SSPX poised for formal schism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter codefro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
larsont7 said:
I never said that you suggested any of those things were correct. I asked if that’s who you were referring to when you were talking about those who were more Catholic than the Pope, and I said that those who DO support those things fit that description better than members of the SSPX. Why would that make you think I was talking about you? I don’t even know you.

And my reaction is typical of those who have to be right? 🤷

Well, I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said here. I think we may just be using different language. I certainly agree that we should respect the clergy and be obedient to them INSOFAR as they are not teaching anything apart from Catholic doctrine. As you said, there used to be a strict discipline among the clergy that is not as prevalent nowadays. *** I also agree that we would be better off with a smaller church*** (I use that Pope Benedict quote all the time).

The point I was making in my previous post was that the SSPX is not the enemy we should be fighting. Every SSPX post on CAF brings about the anti-SSPX crowd that claims they are Protestant, they are “holier than the Pope”, they are dividing the Church, etc. And they do this with SSPX members unable to defend themselves, since the rules here do not allow them to.

Truth is, the SSPX is a relatively small group of Catholics who believe they are doing what’s best in this time of crisis while still acknowledging Pope Francis as Supreme Pontiff. Any faults they have with obedience or their interpretation of Vatican II is minor compared to the destruction of the Church we see around the world. And though it’s a real longshot now, I still pray for their unification with the Holy See, as should we all.
Click to expand...
How are we better off with a smaller Church, a Church that lets more people go to Hell?

Pope Benedict XVI’s quote on a smaller and purer Church was highly misinterpreted. The Pope was saying that purity is what matters and the numbers should be left up to God.

Monsignor Charles Pope wrote about the misinterpretation at blog.adw.org/2012/09/what-of-the-smaller-but-purer-vision-of-the-church/ and called the desire for a smaller Church a “Dangerous Doctrine”.

St. Paul and St. Peter did not believe in a smaller Church. They tried to save every soul possible.

-Tim-
 
Everyone here has to remember that the Church has the right to govern.

Conversations between the Church and the SSPX are not the same as ecumenical conversations between the Church and a non-Catholic ecclissial body such as the Episcopalians or Methodists.

Non-Catholic Christians organizations are outside of communion with the Church but they are also outside of canon law. The SSPX however are clergy of the Roman Catholic Church who are bound by canon law and the Church has an absolute right to govern in any way she sees fit, including removal of faculties and declarations of schism.

The Society is a clerical organization. Being a member of a clerical organization subject to canon law who’s leadership has committed schismatic acts is not the same as being a member of a non-Catholic Church who’s ancestors committed schismatic acts centuries ago. The Church has the same right to govern the SSPX as they did Martin Luther and his followers who committed schismatic acts.

It’s not a matter of eccumenism or Pope Francis’ style. When the Society is told by legitimate authority that they must accept something and the Society refuses, the society has opened itself up to disciplinary action.

The Church has an absolute right to govern her own.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
Everyone here has to remember that the Church has the right to govern.

Conversations between the Church and the SSPX are not the same as ecumenical conversations between the Church and a non-Catholic ecclissial body such as the Episcopalians or Methodists.

Non-Catholic Christians organizations are outside of communion with the Church but they are also outside of canon law. The SSPX however are clergy of the Roman Catholic Church who are bound by canon law and the Church has an absolute right to govern in any way she sees fit, including removal of faculties and declarations of schism.

The Society is a clerical organization. Being a member of a clerical organization subject to canon law who’s leadership has committed schismatic acts is not the same as being a member of a non-Catholic Church who’s ancestors committed schismatic acts centuries ago. The Church has the same right to govern the SSPX as they did Martin Luther and his followers who committed schismatic acts.

It’s not a matter of eccumenism or Pope Francis’ style. When the Society is told by legitimate authority that they must accept something and the Society refuses, the society has opened itself up to disciplinary action.

The Church has an absolute right to govern her own.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
Yes the Church has a right to govern but it is confusing when liberal groups such as LCWR and Call to Action seem to be free to openly go against Church teaching.
 
lormar said:
of course i know it isn’t in the catechism. It couldn’t be. And this is why catholics have a hard time reconciling what is in the catechism with what is done in practice. And if what is done in practice is acceptable, it should be extended to groups such as the sspx.

A few weeks ago, a jesuit who lives in my diocese told me that it would be acceptable for me, or anyone, to attend, in good conscience, not only the sspx, but a sedevacantist chapel as well if either one or the other suited my “spirituality” (i put the word in quotation marks because it was the term he used). Was he wrong, or right? If he was wrong, how do you tell a man who has been a jesuit for over thirty years he is wrong?
Click to expand...
love it!!
hoosier daddy said:
are we saying that the sspx are seeking the lord less than homosexuals? Or that following their conscience is not allowed for a small group of dissenters but for the larger secular atheistic world it is good enough?

Honestly i am shocked at the level of condemnation and expectation of “punishment”
Click to expand...
love this one, too!
 
TK421 said:
Why are you accusing me of being intolerant? I’m praying for our lost brothers and sisters to return to the Church.
Click to expand...
A stab in the dark here, but perhaps it’s your absolute certainty that they are damned?
 
ProVobis said:
Maybe this is a minor detail but wouldn’t the FSSPX be losing a chapel at the Vatican, which I didn’t even know they had until yesterday?
Click to expand...
Well this is news to me! Pro Vobis, are you certain of this?
 
TimothyH said:
How are we better off with a smaller Church, a Church that lets more people go to Hell?
Click to expand...
The Church is not in control of who goes to Hell. Strictly the individual soul is in control of his or her eternal destiny.
Pope Benedict XVI’s quote on a smaller and purer Church was highly misinterpreted. The Pope was saying that purity is what matters and the numbers should be left up to God.
Click to expand...
Which, in the current climate, actually does translate to a smaller Church. 😉
 
Elizabeth502 said:
The Church is not in control of who goes to Hell. Strictly the individual soul is in control of his or her eternal destiny.

Which, in the current climate, actually does translate to a smaller Church. 😉
Click to expand...
Elizabeth, I would ask you to please pay careful attention to the words I use. I choose my words very carefully.

I did not say that the Church controls who goes to hell. I did not say that a smaller Church sends people to hell. I said that a smaller Church lets more people go to hell. A smaller Church allows more people to go to Hell.

People are better off in the Church than outside of it. People who go to Church have a better chance of going to Heaven than people who do not. So my question still stands, how are we better off with smaller church, one that lets more people send themselves to Hell?

Or to ask it a different way, why is Church only for the pure?

The doctrine of a smaller Church goes against everything Christ taught and St. Paul worked for. You really ought to read Monsignor Pope’s article on the subject.

blog.adw.org/2012/09/what-of-the-smaller-but-purer-vision-of-the-church/

-Tim-
 
Elizabeth502 said:
The Church is not in control of who goes to Hell. Strictly the individual soul is in control of his or her eternal destiny.
Click to expand...
The power to bind and loose is given to the Church by Christ himself. Individuals are not normally condemned by the church, but by their own actions, true, however… The church was granted the power to determine what is and is not a sin, and how sins are to be forgiven.

Also note: some individuals have been anathematized by the Church - they are cut off from the graces the church has to offer, their sins are unforgiven and unforgivable, and thus they cannot die in a state of grace. Only a few anathemas have been rescinded.

The church tempers its’ decisions on what to declare mortal sin based upon the need to bring as many people to God as possible - but in cases where error is being taught, must correct the error. If the Church declares the SSPX in schism, all its members and adherents who do not reconcile before death would be in mortal error, as would any who joined them from the Church; only those born into it or converted into it from non-Catholic churches would be non-culpable for that error. Which explains why they have not been declared schismatic - the church has no desire to condemn them to hell - but should they cross the line too far, they will be.

As laymen, we do not know where Pope Francis will draw the line - but he’s not the softie he’s portrayed as in the media. He’s made many hard decisions, corrected many errant priests, and even made a few errors as a bishop - but he’s always stood firm. Expect no less from him as Pope. If he sees the need, he will act. We may not see the act.

And there will be punishment - we have been assured of that by the scriptures - for their disobedience. But that will be on an individual basis, posthumously…
 
Aramis said:
The church tempers its’ decisions on what to declare mortal sin based upon the need to bring as many people to God as possible - but in cases where error is being taught, must correct the error.
Click to expand...
And again…the question is asked and where the confusion is why is this attention seemingly focused on only the SSPX and not other groups within the Church such as the LCWR and Call to Action that are openly going against Church teaching?
 
TimothyH said:
I did not say that the Church controls who goes to hell. I did not say that a smaller Church sends people to hell.
Click to expand...
The word “lets” means “allows.” That translates, in the context you used, to some kind of ability to allow or disallow the destiny of any particular person. Grace permits, but does not direct.
 
johnnyc176 said:
And again…the question is asked and where the confusion is why is this attention seemingly focused on only the SSPX and not other groups within the Church such as the LCWR and Call to Action that are openly going against Church teaching?
Click to expand...
It does get confusing when extraneous points are brought up. The SSPX is little like those other two groups and their issues have been addressed elsewhere and separately.
 
johnnyc176 said:
And again…the question is asked and where the confusion is why is this attention seemingly focused on only the SSPX and not other groups within the Church such as the LCWR and Call to Action that are openly going against Church teaching?
Click to expand...
They don’t get near the amount of press coverage. I didn’t even recognize the names.

The SSPX is visible world wide, has been in flagrant disobedience for 40 years, and hasn’t had a valid canonical election of a superior in 20+ (Suspended priests are ineligible to vote and to hold office…).
 
TimothyH said:
Pope Benedict XVI’s quote on a smaller and purer Church was highly misinterpreted. The Pope was saying that purity is what matters and the numbers should be left up to God.
Click to expand...
But we know, thanks to the FSSPX or whoever it was that pointed it out, that it’s “many” and not “all”. Just saying.
 
johnnyc176 said:
And again…the question is asked and where the confusion is why is this attention seemingly focused on only the SSPX and not other groups within the Church such as the LCWR and Call to Action that are openly going against Church teaching?
Click to expand...
I really do not want to get sucked into this discussion, so please do not try to pull me into it.

However, Johnny’s question is a legal one and it deserves a response, for his benefit and that of those who don’t know. Who better to respond than a major superior, a Church historian or a canon lawyer. I’m in the first group.

The LCWR is a pontifical organization established by the Holy See and under the protection of the papacy. Therefore, only the papacy can discipline the LCWR. No one else can point the finger at it. Even those bishops who had issues with the LCWR had to take their issues to the Holy See. This applies to the laity as well. It is up to the Holy See to decide if those issues have merit.

In addition, the LCWR represents consecrated religious. The SSPX is a secular society, not a society of consecrated men. It does not have the same rights nor the same degree of autonomy that consecrated religious have. These are secular priests. They are not religious brothers, religious sisters or regular priests. They are secular priests, as secular as the typical husband of any family. Their place in the Church is very different and the rules that apply to them are very different.

Why are the rules so different? The Council of Trent granted religious the Right of Exemption. This means that only the pope can intervene in their internal affairs or the person or persons whom the pope delegates.

Traditionalists have always argued that everything that came out of Trent is infallible, which is not the case. But they argue this. For the sake of consistency, if one believes that everything that came out of Trent is infallible, then the Right of Exemption cannot be retracted. In which case, an organization of religious cannot be treated as an organization of secular clergy, because Trent does not allow this. Each religious has to be judged individually and only the major superior or the pope can discipline said religious.

There is another issue here, which flows out of this Right of Exemption. The Holy See did give a bishop the mandate to oversee the reconstruction of the LCWR and the LCWR has not refused that oversight. The SSPX has refused all oversight by the Holy See, even a prelature. As long as the LCWR accepts the oversight, it must be judged as acting in good faith.

As to Call to Action, individuals in that group were excommunicated a long time ago. They’re no longer in the equation.

One more clarification that Johnny does not bring up, but deserves to be brought up. The FSSP is not an order, neither is the SSPX. They are societies of secular priests. The fact that they have the name “fraternity” in their name does not make them a religious community. Therefore, they do not have the rights of a religious order. Religious orders can move around more freely than secular societies. Once a bishop grants a religious order permission to enter his diocese, he cannot ask it to leave. He does not have that kind of authority over religious, nor can he govern them. A secular society, such as the FSSP or the SSPX (if it were regularized) can be invited by a bishop, must submit to the bishop and can be asked to leave by the bishop, unless it’s a prelature. The laws that govern prelatures protect them against dismissal from a diocese.

I just wanted to clarify the legal differences between these bodies.
 
TK421 said:
May God curse the SSPX so that they do not gain many followers, and that their flock diminishes and scatters. Lord, we pray for many hardships, terrors, and evil to fall upon them so that they may be saved. Amen.
Click to expand...
Please have charity. One should never wish harm or evil on another. If you are concerned for them, pray and sacrifice for them. Our Lord taught the apostles how to pray, not how to curse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top