Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) In communion with the Chair of Peter, YES or NO?

[pnewton]

Infallability can not properly be applied to the concept of ex-communication or schism. Can the pope be in the wrong for disciplining someone this way? Yes. However, the person or group would still, by definition, be in schism or ex-communicated.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

pnewton:

Infallability can not properly be applied to the concept of ex-communication or schism. Can the pope be in the wrong for disciplining someone this way? Yes. However, the person or group would still, by definition, be in schism or ex-communicated.

I am not disputing this statement by you but I think when you make such a statement you should provide proof for it.

 

[pnewton]

ByzCath:

I am not disputing this statement by you but I think when you make such a statement you should provide proof for it.

A good working definition can be found here:

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

and here:

newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

If you are refering to the me saying a pope might be doing the wrong thing by excommunicating someone, my “Yes” means only that I have never heard that infallability extends this far. I by no means have seen everything and am no canon lawyer. I easily stand to be corrected by one.

I initially did not give any links because I believe none are needed. Ex-communication means out of communion. It is inherent in schism (see the second link).

If a person in authority (like a judge) exercises that authority and decides John Smith is guilty, this decision alone make John Smith legally guilty, by definition, and a convict. In reality Smith by be an innocent man, but the legal status remains unchanged.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

pnewton:

A good working definition can be found here:

newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

and here:

newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

If you are refering to the me saying a pope might be doing the wrong thing by excommunicating someone, my “Yes” means only that I have never heard that infallability extends this far. I by no means have seen everything and am no canon lawyer. I easily stand to be corrected by one.

I initially did not give any links because I believe none are needed. Ex-communication means out of communion. It is inherent in schism (see the second link).

If a person in authority (like a judge) exercises that authority and decides John Smith is guilty, this decision alone make John Smith legally guilty, by definition, and a convict. In reality Smith by be an innocent man, but the legal status remains unchanged.

Thanks for clarifying this.

Again, I am not disputing you and I see where you are coming from.

When I asked for proof (links) I was hopeing to see something from Church Documents.

I have learned to take the Catholic Encyclopedia with a grain of salt as it has somethings skewed especially where we Eastern Catholics are concerned.

But as far as I am concerned, and you seem to agree, when the Holy Father states that they are in schism they are in schism.

 

[BulldogCath]

They are obviously not in communion, I think we all know that, though many here probably share many of their beliefs and sympathize as I do with thier cause, though like stated Archbishop was excommunicated for consecrating a Bishop, not for his or the Societies actions or loyalty to Traditionalism.

I know many who would attend SSPX as they are fed up with the church of 2005-but want to try and stick around and hope the new crop of priests are better than the last bunch we have had. It gets frustrating going to Mass with priests who obviously dont share your values and are still caught up in the whatever goes mentality and are scared of discipline and orthodox teaching as they dont want to, in thier own words, drive away anybody. And Conservative Catholics are taken for granted that we will never leave no matter how bad the church gets.

We need a good “farm system” and if we dont pay attention at the seminary level we are bound for more of the same-and the continued growth of SSPX, SSPV and other Traditional groups.

 

[TNT]

pnewton:

If you are refering to the me saying a pope might be doing the wrong thing by excommunicating someone, my “Yes” means only that I have never heard that infallability extends this far…
If a person in authority (like a judge) exercises that authority and decides John Smith is guilty, this decision alone make John Smith legally guilty, by definition, and a convict. In reality Smith by be an innocent man, but the legal status remains unchanged.

The very same idea is applied to an annulment, even after 15 yrs of public marriage. The Pope decides indirectly through the Bishop through the Tribunal.
Once the decision is made, there is no appeal by either party. Just or not. They aint married, and never were, or they are married and always will be until death.
Henry VIII realized this and when annulment was denied, he knew he had to leave the Church to get married anyway.
Same with the SSPX. No matter if Just or unjust. The decision is binding, and no canon law can be applied to the Pope…none. Nor has it ever been used to deny the final decision of a reigning Pontiff. But, if anyone can find one, I’ll take it back.
The decision is infallibly true. The condition of the marriage is infallibly true. It does not mean that the decision is infallibly “divinely-inspired correct” or even just".
You joined the Church with the only Keys, and now you have to live with both sides of the binding. Just or not. The Church was NEVER guaranteed perfect justice in matters otherwise binding…Never. But she is guaranteed to bind.

All this comes from one whose wife is SSPX and attends weekday Mass with her at SSPX…ecumenism of course.

 

[Sean_O_L]

ByzCath wrote:

I have learned to take the Catholic Encyclopedia with a grain of salt as it has somethings skewed especially where we Eastern Catholics are concerned.

You are quite right. ByzCath; the Catholic Encyclopedia is not infallible - nor up-to-date. I am sure that statement will give the “trads” the shudders - but it is quite true.

For example, the c.1910 Catholic Encyclopedia has an entry on La Salette - but the entry is deficient in view of the subsequent condemnations of writings on the alleged (but false) “Secret of La Salette” of Melanie Calvat and of her Spiritual Director, Abbé Combe. See several files on La Salette at VISIONS

 

[dezembrum]

ByzCath:

Where does it say this? How about this?

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . ... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Also check out Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism) from Vatican II. (Actually paragraph 818 refences this document specifically paragraph 3)

I will add that in my reading of the Catechism I find no distinction made between formal and material schismatics.

Those words appear no where in the Catechism. Can you point me to the section where this distinction you speak of is found? I know others have made this claim but I have yet to find it.

I do not use the Catechism as my sole source for material, and don’t think there is such a distinction found there. If you go to the Catholic encyclopedia and look at the articles on Schism as well as the article on Heresy you will find such a distinction. The latter has a good discussion of material heresy versus formal, and the implications there as far as sin is concerned.

I think the part of the Catechism you cite, as well as the other document, is simply trying to say that the Orthodox of today cannot rightly be charged with the sin of schism. They are schismatics, but only materially so, because their wills are misguided more by ignorance than pride or malice.

(Hope you realize I’m not trying to pick a fight; I just like theological discussion.)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

dezembrum:

I do not use the Catechism as my sole source for material, and don’t think there is such a distinction found there. If you go to the Catholic encyclopedia and look at the articles on Schism as well as the article on Heresy you will find such a distinction. The latter has a good discussion of material heresy versus formal, and the implications there as far as sin is concerned.

I think the part of the Catechism you cite, as well as the other document, is simply trying to say that the Orthodox of today cannot rightly be charged with the sin of schism. They are schismatics, but only materially so, because their wills are misguided more by ignorance than pride or malice.

(Hope you realize I’m not trying to pick a fight; I just like theological discussion.)

I know you are not picking a fight, I do not take these things person until someone makes them personal. I also like theological disucssion.

Ah but one is a Magisteral document, the other isn’t.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is one of the sources of Catholic Teaching and is a Magisteral document.

The Catholic Encylopedia is a document put together privately and therefore not a Magisteral document.

Let me clarify, I have not seen this distinction between formal and material schism made in any Magisteral documents.

I have stated before that I do not really use this work as it is biased especially where we Eastern Catholics are concerned.

As Sean said earlier.
Sean O L:

ByzCath wrote:

I have learned to take the Catholic Encyclopedia with a grain of salt as it has somethings skewed especially where we Eastern Catholics are concerned.

You are quite right. ByzCath; the Catholic Encyclopedia is not infallible - nor up-to-date. I am sure that statement will give the “trads” the shudders - but it is quite true.

For example, the c.1910 Catholic Encyclopedia has an entry on La Salette - but the entry is deficient in view of the subsequent condemnations of writings on the alleged (but false) “Secret of La Salette” of Melanie Calvat and of her Spiritual Director, Abbé Combe. See several files on La Salette at VISIONS

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

EddieArent:

You’re right, I should know better. This Sunday I won’t go to an SSPX parish. Rather I’ll go to a Charismatic Mass where I can also be healed by some lady afterwords. No Latin or Gregorian Chant in the diocese? No Indult Mass after 20 years? No problem.

No, it’s not that easy. Until the Bishops here stop having it both ways with their liturgy and politics (saying no to anti-abortion Catholics and then promoting priests who give Christ to pro-abortion politicians), then I’ll consider. I’ve had enough of the bishop saying only metal ciboriums/chalices used during Mass only to watch a tv Mass and find his excellency celebrating Mass with something that looks like a basket for collections.

I’ll take the advice of Father Zigrang over that of the a satanist and his buddy anyday.

No, no your analogy is incorrect. Attending an SSPX service is akin to attending a baptist or methodist service. Attending a charismatic Catholic Mass on the other hand would be the same as attending a Pontifical High Mass in Latin.

Just because we feel something is “better” (or even valid) does not make it so. Running off to an SSPX chapel reminds me of a protestant who runs to the next “church” when he disagrees with something in his current “church.”

 

[BulldogCath]

James

I agree with you. What was in communion with Rome in 1960 is now “schismatic” and called “rad trad”. And Those that were condemned by every Pope up till Pope Pius XII and considered “schismatic” or “Modernists” in 1960 are now “in communion” and I guess with the post Vatican II church, in the Mainstream.

Amazing what a Pastoral Council and some infiltration of our beloved church in 40 years can accomplish, huh?

Jakub:

The enemies of the Church are the ones who tolerate and condone the irregularities and abuses that occur today.

Why attack the members of the Old Rite and ignore the abusers of the New Rite ?

You don’t need to be a genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep.

It is time to find common ground to correct these issues instead of fighting each other.

james

 

[demolitionman65]

You. . .people. . .keep. . .missing. . .the. . .point

I agree with you. What was in communion with Rome in 1960 is now “schismatic” and called “rad trad”. And Those that were condemned by every Pope up till Pope Pius XII and considered “schismatic” or “Modernists” in 1960 are now “in communion” and I guess with the post Vatican II church, in the Mainstream.

The point is that these people disobeyed the Pope. End of discussion/story. Your insistent insertion of the “but the radical liberals are worse” is a strawman argument that will not stand up to the slightest wind.

Now, if your type of schism is a movement of the Holy Spirit, you may count on Fr. Fellay or one of his like being elevated to the Papacy as soon as JPII passes.

When this does NOT happen, please cease your schismatic whining and return your obedience to the Church.

 

[BulldogCath]

Hey, Just Like Pope Leo X DeMedici (gee, I wonder how he became Pope) with the selling of indulgences and his fondness for Art-I am just one of those humble Catholics who like my Ministers to perform a good old Traditional Mass, the kind that the Apostles and the Martyrs of later years died for and not this Protestant Masonic version that has been peddled by the Modernists.

And I guess all of those pedophile priests that kept getting shuffled around by the Bishops, I guess because they were good ole liberal Priests and were “loyal to the Novus Ordo” and a council that was PASTORAL and being homosexual and abusive are just fine and dandy with you and I can only guess the Bishops

As from the Book of Matthew, Chapter 18 Our Lord says "Amen I say to you, unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whoever therefore shall humble himself as this child,he is greater in the kingdom of heaven. And he shall that receive one such child in my name, receiveth me. But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom scandal cometh"

Where is the outrage at these corrupt Bishops, and you sit here and judge a group of traditional priests that actually adhere to the Gospel!!

demolitionman65:

You. . .people. . .keep. . .missing. . .the. . .point

The point is that these people disobeyed the Pope. End of discussion/story. Your insistent insertion of the “but the radical liberals are worse” is a strawman argument that will not stand up to the slightest wind.

Now, if your type of schism is a movement of the Holy Spirit, you may count on Fr. Fellay or one of his like being elevated to the Papacy as soon as JPII passes.

When this does NOT happen, please cease your schismatic whining and return your obedience to the Church.

 

[TNT]

BulldogCath:

Hey, Just Like Pope Leo X DeMedici (gee, I wonder how he became Pope) with the selling of indulgences and his fondness for Art-I am just one of those humble Catholics who like my Ministers to perform a good old Traditional Mass, the kind that the Apostles and the Martyrs of later years died for and not this Protestant Masonic version that has been peddled by the Modernists.

And I guess all of those pedophile priests that kept getting shuffled around by the Bishops, I guess because they were good ole liberal Priests and were “loyal to the Novus Ordo” and a council that was PASTORAL and being homosexual and abusive are just fine and dandy with you and I can only guess the Bishops
…
Where is the outrage at these corrupt Bishops, and you sit here and judge a group of traditional priests that actually adhere to the Gospel!!

Great post. Give’m them some of their own HOPTERE PROCTOLOGY HOC.
BTW:
Why do all the ones who avoid Latin in the Mass keep using it to get their post attention?

 

[Adonis33]

Pariah Pirana:

No, no your analogy is incorrect. Attending an SSPX service is akin to attending a baptist or methodist service. Attending a charismatic Catholic Mass on the other hand would be the same as attending a Pontifical High Mass in Latin.

Just because we feel something is “better” (or even valid) does not make it so. Running off to an SSPX chapel reminds me of a protestant who runs to the next “church” when he disagrees with something in his current “church.”

Hello.You are wrong. According to Eclesia Dei (I’m not a good speller), One can fullfill their Sunday obligation at a SSPX mass. Babtist and Methodist reject Catholic dogma, while Levebre (again my spelling) and the four bishops were excommunicated for a disciplinary reason. The bishops are still validly ordained.

Attending a charismatic Catholic Mass would be the same as a Pontifical High Mass in Latin? From my limited knowledge of a charismatic mass - isn’t that more like a protestant fundamentalist service? Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[Adonis33]

demolitionman65:

You. . .people. . .keep. . .missing. . .the. . .point

The point is that these people disobeyed the Pope. End of discussion/story. Your insistent insertion of the “but the radical liberals are worse” is a strawman argument that will not stand up to the slightest wind.

Now, if your type of schism is a movement of the Holy Spirit, you may count on Fr. Fellay or one of his like being elevated to the Papacy as soon as JPII passes.

When this does NOT happen, please cease your schismatic whining and return your obedience to the Church.

Hello. While I would agree that getting into a “who’s worse” argument is not fruitful, disobeying the Pope in itself is not grounds for excommunication. If it were, then every Bishop who authorizes alter girls - and every priest that uses alther girls would be excommunicated. But this does not happen.

The excommunicaton that Archbishop Lef. recieved was automatic. Many believe that the excommunication was invalid since Archbisop Lef. may have acted under necessity.

 

[Adonis33]

Pleae forgive me for my poor spelling. If I am wrong concerning my posts - I never take offence to being corrected. I’m really not that smart.

 

[demolitionman65]

Many believe that the excommunication was invalid since Archbisop Lef. may have acted under necessity.

Whatever many believe does not matter. Vox populi, vox humbug.

70% of Americans believe Michael Schiavo was correct in torturing his wife to death. (Death by thirst is simply torture, hence my hyperbole). Does this mean that his treatment of her was correct? Of course not. Many believe Lefevre’s exc. was invalid. Others believe in flying saucers.

The fact is that Lefevre disobeyed a direct papal order. . on pain of excommunication. . .and he did it anyway, equaling himself (as I’ve said before) with Luther, Donatus, Calvin and any other “reformer” who “knew” that he knew better than the Pope.

And I’m sorry if this sounds clipped. I’m really not trying to sound grouchy.

 

[demolitionman65]

And I guess all of those pedophile priests that kept getting shuffled around by the Bishops, I guess because they were good ole liberal Priests and were “loyal to the Novus Ordo” and a council that was PASTORAL and being homosexual and abusive are just fine and dandy with you and I can only guess the Bishops

You can put in bold all you want. This is still a strawman argument, drawing attention away from the fact that Lefevre disobeyed a direct order from the Pope, thereby dropping him into the level of Luther, Donatus etc (MAN, I’m getting tired of repeating myself. . .)

You are not engaging the realities. You are trying to change the subject, diverting the attention from your hero’s huge culpability by shouting: “BUT THEY ARE GUILTY TOO!!!”

This does nothing to resolve the conflict, and shows poor debate skills to boot.

Maybe the others ARE guilty. But, take a look at the thread title:

Re: Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) In communion with the Chair of Peter, YES or NO?

The answer is NO. Strawman whining won’t change that.

Great post. Give’m them some of their own HOPTERE PROCTOLOGY HOC.

Ad hominem name calling. This is even poorer than the constant strawmans.

BTW:
Why do all the ones who avoid Latin in the Mass keep using it to get their post attention?

Yet another strawman.

If that is in reference to me, you have no idea my reverence for the Latin Mass. It is deep and profound. But my distaste for illogical schismatics is just as deep and profound.

 

[BulldogCath]

**Please note that I am not defending Lefebvre, as he should not have disobeyed-but the hatred here on this site for Traditional Catholics, especially SSPX most of whom who attend are good devout Catholics, more so than 99% of the Novus Ordo attendees is astonishing. To sit here and judge these people and call them schismatics because this Pope JPII decided to actually get up the guts and excommunicate Lefebvre-while moving Cardinal Law to a cushy job in Rome, and leave countless Bishop after Bishop in their place while they covered up for their own pedophile priests is amazing to me. **

I am not deflecting or doing a strawman argument-I am saying as Catholics we have all of this sympathy for all kinds of sinners, the Jews who this Pope makes us call “Our Elder Brothers”, the Moslems, whom he kissed their Koran, the Orthodox schismatics, whom he turned over precious relics to-but excommunciated an Archbishop who just wanted the Mass he revered.

Think about it and stop being so judgemental. And you all want to call him JPII the Great? I dont think so

demolitionman65:
You can put in bold all you want. This is still a strawman argument, drawing attention away from the fact that Lefevre disobeyed a direct order from the Pope, thereby dropping him into the level of Luther, Donatus etc (MAN, I’m getting tired of repeating myself. . .)

You are not engaging the realities. You are trying to change the subject, diverting the attention from your hero’s huge culpability by shouting: “BUT THEY ARE GUILTY TOO!!!”

This does nothing to resolve the conflict, and shows poor debate skills to boot.

Maybe the others ARE guilty. But, take a look at the thread title:

The answer is NO. Strawman whining won’t change that.

Ad hominem name calling. This is even poorer than the constant strawmans.

Yet another strawman.

If that is in reference to me, you have no idea my reverence for the Latin Mass. It is deep and profound. But my distaste for illogical schismatics is just as deep and profound.