SSPX?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please see this article for the status of the SSPX. there some erroneous opinions floatnig around here. Lefevbre and the 4 bishiops are technically in schism, but the entire organization is not:

Status of the SSPX

For the record I am not an apologist for the SSPX, but I do sympathize with some of their positions, and I am an apologist for the truth. Untruthful SSPX bashing (whether intentional or not) is not helping anyone.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
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...
So you admit it. You accept being culpable for the sin of schism. The avoidance method you used is not much different than the one I just used on you.

I’m merely asking for the alledged evidence that the SSPX is not is schism. I’m not asking for anything more. Simple. If you want to pick a fight go to the Eastern Christianity forum. They’d love to chat with you like that.

I’ve asked a loaded question but I really want the actual answer. If the SSPX is not is schism show me where someone other than an SSPX says otherwise. Simple. Don’t need a high I.Q. to answer if you have an answer, I just want to know where to find the answer so that I can work myself throught the pain of my father’s death who hated everyone like the SSPX seem to.

BYZCAT
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...
There is no way that could be true. Anyone can baptize, but it may be illicit. I illicitly baptized my son. However, his baptism is recognized by the Church.

I just read somewhere that the Ordinations are valid, but not licit. That would mean that the marriages, confirmations, absolution, annointing of the sick or whatever is valid. But none of it is licit. And finally, the only thing I would have to agree with is that the annulments are not only illicit, but invalid. If the Mass is valid but illicit, then so would the sacraments. Annulments are not a sacrament, they are a scandal.
 
mdstanzel said:
So you admit it. You accept being culpable for the sin of schism. The avoidance method you used is not much different than the one I just used on you.

I’m merely asking for the alledged evidence that the SSPX is not is schism. I’m not asking for anything more. Simple. If you want to pick a fight go to the Eastern Christianity forum. They’d love to chat with you like that.

I’ve asked a loaded question but I really want the actual answer. If the SSPX is not is schism show me where someone other than an SSPX says otherwise. Simple. Don’t need a high I.Q. to answer if you have an answer, I just want to know where to find the answer so that I can work myself throught the pain of my father’s death who hated everyone like the SSPX seem to./QUOTE]​

mdstanzel----I have heard it said—the SSPX prays for the conversion of those outside the Church. If they hated —as you state—they would not pray for them to know the light of our Lord Christ. True love of our fellow man—leads us to seek that everyone knows the love of Christ and in return love Him.
Click to expand...
 
Let me ask a clarifying question. Who is it that believes that the Pope in Rome is not the “real Pope” They believe that their hasn’t been a Pope since I think Pius X. In fact, they elected an new Pope that lives here in the states. This is the group I believe my deceased father was part of and why I left “Rome” thinking you were all heretics.

I wonder if I have the SSPX confused with a different group.
 
The Church doesn’t issue little decrees confirming that people are NOT in schism.

For the grave charge of schism, the burden is on the accuser. Not the accusee.

Ecclesia Dei speaks of the excommunication of the BISHOPS involved in the consecrations of 1988, just as a later rescript excommunicated Licinio Rangel in 1991 when he accepted consecration from the SSPX bishops.

No church document has excommunicated even the priests, let alone laity who frequent the chapels, of the SSPX.
 
Well if the Bishop was excommunicated, then his priest would also be in schism or excommunicated. Right? Because they share in part in the excommunicated bishop’s apostolic ministry. Clarification please.
 
Doesn’t work like that. Receiving ordination from an excommunicated bishop does not carry automatic excommunication under Canon Law.
 
See post #47
Do I have the SSPX mixed up with some other group?
 
I want to make sure I have my schimatic groups straight in my head. 😃 Really I don’t know for sure if this is the group that elected a new Pope. I found the website when I was considering becoming Catholic and this discovery really made me want to go Orthodox. If I come to believe that Orthodox are true, I’ll go there, but I’ll never accept an outright schismatic group that desents.

It is a grave sin to participate with them in my view.

Sedevacantists? Do you have their web site. I want to make sure this is the group. So now I’m really confused.
 
Sedevacantists

That’s them! :eek: I think my dad was part of this group.
truecatholic.org/pope/

:confused: So I’m glad I got that straightened out. So what are the SSPX then. I have to relearn all over again.😊 🤷
 
Walking_Home said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, and I do admit I was a bit quick to add that to the list.

The baptisms are illict.

A Catholic is bound by the laws of the Church. The only baptisms that are licit that are performed by the SSPX are those done in the case of death.

As for those cases where the marriages and confessions of those done by the schismatic group, Society of St John Vianney, in Brazil… No they were not required to be redone because the Church made them valid by radical sanation (sanatio in radice).

Which shows that there is sometime wrong with what this group was doing before it returned to communion with Rome.
 
jmj603 said:
Doesn’t Confirmation by a priest require jurisdiction?
Click to expand...
Yes, a priest who is delegated this power does require that it be granted by the local ordainary. So does a bishop if he is going to confirm in the jurisdiction of another ordinary.

As the SSPX Bishops are suspended automatically they do not have any jurisdiction.
 
mdstanzel said:
Well if the Bishop was excommunicated, then his priest would also be in schism or excommunicated. Right? Because they share in part in the excommunicated bishop’s apostolic ministry. Clarification please.
Click to expand...
The priests are ordained illicitly and automatically suspended from acting as priests. That is as far as the Catholic Church is concerned.
 
AquinaSavio said:
The SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) is a group dedicated to preserving the Traditions of the Church.

CLICK HERE for their homepage.
Click to expand...
As long as not being in communion with the Church is part of those Traditions. Just to mention one thing that is not traditional about them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top