Questions about the SSPX

[PaulinVA]

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

As did mine over yours.

Yes, we might as quit while we are - still talking.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

Of course they’re not in schism because I say they are. They are in schism --I think --because they reject binding Church teaching, they illicitly ordained bishops, and they continue to illicitly celebrate the Sacraments. All of this is contrary to the Popes’ clear desires.

I said “I think” because I’d agree it’s not 100% clear, and obviously some don’t think they’re in schism. I don’t know why the Church doesn’t come right out and clarify this.

I have checked the Vatican Web site, and most or all of the authoritative documents I found there–from the Popes, from the Congregation for Bishops, from the Commission Ecclesia Dei— relating to the issue of SSPX uses the words “schism” or “schismatic act.” I’ll let the canon lawyers tell us whether a group can engage in ongoing “schismatic acts” and yet not be in schism.

Can you check the Vatican web site and help me by showing me what I missed, i.e. somewhere that the Magisterium clarifies this group is not in schism? I couldn’t find any such teaching.

Cheers

 

[maurin]

Of course they’re not in schism because I say they are. They are in schism --I think --because they reject binding Church teaching, they illicitly ordained bishops, and they continue to illicitly celebrate the Sacraments. All of this is contrary to the Popes’ clear desires.

I said “I think” because I’d agree it’s not 100% clear, and obviously some don’t think they’re in schism. I don’t know why the Church doesn’t come right out and clarify this.

I have checked the Vatican Web site, and most or all of the authoritative documents I found there–from the Popes, from the Congregation for Bishops, from the Commission Ecclesia Dei— relating to the issue of SSPX uses the words “schism” or “schismatic act.” I’ll let the canon lawyers tell us whether a group can engage in ongoing “schismatic acts” and yet not be in schism.

Can you check the Vatican web site and help me by showing me what I missed, i.e. somewhere that the Magisterium clarifies this group is not in schism? I couldn’t find any such teaching.

Cheers

But of course all of this is in direct opposition to the Pope, according to the Motu Proprio and Accompany Letter of 2007 and the lifting of the excommunications in January.

What further clarification do you need?

My Godmother lives in Rome. I can ask her to go to St. Peter’s and see if she can get you an appointment with His Holiness. Would that help?

 

[maurin]

As did mine over yours.

certainly not, Paul. your point, in opposition to the Pope’s statements, is transparent and moot.

Yes, we might as quit while we are - still talking.

One may adamantly, fervently and passionately disagree and remain on speaking terms. My question “are we done?” indicated that we are probably at a stalemate. Probably time to move on to other matters.

 

[diggerdomer]

But of course all of this is in direct opposition to the Pope, according to the Motu Proprio and Accompany Letter of 2007 and the lifting of the excommunications in January.

What further clarification do you need?

My Godmother lives in Rome. I can ask her to go to St. Peter’s and see if she can get you an appointment with His Holiness. Would that help?

I’m sorry if I’m not familiar with the references you site, can you send me a link or describe them more fully to me so I can read them? Thanks.

And, thanks for the kind offer re your godmother, very thoughtful of you but it won’t be necessary.

 

[diggerdomer]

I have checked the Vatican Web site, and most or all of the authoritative documents I found there–from the Popes, from the Congregation for Bishops, from the Commission Ecclesia Dei— relating to the issue of SSPX uses the words “schism” or “schismatic act.” I’ll let the canon lawyers tell us whether a group can engage in ongoing “schismatic acts” and yet not be in schism.

Oops, meant to include the links. SOrry here they are:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/rc_com_ecclsdei_pro_20051996_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

Note: the above link, the text of the excommunication letter from 1988, refers to Canon Can. 1364 “Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication;…” vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM

 

[ProVobis]

Note: the above link, the text of the excommunication letter from 1988, refers to Canon Can. 1364 “Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication;…” vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P52.HTM

So then by having his excommunication lifted, one becomes unschismatic, if he had been schismatic. Thank you.

 

[maurin]

I’m sorry if I’m not familiar with the references you site, can you send me a link or describe them more fully to me so I can read them? Thanks.

And, thanks for the kind offer re your godmother, very thoughtful of you but it won’t be necessary.

So, diggerdomer, among the biggest news in the Church in 2007 and 2008–WHICH HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO TALK ABOUT–and your unfamiliar with it? And yet you continue to assert your erroneous views? And we are to take you seriously?

seriously? or are you pulling my leg?

 

[diggerdomer]

So then by having his excommunication lifted, one becomes unschismatic, if he had been schismatic. Thank you.

I disagree. The lifting of the excommunicate lifts the personal penalties associated with excommunication. It does not necessarily have anything to do with the circumstances preceding and resulting in excommunnication.

Please, provide more definitive sources for your opinions.

Cheers

 

[diggerdomer]

So, diggerdomer, among the biggest news in the Church in 2007 and 2008–WHICH HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO TALK ABOUT–and your unfamiliar with it? And yet you continue to assert your erroneous views? And we are to take you seriously?

seriously? or are you pulling my leg?

Hi maurin, there have been so many wonderful things in the news in 2007 and 2008 about our Church, it would help me to know more specifically what you’re referring to.

Yes, my views may be erroneous. That’s why I’m here, to learn. I can learn a lot more if you describe what you think is erroneous rather than posting random hypothetical questions.

Cheers

 

[maurin]

Hi maurin, there have been so many wonderful things in the news in 2007 and 2008 about our Church, it would help me to know more specifically what you’re referring to.

Yes, my views may be erroneous. That’s why I’m here, to learn. I can learn a lot more if you describe what you think is erroneous rather than posting random hypothetical questions.

Cheers

you’re begging this question to be asked: why are you making assertions if you are not cognizant of the issues at hand?

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m willing to look at things you recommend. I just need to know what they are. Saying they’ve been published in 2007-2008 is pretty unhelpful.

What is it you’re asking me and others interested in this thread to read? Please, just give us specifics, attacking me is not as important.

Cheers

 

[maurin]

I’m willing to look at things you recommend. I just need to know what they are. Saying they’ve been published in 2007-2008 is pretty unhelpful.

What is it you’re asking me and others interested in this thread to read? Please, just give us specifics, attacking me is not as important.

Cheers

no,diggerdomer, I am not attacking you. You are on a public Catholic forum consistently and in many many posts making assertions even though, as you are admitting, you don’t know anything about the issues.

I have given you the titles of the documents. Google them. If you’re unwilling to that, I’m sure my Godmother won’t mind trying to wrangle you an invite to see the Holy Father himself.

 

[diggerdomer]

no,diggerdomer, I am not attacking you. You are on a public Catholic forum consistently and in many many posts making assertions even though, as you are admitting, you don’t know anything about the issues.

I have given you the titles of the documents. Google them. If you’re unwilling to that, I’m sure my Godmother won’t mind trying to wrangle you an invite to see the Holy Father himself.

I didn’t say I don’t know anything about the issues. Correct me if that’s not true. I am sure I did say I don’t know everything, and am willing to learn more.

Again, I’m sorry, I don’t see the documents you refer to. What are they? Please, I’d really like to learn more. I’m sorry if I’m asking you to post something you already have due to my limitations of knowledge or how this forum works.

Cheers

 

[PaulinVA]

ProVobis and Maurin,

How hard is this? It’s a simple question.

Where does the Pope say, anywhere, that the lifting of the excommunication of the Leferve Bishops ended the schism of SSPX? There are Vatican officials who have recently referred to the schism as still being a problem.

So, please provide the quote from the Pope where he says “SSPX is no longer in schism”. Provide that, and I will publicly apologize. Else, I’ll assume it doesn’t exist.

 

[maurin]

ProVobis and Maurin,

How hard is this? It’s a simple question.

Where does the Pope say, anywhere, that the lifting of the excommunication of the Leferve Bishops ended the schism of SSPX? There are Vatican officials who have recently referred to the schism as still being a problem.

So, please provide the quote from the Pope where he says “SSPX is no longer in schism”. Provide that, and I will publicly apologize. Else, I’ll assume it doesn’t exist.

This is really how simple it is, Paul. Provide a quote from the Pope where the Pope says “The SSPX is in schism.”

All you have done is to provide underlings’ quotes. And all these recent quotes make reference to “Traditional groups in separation.” If the Pope has lifted the excommunications, how can the SSPX be one of those Traditional groups in separation? Your assumption is in contradiction to His Holiness. You may want to stop assuming.

 

[PaulinVA]

This is really how simple it is, Paul. Provide a quote from the Pope where the Pope says “The SSPX is in schism.”

All you have done is to provide underlings’ quotes. And all these recent quotes make reference to “Traditional groups in separation.” If the Pope has lifted the excommunications, how can the SSPX be one of those Traditional groups in separation? Your assumption is in contradiction to His Holiness. You may want to stop assuming.

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION
OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE

“As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. 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.”*

“Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?”*
Letter to the Bishops, 10 March 2009

How’s that? Close enough?

I remind you of your previous statement that the Pope said there was no schism. I asked you to provide the quote. You did not; instead, you redirected the question back to me. I can only infer that you have no such quote.

 

[diggerdomer]

This is really how simple it is, Paul. Provide a quote from the Pope where the Pope says “The SSPX is in schism.”

All you have done is to provide underlings’ quotes. And all these recent quotes make reference to “Traditional groups in separation.” If the Pope has lifted the excommunications, how can the SSPX be one of those Traditional groups in separation? Your assumption is in contradiction to His Holiness. You may want to stop assuming.

These probably won’t suffice for you, but here’s a letter from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cedsspx2.htm
ewtn.com/library/curia/cedsspx2.htm

And Benedict’s recent letter regarding his lifting the excommunication: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

Lifting the excommunication has nothing to do with the society being separated (i.e. in schism). If you know anyone with Canon Law experience, please ask them and they will verify that for you.

Cheers.

 

[maurin]

diggerdomer,

I can begin to take you seriously now.

“A danger of schism…” is what the Pope refers to, in citing any Concecrations of Bishops without the Papal Mandate.

Nowhere does he say that a schism exists. An irregular Canonical situation, yes. I and others have never shyed away from this fact.

The question was raised: Where does the Pope say the SSPX is not in schism?

I raised the question: Where does the Pope say the SSPX is in schism.

my question still has not been answered. It is much easier to prove the postive statement (the SSPX is in schism) than it is to prove the negative (the SSPX is not in schism).

Case in point: the super soaker thread on this forum. Is the priest who uses such profane and childish methods at Mass in Communion with the Pope and the Church or is he out of Communion with the Pope and the Church?

 

[maurin]

LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION
OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE

"As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. 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."*

“Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church*? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?”
Letter to the Bishops, 10 March 2009

How’s that? Close enough?

I remind you of your previous statement that the Pope said there was no schism. I asked you to provide the quote. You did not; instead, you redirected the question back to me. I can only infer that you have no such quote.

Infer away. It IS your modus operandi. Your take on the letter is one big assumption which is not what the Pope says above: Where in the above does the Pope say the SSPX IS in schism?

He doesn’t.

How’s that, mr. smartypants? close enough?