Questions about the SSPX

[diggerdomer]

Because it is easier to prove the positive, Frosty. The Pope has not stated that the SSPX is in schism because no schism exists. What reason would he have to state the negative? The negative is a given, unless stated otherwise.

The burden of proof would fall on all of you who are speaking in contradiction to the Pope. It is reasonable to say that those of you who make assertions in contradiction to the Pope are the master baiters.

Now, offer proof that the Pope considers the SSPX is in schism, or desist.

These are the documents that lead me to believe SSPX is in schism. These documents routinely refer to “schism” and/or “schismatic acts.” Maybe a group can perform schismatic acts without being in schism. I don’t know. I admit I am trying to learn. You can read them and conclude that SSPX is not in schism, but I would at least ask you to read them if you’re sincere in continuing dialogue. It would be particularly helpful if you have evidence that I’m not aware of that supports your position; if so please share it so we can all be enlightened.

Cheers

vatican.va/holy_father/be…munica_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…051996_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…ia-dei_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/jo…ia-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

 

[maurin]

These are the documents that lead me to believe SSPX is in schism. These documents routinely refer to “schism” and/or “schismatic acts.” Maybe a group can perform schismatic acts without being in schism. I don’t know. I admit I am trying to learn. You can read them and conclude that SSPX is not in schism, but I would at least ask you to read them if you’re sincere in continuing dialogue. It would be particularly helpful if you have evidence that I’m not aware of that supports your position; if so please share it so we can all be enlightened.

Cheers

vatican.va/holy_father/be…munica_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…051996_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…ia-dei_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/jo…ia-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

Not one those documents state that the SSPX is in schism.

A danger of schism? Yeah. There’s a Father C on Fisheaters who was ordained into the SSPX and ended up a sedevacantist. This example is one which illustrates “the radical fringe” about which the Pope alluded to in the his letter of March 10–I’m not sure if it were you or another poster who posted that letter.

 

[maurin]

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

Note, and nota bene, the excommunications are no longer in effect, digger. Remember? The Pope? Benedict XVI?

 

[diggerdomer]

Note, and nota bene, the excommunications are no longer in effect, digger. Remember? The Pope? Benedict XVI?

Yes, of course, I know the excommunication is lifted. That is a separate issue from what prompted the excommunication i.e. the schism. The causes that led to the excommunication are still effective: the SSPX ordained bishops illicitly, the continue to reject the Pope’s authority and teaching, and they continue to celebrate sacraments illicitly.

Do you really not understand this? Can a group do all those things and not be in schism? Maybe. I don’t know. But I seriously doubt it. If you have any evidence to the contrary, again, please please please share it.

Cheers

 

[diggerdomer]

Not one those documents state that the SSPX is in schism.

A danger of schism? Yeah. There’s a Father C on Fisheaters who was ordained into the SSPX and ended up a sedevacantist. This example is one which illustrates “the radical fringe” about which the Pope alluded to in the his letter of March 10–I’m not sure if it were you or another poster who posted that letter.

But all of those documents refer to schism or schismatic acts.

You have yet to provide ONE shred of evidence to support your idea that SSPX is not in schism.

Cheers

 

[maurin]

But all of those documents refer to schism or schismatic acts.

You have yet to provide ONE shred of evidence to support your idea that SSPX is not in schism.

Cheers

You mean besides the fact that the Pope refers to them in his accompanying letter to the Motu Proprio SP addressed to the Bishops as an internal matter of reconciliation within the Church? That Summorum Pontificum freed the Latin Mass as requested as first step toward the SSPX, and that he lifted the excommunications in January as a second step toward the SSPX?

“Internal matter of reconciliation within the Church.” That must mean that the status of the SSPX is really an external matter of reconciliation from without the Church, according to your reasoning.

You’re only fooling yourself, digger, and those who hate what the Pope is tring to accomplish.

 

[maurin]

Yes, of course, I know the excommunication is lifted. That is a separate issue from what prompted the excommunication i.e. the schism. The causes that led to the excommunication are still effective: the SSPX ordained bishops illicitly, the continue to reject the Pope’s authority and teaching, and they continue to celebrate sacraments illicitly.

Do you really not understand this? Can a group do all those things and not be in schism? Maybe. I don’t know. But I seriously doubt it. If you have any evidence to the contrary, again, please please please share it.

Cheers

Go back and read your second sentence: “That is a separate issue from what prompted the excommunication in explicum the schism.” If a schism existed and Pope John Paul the II announced that the Bishops’ had excommunicated themselves, then wouldn’t, according to your reasoning above, Pope Benedict XVI’s lifting of the excommunications remove the schism?

You’re just not making sense. So I can understand that you really do not understand this.

 

[diggerdomer]

You mean besides the fact that the Pope refers to them in his accompanying letter to the Motu Proprio SP addressed to the Bishops as an internal matter of reconciliation within the Church? That Summorum Pontificum freed the Latin Mass as requested as first step toward the SSPX, and that he lifted the excommunications in January as a second step toward the SSPX?

“Internal matter of reconciliation within the Church.” That must mean that the status of the SSPX is really an external matter of reconciliation from without the Church, according to your reasoning.

You’re only fooling yourself, digger, and those who hate what the Pope is tring to accomplish.

Again, and again, and again, and please, please please…what sources are you citing? Can you provide us links or references? I’ve read SP but don’t see what you’re referring to. Please, I’d really like to be better informed, and if you have sources you’re referring to I would really appreciate being enlightened.

Cheers

 

[diggerdomer]

G wouldn’t, according to your reasoning above, Pope Benedict XVI’s lifting of the excommunications remove the schism?

No.

THink of it like this:

1. Schism (or something) happened.
2. As a result, excommunication was incurred, which entails certain penalties on those excommunicated.
3. Benedict lifted the excommunication. This removed the penalties associated with #2.
4. The issue of #1 (schism, or whatever) remains.

If you can’t understand this, ask your parish priest or anyone else who might have some canon law experience.

Cheers

 

[maurin]

Again, and again, and again, and please, please please…what sources are you citing? Can you provide us links or references? I’ve read SP but don’t see what you’re referring to. Please, I’d really like to be better informed, and if you have sources you’re referring to I would really appreciate being enlightened.

Cheers

Again, and again, and again, and please, please, please…you have eyes, use them.

Google: The Accompanying Letter to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum addressed to the Bishops of the world.
or better yet, and for the third time: ewtn’s library.

 

[maurin]

No.

THink of it like this:

1. Schism (or something) happened.
2. As a result, excommunication was incurred, which entails certain penalties on those excommunicated.
3. Benedict lifted the excommunication. This removed the penalties associated with #2.
4. The issue of #1 (schism, or whatever) remains.

If you can’t understand this, ask your parish priest or anyone else who might have some canon law experience.

Cheers

so, no penalties, no schism–if schism actually were the reality. which it isn’t. Where’s the decree of schism?

we’re gonna keep on going round and round on this merry-go-round. All I’m asking you to do, which should be easy, is to point to the document which contains the Pope’s statement that the SSPX is in schism. If they are, it should be easy to find. Because the SSPX is not in schism, why would the Holy Father need to state so?

So, where is the Pope’s statement of schism? There isn’t one. Nor is there a statement by the Pope which says the SSPX is not in schism. So the point for now is moot.

Now, another reality is that neither one of us is nor will be satisfied with the other’s answer. And until or unless the Pope makes a statement either way, we ought to move on and save the bandwith, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[PaulinVA]

Again, and again, and again, and please, please, please…you have eyes, use them.

Google: The Accompanying Letter to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum addressed to the Bishops of the world.
or better yet, and for the third time: ewtn’s library.

Maurin,

From that letter that you reference:

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."

So, for me as a Catholic, I don’t care anymore about SSPX, since they have no standing in my Church. No need to discuss this further.

 

[maurin]

Maurin,

From that letter that you reference:

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."

So, for me as a Catholic, I don’t care anymore about SSPX, since they have no standing in my Church. No need to discuss this further.

Where in the Accompanying Letter are these words you cite?

You ignore supplied jurisdiction, which makes up a large part of Canon Law, and gives the SSPX their although irregular status, canonical status all the same.

But I agree with you, I don’t care much for the NO Church as it is in practice here at the local level in this Diocese. Lay preachers as well as non-Catholic preachers, the public denial of Catholic teaching as it pertains to sexual morality, as well as the denial of certain Marian and Christological Dogmas, have all convinced me that this local Church is near ruins.

Thank God for the Mercy of supplied jurisdiction, or I wouldn’t have access to Catholic teaching.

No need to discuss it further.

 

[diggerdomer]

Again, and again, and again, and please, please, please…you have eyes, use them.

Google: The Accompanying Letter to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum addressed to the Bishops of the world.
or better yet, and for the third time: ewtn’s library.

Thanks Maurin. I did as you finally suggested. I read what came up. Of course, since you didn’t give the most specific reference (as I have with documents I’ve referred to…which, by the way, I still don’t know if you’re read or thought about) I’m not sure that I read what you were referring to. Still, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. I read it, and it only confirms what I’ve thought, so I don’t see how it supports your position.

Can you help?

Cheers

 

[maurin]

Thanks Maurin. I did as you finally suggested. I read what came up. Of course, since you didn’t give the most specific reference (as I have with documents I’ve referred to…which, by the way, I still don’t know if you’re read or thought about) I’m not sure that I read what you were referring to. Still, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. I read it, and it only confirms what I’ve thought, so I don’t see how it supports your position.

Can you help?

Cheers

probably not. The Pope’s own words haven’t helped you.

c ya!

 

[diggerdomer]

so, no penalties, no schism–if schism actually were the reality. which it isn’t. Where’s the decree of schism?

we’re gonna keep on going round and round on this merry-go-round. All I’m asking you to do, which should be easy, is to point to the document which contains the Pope’s statement that the SSPX is in schism. If they are, it should be easy to find. Because the SSPX is not in schism, why would the Holy Father need to state so?

So, where is the Pope’s statement of schism? There isn’t one. Nor is there a statement by the Pope which says the SSPX is not in schism. So the point for now is moot.

Now, another reality is that neither one of us is nor will be satisfied with the other’s answer. And until or unless the Pope makes a statement either way, we ought to move on and save the bandwith, wouldn’t you agree?

I’ve shared all the Magisterial references I am aware of that lead me to believe SSPX is in schism. You have either not read them or not let us know you’ve read them. That’s all I can provide. You have yet to provide any concrete reference from the Magisterium to support your position–unless I missed something, and if so let me know, but to my knowledge you have provided no specific reference or link to Magisterial teaching. I’ve provided you with a number of links to Magisterial documents that lead me to believe SSPX is in schism. You still have not let us know if you’ve looked at them. Which is fine, of course, but if you really want to engage in constructive dialogue it would be nice if you’d “listen” to what others say. You may be right. But without more reciprocity on your part there’s probably no point in continuing this dialogue.

Cheers

 

[diggerdomer]

probably not. The Pope’s own words haven’t helped you.

c ya!

Au contraire, it’s the Pope’s own words that lead me to believe SSPX is in schism.

What do you see the Pope saying that leads you to believe otherwise? Again, any specific sources or references would be welcome.

Cheers

 

[PaulinVA]

Where in the Accompanying Letter are these words you cite?

Ah, my bad. It’s from the letter accompanying the lifting of the excommunication of the four Bishops cited in #57], below. Written on March 10, 2009 by the current Pope.

You ignore supplied jurisdiction, which makes up a large part of Canon Law, and gives the SSPX their although irregular status, canonical status all the same.

The Pope said 11 days ago they have no canonical status. No canonical status. No canonical status. Your post indicates you believe Benedict XVI is not telling the truth?

But I agree with you, I don’t care much for the NO Church as it is in practice here at the local level in this Diocese. Lay preachers as well as non-Catholic preachers, the public denial of Catholic teaching as it pertains to sexual morality, as well as the denial of certain Marian and Christological Dogmas, have all convinced me that this local Church is near ruins.

Thank God for the Mercy of supplied jurisdiction, or I wouldn’t have access to Catholic teaching.

No need to discuss it further.

There is only one “Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”. It is the one we both are baptized in. If you believe that is not true, then you are truly in danger.

 

[Extempore]

There is only one “Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”. It is the one we both are baptized in. If you believe that is not true, then you are truly in danger.

So false teaching can never be spread within local dioceses? Simply because the Church is Catholic doesn’t mean that error in teaching is prevented from spreading within. Catholic Churches who spread error in doctrine may still be Catholic Churches but in cases where the teaching has erroneously (and impermissibly) diverged from tradition, those teachings are no longer Catholic.

 

[maurin]

Ah, my bad. It’s from the letter accompanying the lifting of the excommunication of the four Bishops cited in #57], below. Written on March 10, 2009 by the current Pope.

I figured that’s what it was.

The Pope said 11 days ago they have no canonical status. No canonical status. No canonical status.

canon law canon law canon law gives supplied jurisdiction supplied jurisdiction supplied jurisdiction.

Your post indicates you believe Benedict XVI is not telling the truth?

you believe my post indicates that, but as often is the case that which you believe and the reality are two different things.

There is only one “Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”. It is the one we both are baptized in. If you believe that is not true, then you are truly in danger.

no, your lack of understanding the realities that exist in some dioceses is truly the danger.