SSPX??

[Abenadar]

The SSPX leaders disagreed with the teachings of Vatican II itself, and still do. Not just the fruits.

Not so. The SSPX leaders disagreed with the damaging and un-Catholic interpretations of Vatican II. They have said many times that Vatican II, interpreted in the light of tradition (that is, in light of 1960 years of constant, unchangeable teachings) Vatican II is fine.

One problem, however, that the SSPX has with the results or the “spirit” of Vatican II is the mass confusion it caused and the deplorable state of the Catholic Church since the council. Just look around…Today the majority of self-described Catholics have no clue whatsoever about what the Church teaches regarding even very basic things. Just look around…

 

[Abenadar]

If you can distinguish between “schism” and “schismatic acts” and explain how some doing the former who have “priests” whom the Pope teaches do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Catholic Church I am sure we would benefit from that understanding. thanks.

It would appear that you are one of the minority around the TC section of this site who doesn’t understand the difference between “schism” and “schismatic acts”. Here’s an example that I’ve used here before:

If a person runs out into the street in front of a moving car that is a very foolish act. But what you may not have known is that he did so in order to save the life of a little child who ran out into that street. All of a sudden that “foolish act” that he did can also be viewed as being a very brave act, and a very self-sacrificing act and even a very prudent act. And just because he acted foolishly does this make him a fool??? Of course not!

 

[Abenadar]

Where? I’m sorry, I didn’t see where. Thanks for any help.

Because you didn’t follow the news you’re missing context. He’s writing largely to the American and especially the European bishops who regularly disregard the whole splinter/plank/eye thing.

 

[I_Believe]

Schism is indeed ugly. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has a long history of dealing with schismatics. .

They are not in schism.

 

[Mumbles140]

It would appear that you are one of the minority around the TC section of this site who doesn’t understand the difference between “schism” and “schismatic acts”. Here’s an example that I’ve used here before:

If a person runs out into the street in front of a moving car that is a very foolish act. But what you may not have known is that he did so in order to save the life of a little child who ran out into that street. All of a sudden that “foolish act” that he did can also be viewed as being a very brave act, and a very self-sacrificing act and even a very prudent act. And just because he acted foolishly does this make him a fool??? Of course not!

First and foremost, I have no personal vendetta / disliking / distrust of SSPX–I’m not particularly interested in joining an SSPX church, but I would like to know more about what is going on. I am confused by your example though. Not that it is difficult to understand (SSPX is the ‘fool’, Tradition is the child, the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II is the car), but it doesn’t necessarily hold in my opinion.

I think it is simply a manipulation of words when someone says they accept Vatican II but not the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II. Again, I understand what you mean by that phrase, but it doesn’t seem to hold logically.

Also, you talk of how if the child were in the street, the ‘foolish act’ would be ‘very brave’, but that is when judgment is made before one knows the child is in the street. The ‘schismatic acts’ were performed clearly and evidently for the purpose of ‘rescuing the child’ from the street, and that knowledge had been known long before the 1988 ordinations.

Again, I understand the metaphor, but at the same time, the way you portray it doesn’t match the allusions correctly to reality in the sense of what actually happened, and I think that’s another way of using words that sound reasonable to make SSPX appear to be Edmond Dantes.

 

[diggerdomer]

It would appear that you are one of the minority around the TC section of this site who doesn’t understand the difference between “schism” and “schismatic acts”. Here’s an example that I’ve used here before:

If a person runs out into the street in front of a moving car that is a very foolish act. But what you may not have known is that he did so in order to save the life of a little child who ran out into that street. All of a sudden that “foolish act” that he did can also be viewed as being a very brave act, and a very self-sacrificing act and even a very prudent act. And just because he acted foolishly does this make him a fool??? Of course not!

Nonsense. Either he acted foolishly or bravely (prudentially, self-sacrificingly, etc.).

 

[diggerdomer]

I’ll say it again: The SSPX denies no Catholic dogma. On the other hand, it is quite clear that the SSPX has reservations about certain interpretations of what should be clear and concise Catholic teaching by the very fact that there are so many interpretations. The SSPX isn’t against a Catholic understanding of Vatican II. The SSPX is against the oft very un-Catholic “interpretations” of Vatican II’s nebulous “spirit”. It seems that Pope Benedict XVI understands this point, thus the doctrinal talks that are currently taking place.

And one more time for emphasis: The SSPX denies no Catholic dogma.

Not so! The SSPX believes and teaches Catholic dogma without changing one iota of it.

You and everyone can read for yourselves what part of the Catholic CHurch’s Mhgisterium the SSPX rejects from their own website as I’ve posted: sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm

Whether one uses the label of “dogma” or not is pretty much beside the point. The SSPX rejects parts of Vatican II, The Code of Canon Law, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. See the link. The Magisterium warrants our assent, regardless of whether a particular teaching is classified as “dogma” or not. You can’t pick and choose what parts or teachings of the Magisterium you listen to.

 

[Abenadar]

Nonsense. Either he acted foolishly or bravely (prudentially, self-sacrificingly, etc.).

What does it matter? Some people think he acted foolishly, others think he acted prudently. Either way his ‘schismatic’ action doesn’t constitute schism. That’s all I’m sayin’.

 

[diggerdomer]

What does it matter? Some people think he acted foolishly, others think he acted prudently. Either way his ‘schismatic’ action doesn’t constitute schism. That’s all I’m sayin’.

If the Pope thinks they acted schismatically that’s what counts. Not what you or I think, in the case of official status. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[Abenadar]

You and everyone can read for yourselves what part of the Catholic CHurch’s Mhgisterium the SSPX rejects from their own website as I’ve posted: sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm

Whether one uses the label of “dogma” or not is pretty much beside the point. The SSPX rejects parts of Vatican II, The Code of Canon Law, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. See the link. The Magisterium warrants our assent, regardless of whether a particular teaching is classified as “dogma” or not. You can’t pick and choose what parts or teachings of the Magisterium you listen to.

Vatican II didn’t teach anything new. Just read what Pope John XXIII said in his opening statement, and what Paul VI reaffirmed later.

Also, just from the standpoint of common sense, don’t you think that the vatican would definitely define the SSPX as a “heretical” society if they were in any way lacking in terms of believing Catholic Dogma? Why does the Vatican consider the SSPX to be an “internal” matter of the Church, and for heaven’s sake, why are they holding these doctrinal talks with the SSPX if Vatican II (or at least its interpretations) aren’t very suspect? Exactly.

 

[Abenadar]

If the Pope thinks they acted schismatically that’s what counts. Not what you or I think, in the case of official status. That’s all I’m saying.

Dude, you’re still not getting it. “Acts of Schism” don’t necessarily constitute “Schism”.

The officiall status is that Marcel Lefebvre commited an act of schism, but there never was an actual schism, and the reason for this goes back to the code of canon law, 1323 and 1324, if I’m not mistaken, to name only two.

 

[diggerdomer]

Vatican II didn’t teach anything new. Just read what Pope John XXIII said in his opening statement, and what Paul VI reaffirmed later.

So that’s even less excusable for SSPX to reject it.

Also, just from the standpoint of common sense, don’t you think that the vatican would definitely define the SSPX as a “heretical” society if they were in any way lacking in terms of believing Catholic Dogma? Why does the Vatican consider the SSPX to be an “internal” matter of the Church, and for heaven’s sake, why are they holding these doctrinal talks with the SSPX if Vatican II (or at least its interpretations) aren’t very suspect? Exactly.

Charity.

 

[diggerdomer]

Dude, you’re still not getting it. “Acts of Schism” don’t necessarily constitute “Schism”.

The officiall status is that Marcel Lefebvre commited an act of schism, but there never was an actual schism, and the reason for this goes back to the code of canon law, 1323 and 1324, if I’m not mistaken, to name only two.

I’m not sure how significant the difference is between schism formally declared and formally declaring that a group has performed “schismatic acts” and their ministers do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Church.

I don’t see how Canons 1323 and 1324 apply.

 

[Abenadar]

I’m not sure how significant the difference is between schism formally declared and formally declaring that a group has performed “schismatic acts” and their ministers do not exercise legitimate ministry in the Church.

I don’t see how Canons 1323 and 1324 apply.

They clearly apply to Lefebvre and his actions in '88.

Also, in regard to the first statement, schism formally declared versus schismatic acts…Don’t you think that JPII would have been precise enough to differentiate between the two?

 

[Mumbles140]

Also, in regard to the first statement, schism formally declared versus schismatic acts…Don’t you think that JPII would have been precise enough to differentiate between the two?

No, actually, I don’t. I think it’s similar to the statements President Lincoln made: ‘If I have to free every slave to preserve the Union, I will. If I have to hold every slave to preserve the Union, I will. If I have to free some slaves and not others to preserve the Union, I will’

The ‘schismatic act’ by Marcel Lefebvre did not put the whole of SSPX in schism, but it placed those involved in the schismatic acts (and those who continued to endorse/partake in said acts) outside the liturgy of the Church, which you can phrase it however you want, but I think schism is the most appropriate term.

Again, I have nothing against SSPX, especially as one who attends the TLM, and I fervently pray that there will be a reconciliation between them and Rome. But at the end of the day, whether it was officially declared or not, I would have to believe that Archbishop Lefebvre and all the others involved in the schismatic act were in schism until the excommunications (or whatever they were, memories a little hazy) were lifted by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

 

[anode]

No, actually, I don’t. I think it’s similar to the statements President Lincoln made: ‘If I have to free every slave to preserve the Union, I will. If I have to hold every slave to preserve the Union, I will. If I have to free some slaves and not others to preserve the Union, I will’

The ‘schismatic act’ by Marcel Lefebvre did not put the whole of SSPX in schism, but it placed those involved in the schismatic acts (and those who continued to endorse/partake in said acts) outside the liturgy of the Church, which you can phrase it however you want, but I think schism is the most appropriate term.

Again, I have nothing against SSPX, especially as one who attends the TLM, and I fervently pray that there will be a reconciliation between them and Rome. But at the end of the day, whether it was officially declared or not, I would have to believe that Archbishop Lefebvre and all the others involved in the schismatic act were in schism until the excommunications (or whatever they were, memories a little hazy) were lifted by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

Hear, hear, Mum!
(That’s the correct form. I just looked it up)

 

[Timothysis]

Again, I have nothing against SSPX, especially as one who attends the TLM, and I fervently pray that there will be a reconciliation between them and Rome. But at the end of the day, whether it was officially declared or not, I would have to believe that Archbishop Lefebvre and all the others involved in the schismatic act were in schism until the excommunications (or whatever they were, memories a little hazy) were lifted by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

If one commits “schismatic acts,” does that make one a “schismatic?” I would tend to think that it would. The reason why the sspx has never been declared schismatic by Rome is that the question has simply never been addressed. If Rome were to officially decide the question, then it may not fall on the side of sspx supporters. If one “sins,” then that person is technically a “sinner.” How can someone commit “schismatic acts” and not be in “schism?”

 

[Mumbles140]

Precisely my thoughts, Tim. Thanks for putting it so clearly and to the point.

 

[Abenadar]

It is possible, as I’ve said many, many times, because canon law itself allows for such. Even if you don’t believe that certain canons apply to the SSPX situation, it is quite clear that a schismatic act can be performed without resulting in schism.

Tim, you said:

The reason why the sspx has never been declared schismatic by Rome is that the question has simply never been addressed.

This is absurd. The question has been addressed many times in various ways…including with those Hawaii SSPX confirmations where the local ordinary “excommunicated” the ones being confirmed, and then having that ruling promptly overturned by Rome. JPII went just as far as he was legally able to punish Lefebvre and the other five, yet even he never actually said there was a schism…because he wasn’t able to. Moreover, the SSPX has always been an internal matter of the church. If they were in schism it wouldn’t be an “internal” thing. You see things in black and white when many things aren’t.

 

[Timothysis]

This is absurd. The question has been addressed many times in various ways…including with those Hawaii SSPX confirmations where the local ordinary “excommunicated” the ones being confirmed, and then having that ruling promptly overturned by Rome. JPII went just as far as he was legally able to punish Lefebvre and the other five, yet even he never actually said there was a schism…because he wasn’t able to. Moreover, the SSPX has always been an internal matter of the church. If they were in schism it wouldn’t be an “internal” thing. You see things in black and white when many things aren’t.

For the sake of all of us, could you please point to the instance where the Holy See conducted an investigation into the sspx, considering if they, as a society, are in schism or not? I contend that this hasn’t happend. You contend that it’s been addressed “many times in various ways.” I do agree that for singular, isolated instances a ruling has been made to a particular circumstance but not for the society as a whole. I do not wish to be “absurd.” If you can point me to a judgement from the Holy See that the sspx, as a society, is either in or not in a state of schism I would be forever grateful.