Actually, SSPX is not in schism, but their relationship with the Holy See is “irregular”.They object to things like religious freedom, interreligious dialogue, liturgical changes, and (I think) the separation of Church and State. The documents of Vatican II refute them. I’m not sure what you mean about the fruits intended.
Yes, they are in schism.
Ok, I guess what I’m asking is, why the change in the liturgy, the different prayers, the taking away of some prayers?They object to things like religious freedom, interreligious dialogue, liturgical changes, and (I think) the separation of Church and State. The documents of Vatican II refute them. I’m not sure what you mean about the fruits intended.
Yes, they are in schism.
{snip}{snip}
Yes, the relationship is “irregular” but more specifically it’s schism. The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei was set up specifically to address this; in the letter establishing the commission, John Paul II noted the “shismatic act” of illicit ordinations:
A Mass can be validNope, sorry.
Their Mass can be valid even though they’re in schism.
They were excommunicated, and in schism. Lifting the excommunication is separate and distinct from the issue of schism.
Nope, a Catholic cannot satisfy their Sunday obligation by attending a schismatic Eucharistic celebration.
Nope, their being schismatic does not necessarily mean their sacraments are invalid (though they could be) but it does mean their sacraments are illicit.
It’s simply not true to equate schismatic with excommunication. There are a number of schismatic groups that have not been formally excommunicated.
These are just the most obvious comments that come to mind. If you know anyone locally who has theological or canonical training or experience, please check with them and feel free to subsequently post corrections.
Cheers
You made the assertions, you back up what you say. I will not help you support error.Please help me, since you’re the one saying I’m factually incorrect–on what basis?
Nope. Not at all. Recall the recent (scandalous) issue of a bishop in South America (was it Brazil?) “excommunicating” those who assisted in an abortion for a 9-year-old girl who had been impregnated by her step-father (if I recall the facts correctly).Scimsmatic is not equivalent to excommunication? That is not correct. Excommunication is part and parcel of of schism.
Ok, if you’re not up to it, let me know what specific parts of what I posted you object to. Or, if it’s everything let me know that. By the way, I don’t assume either of us is completely in error…you apparently think I’m simply in error and you’re not?You made the assertions, you back up what you say. I will not help you support error.
Nice attempt to dodge. Howrever, it is YOU who claimed the SSPX are in schism. PROVE IT.Ok, if you’re not up to it, let me know what specific parts of what I posted you object to. Or, if it’s everything let me know that. By the way, I don’t assume either of us is completely in error…you apparently think I’m simply in error and you’re not?
Thanks.
Not enough. A “schismatic act” does mean schism. You are goin to have to provide more prrof than a single quote. Much has been written. Is this all you can come up with?Thank you for being so polite. I appreciate it.
Pope John Paul II referred to the SSPX group as being schismatic when he established the Commission Ecclesia Dei. If he referred to them as schismatic, that’s good enough for me. vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
So, if a community is in schism, can we agree that attending their worship/sacramental celebrations does not satisfy the Catholic Sunday obligation?
Or, do you disagree with John Paul II that schism exists? Or do you disagree that worshipping with a schismatic group does not satisfy the Sunday obligation?
If you don’t agree, just let me know, I’ll find the resources needed.
Cheers and thanks again for being so polite.
I looked really carefully, but did not see where the Holy Father, or the former Holy Father, stated that SSPX are in schism. Perhaps I am blind. Please show us all by quoting the documents in your next post where it says SSPX is in schism. Failure to do that will simply prove that you are under the influence of “faithful” Catholic groups like Call to Action.Well if John Paul II calling the action a schismatic act is not enough for you to have us agree that SSPX is in schism, I’m sorry but I don’t have the resources to convince you further. You can believe what you want to about the SSPX, I’ll stick with what the Popes (both JPII and Benedict XVI) teach.
The only other item I’d offer is Benedict XVI’s letter lifting the excommunication of the four bishops noted. This letter states as is well known that lifting the excommunication is a personal initiative, i.e. it affects the four bishops noted…it does not remove the problem of the institution/society being in schism i.e. celebrating sacraments illicitly.
212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/c0_en.htm
If, despite what JPII and BXVI have taught you support the SSPX and don’t see how they celebrate sacraments illicitly and are not in communion with the Catholic Church…well, that’s your prerogative. I’ve presented what I think are the most obvious supports for my thoughts, if you have ANY Catholic documentation for yours please feel free to share them (I don’t think you’ve done so yet).
Cheers
Cheers
There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
Does he come right out and say in four words “they are in schism”? No. But look at what he says (as well as the other Church teaching references I’ve provided which you have not refuted from Church teaching)."In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ - the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope - to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Vatican Council II and the post- conciliar Magisterium of the Popes.