SSPX isn't schismatic

[Luke-Jr]

JKirkLVNV:

There is absolutely no historical evidence that the Church distributed Holy Communion in any other way than in the hand originally. To assert otherwise is to engage in serious rad trad fantasy and denial! I’m not say we shouldn’t rec. on the tongue, I recieve on the tounge, but this kind of argument (as well as the assertion that the SSPX are not schismatic) is like trying argue that an elephant is a cheese sandwich. You can believe it if you want, but it simply isn’t so.

I never claimed there was any evidence, nor did I claim that receiving on the hand is necessarily sinful. I was simply pointing out that the example of the first Mass given was not a valid example to argue the justification of receiving on the hand.

And while you may believe that the SSPX is schismatic, the truth is that they are not. While I cannot force you to believe the truth, it is your own loss to deny it.

 

[coralewisjr]

ByzCath:

And let us not forget the fact that the SSPX was instutited in Switzerland as a pious union by Bishop Adam and later was suppressed (along with their seminary) by Bishop Mamie (the successor of Bishop Adam).

So the SSPX was never a religious order in the Catholic Church.

You’re lying. “The SSPX was patterned by its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, after the religious societies of foreign missions.”
“The Society of Saint Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI, the Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ.
The priests of the SSPX pray for the intentions of the Holy Father and the welfare of the local Ordinary at every Mass they celebrate.”

from sspx.org/

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

 

[dumspirospero]

Can’t argue with the Pope …straight from his mouth…like I said earlier to the OP…until I hear otherwise from Pope Benedict or any of his successors…I believe them to be in schism and I value the prospect of my own salvation too much to get involved with a schismatic group.

AuntMartha:

Coralewisjr, how can you reconcile what you say with the Ecclesia Dei:

 

[coralewisjr]

AuntMartha:

Coralewisjr, how can you reconcile what you say with the Ecclesia Dei:

“Fr. Patrick Valdini, Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris said that Archbishop Lefebvre did not commit a schismatic act by the consecrations, for he didn’t deny the Pope’s primacy. “It is not the consecration of bishop which creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission.” Which is something Archbishop Lefebvre never did (Question de Droit ou de confiance, L’Homme Nouveau, Feb. 17, 1988).”

from the webpage I started this thread with

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

 

[dumspirospero]

THat is lipservice…they can say all they want, but their actions expose how they truly feel…why don’t they submit totally to Pope Benedict XVI and come back into full communion with THe Holy See? The only thing stopping them is their pride…their actions do not reflect them being in full communion with The Holy See…they must submit totally to his authority…then and only then will it be possible to end this schism.

coralewisjr:

You’re lying. “The SSPX was patterned by its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, after the religious societies of foreign missions.”
“The Society of Saint Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI, the Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ.
The priests of the SSPX pray for the intentions of the Holy Father and the welfare of the local Ordinary at every Mass they celebrate.”

from sspx.org/

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

 

[coralewisjr]

dumspirospero:

Can’t argue with the Pope …straight from his mouth…like I said earlier to the OP…until I hear otherwise from Pope Benedict or any of his successors…I believe them to be in schism and I value the prospect of my own salvation too much to get involved with a schismatic group.

No, you can’t argue with the pope.
“This was recently shown to be the case in Hawaii, where Bishop Ferrario decided to excommunicate, in May 1, 1991, some followers of the Society of Saint Pius X, for supporting the Society and attending its Masses. Rome declared that the decision “lacks foundation and hence validity.” Bishop Ferrario’s attempted excommunication of Society followers was overturned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June 28, 1993. “From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned Decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity.” (Apostolic Nunciature, Washington D.C.)”

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

 

[dumspirospero]

So since when does Fr. Patrick Valdini hold authority over The Pope??? I’m sorry…but I will throw in my lot with the Pope…I side with the Pope…

“Fr. Patrick Valdini, Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris said that Archbishop Lefebvre did not commit a schismatic act by the consecrations, for he didn’t deny the Pope’s primacy. “It is not the consecration of bishop which creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission.” Which is something Archbishop Lefebvre never did (Question de Droit ou de confiance, L’Homme Nouveau, Feb. 17, 1988).”

from the webpage I started this thread with

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

 

[Luke-Jr]

dumspirospero:

THat is lipservice…they can say all they want, but their actions expose how they truly feel…

So what are these “actions” you are referring to? None of the actions of the SSPX have been schismatic.

dumspirospero:

why don’t they submit totally to Pope Benedict XVI and come back into full communion with THe Holy See? The only thing stopping them is their pride…their actions do not reflect them being in full communion with The Holy See…they must submit totally to his authority…then and only then will it be possible to end this schism.

Their actions are no different from those of every Catholic priest prior to V2.

 

[dumspirospero]

The main reason given by the SSPX for maintaining their “independence” from the “Official Church” is that, we are told, the Official Church is no longer faithful to Church Law and Catholic Tradition. Yet, if we look real closely, since the death of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1991, we’ll find that the SSPX themselves are no longer faithful to the same Church Law and Catholic Tradition that they claim to defend.

You can’t have it both ways:

• either you defend Church Law and Tradition; if so you are bound to obey them,
• or you decide that you will not follow Church Law and Tradition; if so you can’t claim that you’re defending them.

Based on the evidence we will present to you, we make two conclusions:

1. The obvious contradiction:
   The SSPX says they are defending Church Law and Tradition.
   The SSPX is not obeying Church Law and Tradition.
2. As a further consequence to the abuses of Church Law and Tradition, the SSPX is in schism.

The Four Reasons Why:

1. • [The SSPX is Granting Marriage Annulments](http://www.sspx-schism.com/ReasonsForSchism.htm#Granting Marriage Annulments)
   • [The SSPX is Imposing Censures on Laypeople](http://www.sspx-schism.com/ReasonsForSchism.htm#Imposing Censures)
   • The SSPX is Performing Exorcisms
   • The SSPX is Changing the Liturgy
   Other SSPX abuses:
   1. • SSPX Members do not follow the Rules of their Order
      • SSPX Members do not follow the Intentions of their Founder
      • Conclusion
      
      Luke-Jr:
      

      So what are these “actions” you are referring to? None of the actions of the SSPX have been schismatic.
      
      Their actions are no different from those of every Catholic priest prior to V2.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Luke-Jr:

JKirkLVNV:

There is NOTHING in the realm of objective truth that demonstrates that the TLM is “better” than the NO, which was promulgated by Paul VI, celebrated by him, and then also by his successors.

geocities.com/militantis…gecontents.html

Luke-Jr,
I think you are ignoring the sixth canon from the 22nd session of the Council of Trent on the Sacrifice of the Mass.

CANON VI.–If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

coralewisjr:

The commenter went on to describe the disturbance that the protest created at the high Cathedral Mass on one of Christianity’s holiest days. “Honestly, the tension felt by all regarding the presence of the Rainbow Sashers (who were making comments all the way up the Communion lines and waving at people as they went by) overshadowed much of the Mass itself. Particularly for those of us who were seated near enough to see and hear the Communion line (and see the irreverence towards the Eucharist… one person without a Sash received and then turned and handed the Host to a Sasher behind her, who immediately ate it before anyone could do anything.”

(from yesterday’s LifeSiteNews email)

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

Communion hosts have supposedly been removed from mouths and used for nefarious purposes. That is still beside the original, historical point. Communion in the hand historically, traditionally preceeds communion on the tongue, just as historicall and traditionally, the laity have partaken of both species.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

dumspirospero:

THat is lipservice…they can say all they want, but their actions expose how they truly feel…why don’t they submit totally to Pope Benedict XVI and come back into full communion with THe Holy See? The only thing stopping them is their pride…their actions do not reflect them being in full communion with The Holy See…they must submit totally to his authority…then and only then will it be possible to end this schism.

coralewisjr:

You’re lying. “The SSPX was patterned by its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, after the religious societies of foreign missions.”
“The Society of Saint Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI, the Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ.
The priests of the SSPX pray for the intentions of the Holy Father and the welfare of the local Ordinary at every Mass they celebrate.”
from sspx.org/

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

dumspirospero covers the lipservice part.

I will now address this statement, "The SSPX was patterned by its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, after the religious societies of foreign missions."

While that may have been what the Archbishop wanted, what he got was not a religious order but a pious union. It was Bishop Charriere that granted the decree not Bishop Adam (sorry for the mistake).

It clearly states in paragraph one “The “International Priestly Society of St. Pius X” is errected in our diocese as a pia unio (pious union).”

This can be found in the book More Catholic Than the Pope in Chapter 2 page 30.

The pious union was erected as an experiment for 6 years and then would require further approval but it was suppressed along with the SSPX seminary by the bishop.

So unless you can prove otherwise, with documents from the Catholic Church not form the SSPX, I would ask for an apology for calling me a liar.**

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Luke-Jr:

And while you may believe that the SSPX is schismatic, the truth is that they are not. While I cannot force you to believe the truth, it is your own loss to deny it.

I’d rather be on the same page as the papacy, which says that they are, in point of law, fact, whatever, in schism.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

coralewisjr:

No, you can’t argue with the pope.
“This was recently shown to be the case in Hawaii, where Bishop Ferrario decided to excommunicate, in May 1, 1991, some followers of the Society of Saint Pius X, for supporting the Society and attending its Masses. Rome declared that the decision “lacks foundation and hence validity.” Bishop Ferrario’s attempted excommunication of Society followers was overturned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June 28, 1993. “From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned Decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity.” (Apostolic Nunciature, Washington D.C.)”

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

This was addressed in reply #14.

But I will repeat it here as you seem to have missed it.

This case was in regards to individual members of the laity and has nothing to do with the SSPX.

Bishop Bruskewitz has excommunted the SSPX and that excommunication has been upheld by Rome.

See reply #14 for a link to the document from Bishop Bruskewitz.

 

[Luke-Jr]

dumspirospero:

The main reason given by the SSPX for maintaining their “independence” from the “Official Church”

Except that there is no claim of “independence” in the first place…

 

[dumspirospero]

The more I see these outlandish and fallacious arguments, the more I start to understand that sadly these people making these claims about the SSPX actually believe them and have been brain-washed…which is scary…kind of cultish in a way.

 

[dumspirospero]

I have gotten the scoop on these two SSPX’ers from a friend here on the forums…it appears they are a duo…thats right, a husband and wife team here with an agenda. Their agenda is to bring other Catholics into schism with them, so I urge everyone to please read their posts with caution and do not get sucked into the snares of the SSPX…let no one have any doubts…the SSPX is in fact schismatic.

I also find it troubling that a couple so young…I know one of you is only 20…can have such extremist views.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

coralewisjr:

No, you can’t argue with the pope.
“This was recently shown to be the case in Hawaii, where Bishop Ferrario decided to excommunicate, in May 1, 1991, some followers of the Society of Saint Pius X, for supporting the Society and attending its Masses. Rome declared that the decision “lacks foundation and hence validity.” Bishop Ferrario’s attempted excommunication of Society followers was overturned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June 28, 1993. "From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned Decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity." (Apostolic Nunciature, Washington D.C.)”

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

This demonstrates the length rad trads will go to in order to deceive the faithful. The above highlighted area only applies to the excommunication undertaken by the Bishop of Hawaii for acts he found questionable. He was found to be in the wrong by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Bishop Bruskewitz’s excommunications were upheld by the same congregation, indeed by the same prefect, who’s now the Pope. The above citation only applies to the situation in Hawaii and by no means overturns Ecclesia Dei. Got any more straw men?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

dumspirospero:

I have gotten the scoop on these two SSPX’ers from a friend here on the forums…it appears they are a duo…thats right, a husband and wife team here with an agenda. Their agenda is to bring other Catholics into schism with them, so I urge everyone to please read their posts with caution and do not get sucked into the snares of the SSPX…let no one have any doubts…the SSPX is in fact schismatic.

I also find it troubling that a couple so young…I know one of you is only 20…can have such extremist views.

Yes, caution, Dum, but you keep fighting the fight. I’ve often thought,“We should just ignore these types,” but then consider: there are innnocents and honest seekers who read these forums. We have an obligation to them to combat lies with truth, fiction with fact. If these two can tag team, then so can the rest of us.

 

[dumspirospero]

Yes we can…I also believe our tag team is intelligent, well informed, and larger in number…so the outcome will be favorable for us. Let us now pray for all the people caught in the snares of the SSPX and SSPV and pray for their reversion to The Church.

JKirkLVNV:

Yes, caution, Dum, but you keep fighting the fight. I’ve often thought,“We should just ignore these types,” but then consider: there are innnocents and honest seekers who read these forums. We have an obligation to them to combat lies with truth, fiction with fact. If these two can tag team, then so can the rest of us.