SSPX in schism? Can we attend their Masses?

  • Thread starter Thread starter James_2_24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pay no attention to the SSPX detractors. Many of them act as if the SSPX are the worst people in the world but have no problem giving $10,000 to re-build Protestant churches.
 
awalt said:
I couldn’t find a link for this, do you have one?

And do you think the derogatory remarks about people help the argument? I am just trying to learn, calling people squealers and howlers, remarks about priests, etc. certainly isn’t very Christian. I am just posting what I thought, if something new is out great - name calling doesn’t help.
Click to expand...
It was from a German newspaper article. There has been no official statement from any member of Ecclesia Dei on this.
 
EddieArent said:
Pay no attention to the SSPX detractors. Many of them act as if the SSPX are the worst people in the world but have no problem giving $10,000 to re-build Protestant churches.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone addressed protestant church building so this would be a straw argument. BTW, this howler is an advocate for the TLM as well as the NO.😉
 
Cardinal Castrillon IS the official papal delegate for all traditionalist matters.

His statements aren’t private opinions, they reflect the thinking of the curial dicastery in charge of this issue.

The fact remains, there were many, many question marks about this “schism” from the beginning…questions that are both difficult and time-consuming to sort through. Fortunately, this statement - a true watershed - may mark the beginning of the end of the tragic period in Roman Catholic history where suddenly it became unseemly to do what everyone had done for centuries.
 
AlexV said:
Cardinal Castrillon IS the official papal delegate for all traditionalist matters.

His statements aren’t private opinions, they reflect the thinking of the curial dicastery in charge of this issue.

The fact remains, there were many, many question marks about this “schism” from the beginning…questions that are both difficult and time-consuming to sort through. Fortunately, this statement - a true watershed - may mark the beginning of the end of the tragic period in Roman Catholic history where suddenly it became unseemly to do what everyone had done for centuries.
Click to expand...
Yes, he is the official papal delegate who did not make an official pronouncement.
 
Some people will try to wiggle out of anything.

What shall we imagine then?

The cardinal delegate for this very issue just says things in print that aren’t true?

The cardinal delegate for this very issue is confused and doesn’t know the truth about one of the most important issue his office faces?

The cardinal delegate for this very issue deliberately tries to confuse people by saying things that aren’t true just for the hell of it, or just to exercise his right to a private opinion?

Sorry, doesn’t hold water.

Unless Rome is collapsing in total chaos (who knows, maybe She is these days), when the Cardinal Delegate for an issue says something, it has meaning and weight.

The SSPX are not in schism.
 
I pray for SSPX to come into full communion with the Church again. That will clear up at least a little ugly behavior between Christians.
 
AlexV said:
Some people will try to wiggle out of anything.

What shall we imagine then?

The cardinal delegate for this very issue just says things in print that aren’t true?

The cardinal delegate for this very issue is confused and doesn’t know the truth about one of the most important issue his office faces?

The cardinal delegate for this very issue deliberately tries to confuse people by saying things that aren’t true just for the hell of it, or just to exercise his right to a private opinion?

Sorry, doesn’t hold water.

Unless Rome is collapsing in total chaos (who knows, maybe She is these days), when the Cardinal Delegate for an issue says something, it has meaning and weight.

The SSPX are not in schism.
Click to expand...
Sigh! Here’s a copy from the other thread. *You *have said they are not in schism.

He has said:
We take care of those who did not wish to follow Archbishop Lefebvre – which is not exactly a schism
Click to expand...
So what is exactly not a schism here? Those who didn’t wish to follow Lefebvre? Lefebvre? - we know he was in schism.
and we have the often misquoted 30 Days article where he says
even if it was not a formal schism
Click to expand...
So many qualifications which make things awfully murky. Why doesn’t he just say “the SSPX is not in schism”?
 
Because in one sense he will never satisfy people of your ilk, for whom harping on the SSPX is a parttime job.

“Schism” has a basic meaning, = separation, and it has a legal meaning. By saying they’re not “exactly” in schism, he is referring to the legal situation. Obviously, since the residential bishops of the world don’t consider the SSPX subject to them (though the SSPX pray for the local ordinary at Mass), some separation exists. But formal schism? Nope.
 
awalt said:
I pray for SSPX to come into full communion with the Church again. That will clear up at least a little ugly behavior between Christians.
Click to expand...
Maybe not. I hear a number of (French?) bishops are ready to start their own church if SSPX come into FULL communion. Now THAT would definitely be a schism!
 
AlexV said:
Because in one sense he will never satisfy people of your ilk, for whom harping on the SSPX is a parttime job.

“Schism” has a basic meaning, = separation, and it has a legal meaning. By saying they’re not “exactly” in schism, he is referring to the legal situation. Obviously, since the residential bishops of the world don’t consider the SSPX subject to them (though the SSPX pray for the local ordinary at Mass), some separation exists. But formal schism? Nope.
Click to expand...
Well now, that would be your interpretation of the comment.

And BTW, if you follow you line of argument then you must feel that Cardinal Keeler was right when he said the Jews didn’t have to convert because he’s a member of Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, right?
 
Considering Christ said to go and baptize all men, no, Cardinal Keeler’s comment was not acceptable.

But Cardinal Keeler was NOT the Cardinal Prefect. Only the Prefect could make authoritative remarks.

However much it irks you, the SSPX aren’t in schism.
 
However much it irks you, the SSPX aren’t in schism
Click to expand...
Believe me, it wouldn’t irk me if they weren’t!

BTW, the argument is changing. Now they have to be prefect?! I though they just had to be the person official spokesman? Let’s stick with one argument. If we stick with your original argument the Cardinal Kasper must also be correct regarding intercommunion since he’s the president. :rotfl:

Let’s face it, random comments that are unclear at best in German newspapers don’t hold a lot of weight even if they were to be interpreted in your favor.
 
What exactly makes a comment “random”, I wonder?

German newspapers are somehow less important than others? I happen to read German fluently. Die Tagespost is a respected German publication.
 
AlexV said:
What exactly makes a comment “random”, I wonder?

German newspapers are somehow less important than others? I happen to read German fluently. Die Tagespost is a respected German publication.
Click to expand...
I’d say the same thing if it was an english paper.
 
AlexV said:
Considering Christ said to go and baptize all men, no, Cardinal Keeler’s comment was not acceptable.

But Cardinal Keeler was NOT the Cardinal Prefect. Only the Prefect could make authoritative remarks.

However much it irks you, the SSPX aren’t in schism.
Click to expand...
The LAITY aren’t in schism. But they’re warned against it. The bishops are, confirmed by a papal declaration, and the priests are suspended ad divinis.
 
Cardinal Hoyos have explained 2 days ago the current status of the bishops, priests and faithful of the SSPX. In his address he affirms that “the Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics.” 🙂 rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

Does the Indult advance an ecumenism “ad intra”?

Please, accept that I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra”. The Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebvre 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.
 
Salve_Maria said:
Cardinal Hoyos have explained 2 days ago the current status of the bishops, priests and faithful of the SSPX. In his address he affirms that “the Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics.” 🙂 rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

Does the Indult advance an ecumenism “ad intra”?

Please, accept that I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra”. The Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebvre 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.
Click to expand...
There’s no such thing as partial communion. Either they’re in communion or they’re not. No one said that they were heretics. Again, according to a papal declaration, the bishops are excommunicated, the priests are suspended ad divinis and the faithful are warned against the dander of schism. Maybe they won’t always be, we should pray that they won’t be.
 
Oh there is indeed such a thing as partial communion. Your own hero John Paul II affirmed that more than once.

What exactly is the comprehension problem here? The Cardinal charged with handling traditionalist affairs has stated that even the SSPX bishops are NOT schismatics.

As for their being heretics…nobody ever claimed that - which is good, since it would be laughable, and since plenty of Novus Ordo clergy would be first in line to be charged with the same offense.
 
AlexV said:
Oh there is indeed such a thing as partial communion. Your own hero John Paul II affirmed that more than once.

What exactly is the comprehension problem here? The Cardinal charged with handling traditionalist affairs has stated that even the SSPX bishops are NOT schismatics.

As for their being heretics…nobody ever claimed that - which is good, since it would be laughable, and since plenty of Novus Ordo clergy would be first in line to be charged with the same offense.
Click to expand...
If they’re not in schism, then there is no need to regularize the situation with them. There’s nothing to work on. Someone really should notify the Pope and the Cardinal and Bishop Fellay that they are spinning their wheels and what they seek is a fait accompli.

But what IS the comprehension problem here? The Pope, charged with leading the entire Church has clearly stated that the issue is otherwise than what the Cardinal has stated. Until we hear from his successor, we still have to assume that one pope clearly trumps an entire hand of cardinals.

Be clear about this: no one is dumping on the SSPX and certainly not, as was charged elsewhere, on the TLM. We hope and pray for reconciliation. We just aren’t going to call a cow a pig.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top