SSPX poised for formal schism?

[codefro]

Seriously. I have never met a Catholic who believes like a perfect Catholic. In my short time on these threads “Good” Catholics have advocated for ABC, gay marriage, salvation of all, married priests, female priests, divorce and remarriage, etc. Heck, a war will break out if you mention music, or dress at Mass.

How can we claim we believe even the unbaptized non believer can be saved but not the SSPX.

In the words of Francis. Who am I to judge?

I’m not talking about their salvation at all. Although I think even reading Lumen Gentium into this case, it doesn’t look pretty for them. I do not disagree with any doctrine or dogma of the church. I may not understand all of it. Yet, I trust that the gates of Hell shall not prevail on the Church, therefore I trust the Church to point the way to Heaven. Basically all these “picking and choosing” of doctrines is not the Catholic faith. To deny even one doctrine established by the Catholic Church is to fall into grave error, and could POTENTIALLY, if not SURELY put one’s soul in jeopardy.

PS-Pope Francis’ “who am I to judge?” Please… He was one to judge when he excommunicated two priests a couple weeks ago. Read Catholic news my friends.

 

[janeway529]

I hope the SSPX doesn’t turn into a similar version of the ‘Old Catholics’ who made a formal schism because they couldn’t accept the First Vatican Council. Their developments are eerily similar.

newadvent.org/cathen/11235b.htm

 

[Mike30]

No, my friend. The Church does not accept schismatic churches as equal to Christ’s Church. Someone born into a group which broke with the Church 500 years ago is not guilty of schism but anyone who was Catholic and commits schism is guilty of very grave sin.

We do pray that God may have mercy on the invincibly ignorant. That does not make ignorance a blessed state. No Catholic can claim invincible ignorance as to the gravity of schism.

My friend, apparently the Church does accept everyone.

Given that — and this is the key point — God’s mercy has no limits, if you go to him with a sincere and repentant heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience,” Francis writes in his letter.

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, is when one goes against their conscience,” he added. “**To listen and to obey to (one’s conscience) means to decide oneself in relation to what’s perceived as good and evil. And this decision is fundamental to determining the good or evil of our actions.”
**
I fail to see how one who refuses to believe in God has the right to follow his or her conscience and one who disagrees with the Church on certain matters, but still believes in God, does not have the same option.

It really can’t be both ways…

 

[larsont7]

I hope the SSPX doesn’t turn into a similar version of the ‘Old Catholics’ who made a formal schism because they couldn’t accept the First Vatican Council. Their developments are eerily similar.

newadvent.org/cathen/11235b.htm

I don’t see that happening at all, and based on this Catholic Encyclopedia page, I don’t even see very many similarities. The Old Catholics split because they denied a dogma of the Church, which the SSPX does not do. In fact, the SSPX still believes Pope Francis is a true pope, unlike the various sedevacantist sects like these Old Catholics.

Plus, if you look at the first congress the Old Catholics held and some of its results (i.e. - reform of the Church with constitutional participation of the laity, rejection of the Society of Jesus, etc.), you can tell that the SSPX is not going down the same road.

That’s not to say that there won’t be some formal schism announcement handed down by the Holy See to the SSPX bishops (which I pray does not happen), but it’s still apples and oranges compared to this group.

 

[Alfonsus]

I don’t see that happening at all, and based on this Catholic Encyclopedia page, I don’t even see very many similarities. The Old Catholics split because they denied a dogma of the Church, which the SSPX does not do. In fact, the SSPX still believes Pope Francis is a true pope, unlike the various sedevacantist sects like these Old Catholics.

Plus, if you look at the first congress the Old Catholics held and some of its results (i.e. - reform of the Church with constitutional participation of the laity, rejection of the Society of Jesus, etc.), you can tell that the SSPX is not going down the same road.

That’s not to say that there won’t be some formal schism announcement handed down by the Holy See to the SSPX bishops (which I pray does not happen), but it’s still apples and oranges compared to this group.

It is similar in that both reject validity of an Ecumenical Council.
For Old Catholics, they reject the validity of Vatican I. If the Council is denounced as un-ecumenical and unbinding, then the Council whatever result and implication can be ditched and used as ground for schism.

For the SSPX it is the Vatican II and whatever result of it.

Both have the same attitude, “Rome has err, now the fate of the real Catholic Church resides in our hands.”

Yet I give + points to the Old Catholics. They have the guts to leave Rome, while SSPX said they are still with Rome, but defy everything.

 

[larsont7]

It is similar in that both reject validity of an Ecumenical Council.
For Old Catholics, they reject the validity of Vatican I. If the Council is denounced as un-ecumenical and unbinding, then the Council whatever result and implication can be ditched and used as ground for schism.

For the SSPX it is the Vatican II and whatever result of it.

Both have the same attitude, “Rome has err, now the fate of the real Catholic Church resides in our hands.”

Yet I give + points to the Old Catholics. They have the guts to leave Rome, while SSPX said they are still with Rome, but defy everything.

Per the SSPX website, they do NOT reject the validity of Vatican II. They do take issue with 4 issues contained in the documents, but as Bishop Fellay says, they accept “95% of its teachings”, which is a lot more than the majority of Catholics today accept. The question is how much of Vatican II is doctrinal in nature and binding on the faithful, and that is where the disagreements lie. sspx.org/en/news-events/news/recognizing-sspx-questioning-vatican-ii-2380

Like I’ve said on different threads, I’m not SSPX and I don’t support many of their ideas, but to compare them to Old Catholics is uncharitable and just plain incorrect. The fact that the SSPX hasn’t left Rome should be a sign that they are clearly different than Old Catholics who basically started their own church.

What fascinates me is that Catholics here on CAF continue going after the SSPX (who consist of less than 1% of the Church) even though their members are some of the most faithful Catholics you could ever meet. They interpret things differently, yes, but you would never see them going against any doctrines of the Church. Try saying that about the average churchgoer, some of whom don’t even believe in the Real Presence.

 

[GloriaMaria]

Per the SSPX website, they do NOT reject the validity of Vatican II. They do take issue with 4 issues contained in the documents, but as Bishop Fellay says, they accept “95% of its teachings”, which is a lot more than the majority of Catholics today accept. The question is how much of Vatican II is doctrinal in nature and binding on the faithful, and that is where the disagreements lie. sspx.org/en/news-events/news/recognizing-sspx-questioning-vatican-ii-2380

Like I’ve said on different threads, I’m not SSPX and I don’t support many of their ideas, but to compare them to Old Catholics is uncharitable and just plain incorrect. The fact that the SSPX hasn’t left Rome should be a sign that they are clearly different than Old Catholics who basically started their own church.

What fascinates me is that Catholics here on CAF continue going after the SSPX (who consist of less than 1% of the Church) even though their members are some of the most faithful Catholics you could ever meet. They interpret things differently, yes, but you would never see them going against any doctrines of the Church. Try saying that about the average churchgoer, some of whom don’t even believe in the Real Presence.

Hogwash. They dress more conservatively and they are exceedingly polite. They can sing Gregorian chant and they know Mass and devotions inside and out. Fine. Do they cheat on their taxes, abandon children, defraud workers, fornicate, etc, etc,? Yes, some do. They are just like the rest of us, but they think they have the corner on the Catholic faith purely based on their devotions. Been there done that. Are some sincere? Of course. But it is not a Catholic paradise. It is not the way to heaven. They need obedience to get to heaven. We all do. They are headed very much in the wrong direction.

 

[TRH1292]

I’m not talking about their salvation at all. Although I think even reading Lumen Gentium into this case, it doesn’t look pretty for them. I do not disagree with any doctrine or dogma of the church. I may not understand all of it. Yet, I trust that the gates of Hell shall not prevail on the Church, therefore I trust the Church to point the way to Heaven. Basically all these “picking and choosing” of doctrines is not the Catholic faith. To deny even one doctrine established by the Catholic Church is to fall into grave error, and could POTENTIALLY, if not SURELY put one’s soul in jeopardy.

PS-Pope Francis’ “who am I to judge?” Please… He was one to judge when he excommunicated two priests a couple weeks ago. Read Catholic news my friends.

Amen!!!

 

[Megan7]

Surprised nobody has talked of this yet.

A la Fr. Z

"SSPX seems poised to confirm a formal schism
Posted on 15 October 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
I read at Rorate about a strong speech given by SSPX Bp. Bernard Fellay which is effectively a denunciation of Pope Francis and Pope Benedict and – yawn – you know the rest.

Here is a sample:

“The situation of the Church is a real disaster, and the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.”

[Bp. Bernard Fellay] said this in an address at the Angelus Press Conference, the weekend of Oct 11-13 in Kansas City. …

Bishop Fellay alluded to the SSPX/Vatican drama of 2012: “When we see what is happening now we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God. It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics, of course we want to be Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized as Catholics. But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that. Of course not.”
He continued, “To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove [what] they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”

As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the document to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.”

“The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.

He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”.

Imagine! Some people will dictate to the Supreme Pontiff the terms by which they will be Catholic.

I’m sure we will hear more about this."

Thanks for the thread.

 

[pnewton]

I would argue whats the big deal if they do? Look the Orthodox schismed. What is their status now? The protestants schismed. What is their status now? The Anglicans schismed. What is their status now?

No problems with any of them.

Are you saying that you believe it is “no problems” that these groups are no longer united to the Holy Pontiff?

 

[TimothyH]

Seriously. I have never met a Catholic who believes like a perfect Catholic. In my short time on these threads “Good” Catholics have advocated for ABC, gay marriage, salvation of all, married priests, female priests, divorce and remarriage, etc. Heck, a war will break out if you mention music, or dress at Mass.

How can we claim we believe even the unbaptized non believer can be saved but not the SSPX.

In the words of Francis. Who am I to judge?

I advocate for the salvation of all.

-Tim-

 

[pnewton]

Those who think they are more Catholic than the Pope? Here I assume you are referring to those who believe contraception, gay marriage, and abortion are okay,

So you believe that gay marriage, contraception and abortion are a more Catholic position that that of Pope Francis? I am pretty sure you are mistaken as these positions have all been condemned by the Church.

 

[pnewton]

What fascinates me is that Catholics here on CAF continue going after the SSPX (who consist of less than 1% of the Church) even though their members are some of the most faithful Catholics you could ever meet.

Your definition of “faithful” is different than mine.

While there are differences between the SSPX and the Old Catholic Church, I can see why they are offered as an analogy. The similarities also exist. In my opinion these similarities legitimize the comparison.

 

[JM3]

Per the SSPX website, they do NOT reject the validity of Vatican II.

Websites don’t alway reflect reality.

[Bp. Bernard Fellay] said this in an address at the Angelus Press Conference, the weekend of Oct 11-13 in Kansas City. …“It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I advocate for the salvation of all.

-Tim-

Me Too! Even the SSPX.

 

[pnewton]

PS-Pope Francis’ “who am I to judge?” Please… He was one to judge when he excommunicated two priests a couple weeks ago. Read Catholic news my friends.

This shows a lack of context of the statement the Pope made. He was not saying he could never make a disciplinary decision (judgement). He was saying he could not judge the state of one’s soul. I shouldn’t even have to say this. It is so obvious to anyone. What does that say that one would chose to ignore this difference in order to make the pope look hypocritical?

 

[1AugustSon7]

Well, we can’t impose conditions on the Pope. He has the keys, not us. And the Church’s Magisterium remains the final authority on matters of faith, morals, doctrine and practice and also what is and is not a part of Sacred Tradition: she interprets Sacred Tradition just as she interprets Sacred Scripture.

The most realistic route for those who wish to keep and promote the extraordinary form in the universal Church is, in my opinion, filial devotion to the Pope and the Church’s Magisterium -to the Church- and to avoid at all costs any association of traditional forms of piety and devotions with rebellion, schism, disobedience, etc. They should rather strive to be examplars of fidelity to the Church and to the Pope. Presently, many seem horribly habituated to critcizing the Pope and the Church at every chance - culling their words and documents to find some excuse to level accusations of heterodoxy or worse at the Pope. We should be bringing the Church’s message to others not trying to throw it back in the Church’s face, so to speak.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This shows a lack of context of the statement the Pope made. He was not saying he could never make a disciplinary decision (judgement). He was saying he could not judge the state of one’s soul. I shouldn’t even have to say this. It is so obvious to anyone.

Obvious to you and me. Obvious to those who truly know their faith. Do you understand that the latter is a minority in the Church? And did you read the many exultant comments from poorly catechized Catholics and hundreds of people in the secular world that showed misunderstanding of the context? They weren’t gloating over at MSNBC for absolutely no reason.

Just saying…

 

[Elizabeth502]

The most realistic route for those who wish to keep and promote the extraordinary form in the universal Church is, in my opinion, filial devotion to the Pope and the Church’s Magisterium -to the Church- and to avoid at all costs any association of traditional forms of piety and devotions with rebellion, schism, disobedience, etc.

Which traditional forms of piety are “rebellious?”

:bigyikes:

 

[PJM]

=codefro;11304517]Surprised nobody has talked of this yet.

A la Fr. Z

"SSPX seems poised to confirm a formal schism
Posted on 15 October 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
I read at Rorate about a strong speech given by SSPX Bp. Bernard Fellay which is effectively a denunciation of Pope Francis and Pope Benedict and – yawn – you know the rest.

Here is a sample:

“The situation of the Church is a real disaster, and the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.”

[Bp. Bernard Fellay] said this in an address at the Angelus Press Conference, the weekend of Oct 11-13 in Kansas City. …

Bishop Fellay alluded to the SSPX/Vatican drama of 2012: “When we see what is happening now we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God. It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics, of course we want to be Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized as Catholics. But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that. Of course not.”
He continued, “To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove [what] they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”

As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the document to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.”

“The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.

He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”.

Imagine! Some people will dictate to the Supreme Pontiff the terms by which they will be Catholic.

I’m sure we will hear more about this."

The formality is the ONLY THING MISSING

What is…IS:shrug:

I pray for God’s Mercy for them all.