SSPX?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well the doctrine doesn’t change between the two. Traditionalist have the same CCC the NO have. The Church is the same, the leaders are the same. One says the mass in the vernacular one says it in Latin.
Cat said:
Is my pastor really a terrible infidel because he sometimes talks about the Chicago Bears during his homily instead of chanting in Latin? Am I really doing it wrong to receive Our Lord in my hand instead of on the tongue? Should I be sending a letter to my Bishop about all the kids who show up to Mass wearing their soccer outfits? Are “The Light Of The World Retreats” that originated in our parish “quasi-Protestant trash?”
Click to expand...
Again very unfair bias statement. Homily are never said in Latin little alone chanted in it and I don’t care if he uses Care Bears to make his point so long as it is Doctrinally correct.
Cat said:
I guess one thing that frightens me is why the Pope isn’t able to corral this SSPX/Trad thing. My husband said, “Well, the SSPX doesn’t accept the authority of the pope, so he can’t do anything about them They won’t listen him.” Is that true?
Click to expand...
The SSPX thing is a sticky subject and one I’m not going to get in too. If you really curious about that you should read the sites above me. John Paul II gave the us the FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter) expressly to promulgate the Latin Mass. It is done with full permission of the Bishop where they are and in Full communion with Rome. Not much to corral there.
Cat said:
Of course, some of the Trads say that Pope Benedict is their buddy and that he is THIS CLOSE to bringing back the old days when the Catholic Church was completely correct. Is that true?
Click to expand...
Uhh… Not really. Nor have I seen that anywhere. He is supposedly going to make a statement that may or may not say a bishop my not forbid a priest form saying the Latin Mass publicly (which they seem to be able to do know … but that’s debatable too) Would that bring us back to the old days. Nope not at all. Probably wouldn’t really change much of anything other than having a few more Latin Masses around.
Cat said:
And if they don’t accept the authority of the pope, then why are they tolerated on this board? At least the Protestants are known entities. But these SSPX/Trads claim to be Catholics and mislead and frighten people like me who don’t know much.
Click to expand...
They do accept the authority of the Pope. Period. Not seeing them misleading or frightening anyone either. Maybe you can give some examples?
Cat said:
This kind of thing sure gives fuel for the anti-Catholic fodder. I can answer a lot of anti-Catholic objections thanks to the apologists on this Board. But I can not answer the questions about SSPX, Trads, and how this can be reconciled with the Catholic claim of “ONE” holy catholic Church. I don’t know the answer. That’s why I’m asking for information.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Were talking about a difference in how someone prefers to hear Mass and approaches things like Lenten Fasts and Friday Abstinence, not about the actual teaching of the Church here.
 
Seminarian_Matt said:
Cardinal Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, has frequently said that SSPX is NOT in schism. He just recenlty said this after Pope Benedict XVI visited Brazil. I repeat: They are NOT in schism.

acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2007/05/address-of-cardinal-hoyos-to-celam.html
Click to expand...
By definition they are in schism.

They are not in communoin with Rome, they left that communion by their own actions.

The good Cardinal may have an opinion on the matter but the Church has ruled that they are in schism and nothing will change that until they come back.

Having said that, I went to the blog you linked and no where does the Cardinal say that they are not in schism.

Did you acutally read it?

Here is what he said in part.

Nowadays, the activity of the Commission is not limited to the service of those faithful who, at that time, wished to remain in full communion with the Church, nor to the efforts made to put an end to the painful schismatic situation and to attain the return of these brothers of the Saint Pius X fraternity to full communion.

If there is a schismatic situtation then someone is in schism.
 
ddeluna said:
Amen! Amen! 👍

David
Click to expand...
I just hope you don’t have one of those French bishops who’ve made it clear they will break off with the Vatican if B16 pushes through his MP.

While we’re at it, you may ask your bishop how he feels about the TLM and see if he agrees with the Pope. If not is he not as bad as Lefebrve who unfortunately did not have the same support from his peers?
 
Please show the clear statement from Pope Benedict XVI that they are in fact not in schism. I guess because the Pope meets with the Orthodox and donates an Icon or two we’re not to believe they’re in schism either. Sorry - just making a point of logic.
 
mdstanzel said:
Please show the clear statement from Pope Benedict XVI that they are in fact not in schism.
Click to expand...
As opposed to whom?

Do you really expect the Pope to be wasting his time and go through an entire Catholic list and tell us who isn’t in schism?

Personally I’d be more interested in the status of the French and German bishops who are opposing the release of the M.P. and have actually threatened, unlike Lefebrve, to create a schism if passed.
 
BobP123 said:
As opposed to whom?

Do you really expect the Pope to be wasting his time and go through an entire Catholic list and tell us who isn’t in schism?

Personally I’d be more interested in the status of the French and German bishops who are opposing the release of the M.P. and have actually threatened, unlike Lefebrve, to create a schism if passed.
Click to expand...
Good observation. If the MP does come about—it may actually bring to light the wolves in sheeps clothing. In other words—those who actually support the Pope (are in communion with him) vs. those who only pay him lip service—while underneath oppose him.
 
Seminarian_Matt said:
For reference, here is a thread on another message board on the topic of the SSPX. I repeat: they are NOT in schism.

websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=1923853
Click to expand...
You say your a seminarian so you should know this one.

Give us the definition of schism.

I will repeat what the Chruch says, the SSPX is in schism. This is shown by their actions as well as their not being in communion with Rome. They have set up their own jurisdictions and are not obedient or in communion with the local ordinaries. Their orders and Eucharist are illicit and their confessions/baptisms/confirmations/marriages are invalid. They even go so far as to grant annullments.
 
Disputed point. The pope has curial officials who handle various issues. For matters regarding the SSPX, the point man for the pope is Cardinal Castrillon. He has publicly stated “the SSPX” isn’t in schism. Cardinal Castrillon isn’t just a cardinal shooting his mouth off, either. He is the pope’s curial dicasterial official for SSPX and related matters.

At best, it’s a disputed point. And I’m no SSPX apologist.

Even John Paul’s Ecclesia Dei specifically excommunicated the BISHOPS, not “the SSPX”.
 
BobP123 said:
Do you really expect the Pope to be wasting his time and go through an entire Catholic list and tell us who isn’t in schism?
Click to expand...
In the case of the SSPX, I would expect a Papal document clarifying the meaning of the phrase “the schism” in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, paragraph 5(c), and the term “rejection of the Roman primacy” in paragraph 3 of the same motu proprio.
 
Well said. Rome has never clarified such things as “formal adherence” to the schism of the bishops.

When the Institute of the Good Shepherd was founded last September, there was no removal of schism for the priests who joined it (all from the SSPX).
 
In the case of confessions and jurisdiction etc, they also were not required to re-confess their sins…
 
I know a number of SSPX couples who started attending the FSSP and were not required to have their marriages sanated.
 
ByzCath said:
You say your a seminarian so you should know this one.

Give us the definition of schism.

I will repeat what the Chruch says, the SSPX is in schism. This is shown by their actions as well as their not being in communion with Rome. They have set up their own jurisdictions and are not obedient or in communion with the local ordinaries. Their orders and Eucharist are illicit and their confessions/baptisms/confirmations/marriages are invalid. They even go so far as to grant annullments.
Click to expand...
ByzCath—when you become a priest—are you going to reject baptism done in the protestant churches as invalid–even though the correct formula was used.
 
ByzCath is quite wrong about baptisms and confirmations.

SSPX baptisms are quite valid. So are confirmations.

NO ONE baptized or confirmed in the SSPX has ever been conditionally rebaptized or reconfirmed. Not a one.

Neither sacrament requires jurisdiction under Canon Law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top