. There exists this confusion because of the liberal elements in the Church who will not conform to, and actively undermine the Holy Father’s clear wishes as made known to us in his accompanying letter to the Motu Proprio addressed to the Bishops of the world (which one may find on EWTN’s website). The Holy Father notes that the Canonical situation of the Society is an internal matter of reconciliation within the Church, made even more clear by the simple fact that the excommunications of the Bishops of the Society have been lifted.

You mean this?
An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council.

I guess the stickies need to be updated, since, according to the Pope’s not-yet-10-days-old letter, it is now an internal matter, since it’s been brought inside by the removal of the excommunications.

But, then there’s this:
In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

You obviously care deeply about this. I didn’t want to offend you - and take no offense at your response to me.

 

[maurin]

You mean this?
An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council.

I guess the stickies need to be updated, since, according to the Pope’s not-yet-10-days-old letter, it is now an internal matter, since it’s been brought inside by the removal of the excommunications.

But, then there’s this:
In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

You obviously care deeply about this. I didn’t want to offend you - and take no offense at your response to me.

no, actually Paul, I was referring to the Motu Proprio and the accompanying letter which is more than 1 year old now, where, I repeat, the Pope makes it clear that the situation even then was an internal matter of reconciliation within the Church.

The Pope couldn’t have been more clear back in 2007.

 

[maurin]

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mex maxima culpa. Sorry, confession, supplied jurisdiction, faculties etc, were all mentioned in the conversation. Why can’t I talk about them again? Is that not allowed?

it is not allowed in the liberal mindset, 6, reality be darned. That hasn’t been made clear to you?

 

[pnewton]

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mex maxima culpa. Sorry, confession, supplied jurisdiction, faculties etc, were all mentioned in the conversation. Why can’t I talk about them again? Is that not allowed?

I don’t know. I am just saying that the existence or extent of a crisis is a whole different ball of wax. Consider that the reasons for the SSPX’s existence and actions are a very different topic than their Sacramental validity, which is what the real question is. We have plenty of thread on the general “good” or “bad” of the SSPX.

 

[PaulinVA]

no, actually Paul, I was referring to the Motu Proprio and the accompanying letter which is more than 1 year old now, where, I repeat, the Pope makes it clear that the situation even then was an internal matter of reconciliation within the Church.

The Pope couldn’t have been more clear back in 2007.

I think the Pope was very clear in what I posted, as well. So, let’s live in the present.

 

[diggerdomer]

Who makes up this stuff?

This seems straightforward to me.

Please, I’m not making anything up. I may be wrong, or ignorant (I’m often both) but I’m not posting here just making things up.

I thought attending a liturgy with SSPX would not fulfill the obligation because I’m not sure such a celebration would, canonically, be considered meeting the criterion in the Canon you cited of being a “Catholic rite.” They are in schism, they are not in full communion with the Church, so no matter what liturgy/ritual/book/prayer they use I’d question if it really meets the intent (and authentic interpretation) of that canonical precept. I guess we’d need a canon lawyer to know for sure.

Cheers.

 

[maurin]

I think the Pope was very clear in what I posted, as well. So, let’s live in the present.

but that’s the issue, Paul. You have been citing outmoded documents, and putting your own spin on the Pope’s words, thereby fueling the fires of confusion.

 

[PaulinVA]

but that’s the issue, Paul. You have been citing outmoded documents, and putting your own spin on the Pope’s words, thereby fueling the fires of confusion.

What point are you trying to win here?

I said that a mass celebrated by an SSPX priest is valid but illicit. That is true.

I implied that the SSPX is in schism. Well, the Pope excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre for a “schismatic act”. Is that splitting hairs?

You are clearly an SSPX apologist, and I clearly have just happened upon this scene, so any discussions we have will be one sided. I am not sure of the status, and you are trying to show it in the most positive light.

Would you like to get the last word in?

 

[maurin]

What point are you trying to win here?

I said that a mass celebrated by an SSPX priest is valid but illicit. That is true.

I implied that the SSPX is in schism. Well, the Pope excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre for a “schismatic act”. Is that splitting hairs?

You are clearly an SSPX apologist, and I clearly have just happened upon this scene, so any discussions we have will be one sided. I am not sure of the status, and you are trying to show it in the most positive light.

Would you like to get the last word in?

puh-leeze…acting the victim doesn’t give you the high road, Paul, not in real life. And you use some fancy words like “SSPX apoligist.” I’m a Catholic, Paul, plain and simple.

And when someone like you who either unintentionally or WORSE–intentionally–implies things that aren’t true, then it begs to be corrected.

Correction #1: Pope John Paul II did not excommunicate Lefebvre or the 4 Bishops he ordained. The Pope claimed that they themselves incurred the penalty.

Correction #2: Pope John Paull II is not the Pope (you wrote, "the Pope excommunicated…). You are, I know, aware that Pope Benedict is the Pope. You meant to say that the previous Pope, may he rest in peace for eternity, declared the excommunication he believed the Archbishop and 4 Bishops incurred upon themselves.

Correction #3: the only statements that are in force right now are the ones that Pope Benedict have made. In 2007 he declared no schism exists: the Canonical situation of the Society is an “internal one of reconciliation within the Church.” Statements to the contrary made by a Msgr previously and which contradict the Pope’s latest statements are not serious fodder to be used in a serious debate.

Nice try, though.

 

[PaulinVA]

puh-leeze…acting the victim doesn’t give you the high road, Paul, not in real life. And you use some fancy words like “SSPX apoligist.” I’m a Catholic, Paul, plain and simple.

Since this thread is about SSPX, I’ll continue. Yes, you are an SSPX apologist. Your signature points to that. There’s nothing wrong with that. But, be honest with yourself.

And when someone like you who either unintentionally or WORSE–intentionally–implies things that aren’t true, then it begs to be corrected.

I have not intentionally said anything contrary to the truth.

Correction #1: Pope John Paul II did not excommunicate Lefebvre or the 4 Bishops he ordained. The Pope claimed that they themselves incurred the penalty.

Semantic difference.

Correction #2: Pope John Paull II is not the Pope (you wrote, "the Pope excommunicated…). You are, I know, aware that Pope Benedict is the Pope. You meant to say that the previous Pope, may he rest in peace for eternity, declared the excommunication he believed the Archbishop and 4 Bishops incurred upon themselves.

Correct, I did not say “the Pope at the time” because that would be silly. OF COURSE it was the Pope at the time.

Correction #3: the only statements that are in force right now are the ones that Pope Benedict have made. In 2007 he declared no schism exists: the Canonical situation of the Society is an “internal one of reconciliation within the Church.” Statements to the contrary made by a Msgr previously and which contradict the Pope’s latest statements are not serious fodder to be used in a serious debate.

Nice try, though.

Ah, you don’t want SSPX called schismatic? Okay, I get it. Isn’t schism an internal affair in the first place? There is indeed confusion whether this “internal” problem with SSPX is schism or not. I could put together a bibliography of several sources supporting each side. Just this month, Inside the Vatican has an article about SSPX - an interview with Swiss Cardinal **Georges Cottier **who refers to ‘ending the schism’.

So, there are sources to support both views. I’ve looked for the Pope Benedict document where he uses the word ‘schism’ and haven’t found it. Could you provide a reference?

 

[ProVobis]

They are in schism,

Who told you this? Didn’t the Pope just lift the excommunications of the bishops? I don’t he would have done that if the bishops were in schism.

Suspended priests, yes. Isn’t recommended that you regularly attend at a SSPX Mass but if you do attend, it does fulfill your obligation. If you have a schismatic attitude and start participating in schismatic talk and activity, that’s another problem.

In any event, you should always support the local bishop and diocese.

 

[maurin]

Since this thread is about SSPX, I’ll continue. Yes, you are an SSPX apologist. Your signature points to that. There’s nothing wrong with that. But, be honest with yourself.

I have not intentionally said anything contrary to the truth.

Semantic difference.

Correct, I did not say “the Pope at the time” because that would be silly. OF COURSE it was the Pope at the time.

Ah, you don’t want SSPX called schismatic? Okay, I get it. Isn’t schism an internal affair in the first place? There is indeed confusion whether this “internal” problem with SSPX is schism or not. I could put together a bibliography of several sources supporting each side. Just this month, Inside the Vatican has an article about SSPX - an interview with Swiss Cardinal **Georges Cottier **who refers to ‘ending the schism’.

So, there are sources to support both views. I’ve looked for the Pope Benedict document where he uses the word ‘schism’ and haven’t found it. Could you provide a reference?

the forces that spread and keep alive the confusion are strong. Of course, they do so contrary to the Pope’s wishes. Good job.

 

[maurin]

Who told you this? Didn’t the Pope just lift the excommunications of the bishops? I don’t he would have done that if the bishops were in schism.

Suspended priests, yes. Isn’t recommended that you regularly attend at a SSPX Mass but if you do attend, it does fulfill your obligation. If you have a schismatic attitude and start participating in schismatic talk and activity, that’s another problem.

In any event, you should always support the local bishop and diocese.

ProVobis,

according to Paul in Virginia as well, the Society is in schism. Who needs the Pope to say otherwise when we have Their Excellencies in residence right here stating the contrary?

It makes one wonder who really is in Communion with His Holiness, does it not?

 

[diggerdomer]

Who told you this? Didn’t the Pope just lift the excommunications of the bishops? I don’t he would have done that if the bishops were in schism.

Yes, absolutely, the Pope just lifted the excommunication.

This is completely separate and distinct from the issue of schism. Whether or not you think he would have done it, he did.

Cheers.

 

[maurin]

Since this thread is about SSPX, I’ll continue. Yes, you are an SSPX apologist. Your signature points to that. There’s nothing wrong with that. But, be honest with yourself.

Actually, you might want to tone down the arrogance. Although you are not ‘noone’, you are certainly noone to assign such a moniker.

I am a Catholic, plain and simple.

 

[PaulinVA]

Actually, you might want to tone down the arrogance.

:slapfight: Well, I’m not alone.

I am a Catholic, plain and simple.

Okay.

 

[ProVobis]

This is completely separate and distinct from the issue of schism.

You’re right. But they’re not in schism because you say they are. Check out the vatican web site for more current information. We’re way past 1988.

 

[maurin]

:slapfight: Well, I’m not alone.

you’re right, there a many liberals right on this thread who continue to spread mistruths arrogantly and smugly, and in opposition to what His Holiness has been saying publicly since 2007. And these same liberals are the ones either inferring or stating unequivocally that the Society is in schism. All in opposition to His Holiness: cannot one say that this is included in the definition of arrogance and smugness?

 

[PaulinVA]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulinVA forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
:slapfight: Well, I’m not alone.

you’re right, there a many liberals right on this thread who continue to spread mistruths arrogantly and smugly, and in opposition to what His Holiness has been saying publicly since 2007. And these same liberals are the ones either inferring or stating unequivocally that the Society is in schism. All in opposition to His Holiness: cannot one say that this is included in the definition of arrogance and smugness?

Maurin, most readers to this thread probably deduced that I was referring to you when I said that, if I was indeed being arrogant, I was not alone.

But, helpfully, you proved my point. Thank you.

 

[maurin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulinVA forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
:slapfight: Well, I’m not alone.

Maurin, most readers to this thread probably deduced that I was referring to you when I said that, if I was indeed being arrogant, I was not alone.

But, helpfully, you proved my point. Thank you.

and obviously my point flew right over your head, and that of the liberals.

so are we done now, Paul?