What Makes SSPX schismatic?

[bear06]

I don’t think that this is true. If someone has a good intention and acts on the basis of his informed conscience to do what he believes is right and correct, I don’t see how that person has committed a grievous sin.

This is where knowing the mind of the Supreme Legislator comes in. Let’s make the examples a little easier. If a person knows that the Holy Father teaches that it is wrong to marry a person who is still married in the eyes of the Church but the person decides that it is a good thing because there are children involved and it would be good for them to grow up in a two parent home, there stil is grievous sin no matter what the intentions are because he knows the mind of the Supreme Legislator. Of course, many more examples could be used. A woman is on chemotherapy and it would be very harmful to a baby if she conceived and they use birth control. Many people can have informed consciences and still talk themselves into believing they’re doing a noble thing by disobeying the Supreme Legislator.

That all said, should a person not know that the Church teaches you can’t use birth control even if it could put a child’s life in danger then you’ve got a whole other ball game.

 

[bear06]

Really?
When did the Church say that? Was that before or after Cardinal Mahony said he was going to pay out $600 million dollars to victims of clergy crimes or was it before or after the various dioceses said that they had to declare bankruptcy because of clerical abuse.
The SSPX, acting in good faith, believes that the Church is in a state of emergency, and I don’t see the official papal declaration to the contrary. Why do you think that people are going to Mass at SSPX?

So, let’s see. Now the SSPX is stating that because of the priest scandal that they were justified in 1988 of ordaining 4 bishops? Please, oh please, can we stop pointing to the Mahoneys of this world to excuse the SSPX?

 

[bobzills]

So, let’s see. Now the SSPX is stating that because of the priest scandal that they were justified in 1988 of ordaining 4 bishops? Please, oh please, can we stop pointing to the Mahoneys of this world to excuse the SSPX?

The first question is where did the Pope issue an official statement saying that the Church is not in an emergency situation? The second question is why are Catholics leaving their local Church and attending Mass at SSPX?

 

[bear06]

The first question is where did the Pope issue an official statement saying that the Church is not in an emergency situation? The second question is why are Catholics leaving their local Church and attending Mass at SSPX?

Well, first off, you misquoted me. I said Church. If you’re looking for a quote from JPII, you won’t get it. Secondly, I said was. This pertains to Lefebvre using the grave fear/emergency/state of necessity clause. Lastly, I use emergency and state of necessity interchangebly. Hope that didn’t lead you to confusion.

First of all the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts said this I think the link is already in previous post:
Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts recently explains in its Protocol Number 5233/96:

“However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio [Ecclesia Dei] and the Decree [of excommunication against Lefebvre]. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances (cf CIC, can 1323-1324). As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and *there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. * This would, in fact, imply the possibility of ‘serving’ the Church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity.”

Also, if you want to look at previous Magisteriums, I found this in Pete Vere’s canonical study:

Under the pontificate of Pius XII, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office decreed that, “Episcopus, cuiusvis ritus vel dignitatis, aliquem, neque ab Apostolica Sede nominatum neque ab Eadem expresse confirmaum, consecraus in Episcopum, et qui consecrationem recipit, etsi metu gravi coacti ([c*.] 2229 §3:3o [CIC/17]), incurrunt ipso facto in excommunicationem Apostolicae Sedi specialissimo modo reservatam.”(94) In short, the former law decrees that grave fear does not mitigate from the penalty of excommunication when one consecrates bishops without papal mandate

As to your second question…My guess would be frustration, pride and a few other things. And I really don’t see a mass exodus to the SSPX. Sorry.

 

[bobzills]

As to your second question…My guess would be frustration, pride and a few other things…

Why are Catholics frustrated? If everything is in such wonderful shape, what would be making them frustrated?

 

[Joab_Anias]

Just not sure why,

Obstinate disobedience.

 

[Like]

Obstinate disobedience.

And another for your signature!

 

[BobP123]

There is apparently disagreement as to whether or not the Church today accepts the confessions and marriages of the SSPX as valid.

I haven’t heard any big issues with marriages. It’s the annulments that they are alleged to grant that have caused major grief.

And if the SSPX marriages are not valid, try just walking out of them (divorce, separation) without problems.

 

[BobP123]

No matter his intent, he has sinned grievously and publicly, and so have those priests who follow him knowing he’s been excommunicated.

So who appointed you God?

 

[BobP123]

And another for your signature!

Speaking of disobedience, I hope your bishop isn’t one who will soon be getting a little letter from Rome.

The foxes will soon become the chickens they had planned to eat.

 

[BobP123]

Obstinate disobedience.

Speaking of disobedience, I hope your bishop isn’t one who will soon be getting a little letter from Rome.

The foxes will soon become the chickens they had planned to eat.

 

[BobP123]

Please, oh please, can we stop pointing to the Mahoneys of this world to excuse the SSPX?

I would think the sex scandals and bankruptcies of the Mahoneys of the world are hardly of the same “internal matter” that Rome wishes its relationship with Bishop Fellay to be. Yet we insist on judging the SSPX?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Pepsi and Coke aren’t leading other to sin.

Actually it is now been medically proven that Coke and Pepsi lead to grave obesity. In almost all cases this obviously denotes Gluttony.

Have you read the Summa Theologic By St Thomas Aquinas concerning Gluttony and that it is a Mortal Sin?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

There are times when I wish that the Pope would just eliminate the entire Mass, all the rites, all the liturgy, and just have a priest stand outside of his apartment with a container of Consecrated Hosts and hand them out individually to whoever was willing to come and receive the Lord. Then perhaps we could end all the fighting about architecture, music, words, homilies, bowing, etc. Isn’t that what causes a lot of these splits in the Catholic Church–arguments over the form of Mass? Satan must be howling with laughter.

This has *already been accomplished *with the Second Vatican Council and the implementation of the Novus Ordo service (Pauline service).

I am sure not about Satan and his laughter, but someone has mentioned that Rome is burning. Now this may be true because why is there an **Obelisk **sitting in an what looks like an occult circle in St Peter’s? (would genuinely like to know the answer to this, thank you )

 

[TraditionalCath]

Just not sure why, and also, what is SSPV?

the fact that the archbishop, marcel lefebvre went against the pope and ordained 4 bishops without papal approval.

the sspv is a schismatic and sede vacantist group called the society of saint pius v that believes erroneously that the throne of peter is vacant, and that there has been no legit pope since pius xii.
which is totally erroneous.

 

[GerardP]

Are they in schism?

Formally, no. They have not declared themselves to no longer accept the pope.

Informally, any who are publicly offering the mass are violating their suspension, and thus acting in a schismatic matter by denying the pope’s authority to suspend them.

 

[GerardP]

the fact that the archbishop, marcel lefebvre went against the pope and ordained 4 bishops without papal approval.

Do you believe that the Pope is irresistible in all things?

 

[GerardP]

So, let’s see. Now the SSPX is stating that because of the priest scandal that they were justified in 1988 of ordaining 4 bishops? Please, oh please, can we stop pointing to the Mahoneys of this world to excuse the SSPX?

This is a strange twisting and caricaturing of arguments.

The priest scandal is just an example of hypocrisy and injustice on the part of the hierarchy.

Malfeasance and misfeasance in high office were and are the reasons for the objectively real emergency. And that is the justification for the emergency measures taken by the SSPX.

In other words, the bad bishops that are in “full communion” and de facto full rebellion, endangering the bodies and the souls of those who are placed in their care by the Popes themselves who do NOTHING to protect the endangered flock are doing the work of God?

 

[TraditionalCath]

Do you believe that the Pope is irresistible in all things?

irresistable, or infallible? the pope is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine. is he irresistable? he is certainly one who commands respect, and honor as the head of the church and rightfully so. what do you mean by irresistable? loveable? precisely what does this have to do with sspx? nothing. if your referring to the decision of john paul ii in regards to the sspx, he is absolutely correct. you do not go against the pope. the sspx did not have to disobey the pope. they set their own standard, and decided to do something they were asked not to do. they went ahead and did it anyways without papal approval. that was not right to do so.

 

[GerardP]

irresistable, or infallible?

Irresistible is what I’m asking.

the pope is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine.

That’s good to know but irrelevant since the actions of archbishop LeFebvre and the SSPX attributed in Ecclesia Dei don’t concern faith and doctrine.

is he irresistable? he is certainly one who commands respect, and honor as the head of the church and rightfully so. what do you mean by irresistable?

The office is one that demands respect. Whether the individual occupant of the office commands respect is contingent on the character of the individuals. We’ve certainly had Popes in the past who were not respectable as people.

What I mean by irresistible in all things is. No matter what the Pope says, you have to believe it to be true. If he tells you 2+2=5, then you say, “5 it is!”

loveable? precisely what does this have to do with sspx? nothing.

No. It has everything to do with the SSPX. If the Pope is resistible in some matters then that opens up the whole issue for justifying the position of the SSPX.

If the Pope is irresistible in all things then it doesn’t and the case is closed.

if your referring to the decision of john paul ii in regards to the sspx, he is absolutely correct.

You are saying this is an infallible declaration then?

you do not go against the pope.

So you are saying that he is irresistible no matter what?

the sspx did not have to disobey the pope.

The question is, did they justifiably disobey the pope.

they set their own standard,

Actually, no. They looked at the objective standard established by the Magisterium of the Church and sacred tradition and the moral teaching of the Church.

and decided to do something they were asked not to do.

Interesting point. It’s been established that at no point did JPII actually command them not to consecrate the bishops. Requests were made, appeals and cajolings. Schism was never mentioned till after the event. JPII made his will known but never commanded that his will be implemented. This is important.

they went ahead and did it anyways without papal approval.

Why was papal approval not given when it had previously been understood that the consecration of a bishop would be beneficial?

that was not right to do so.

Does right and wrong weigh equally on the obligations of the Pope and the hierarchy as it does on the SSPX?