What Makes SSPX schismatic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thecoach
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here’s the response you need, direct from the horse’s mouth (as it were) as to why they are, in fact, schismatic and to be avoided:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

This link is to the motu proprio of the Servant of God, Pope John Paul II of happy memory, in which he clearly lays out how the Archbishop and bishops excommunicated themselves, how the priests are suspended ad divinis, and how the faithful are warned against association with the SSPX.
 
The SSPV split off from the SSPX and went sedevacantist (they don’t believe there is a pope or they’ve elected their own).

Here’s a few articles on the SSPX. Of course you’re going to here in a few minutes that they are not really in schism. Technically, there are a few bishops formally declared in schism and the priests are not formally declared so but there has been indication from the Vatican that the priests, after all of these years, are probably also in schism.

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id9.html (Fidelity magazine article)
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id18.html (Fidelity magazine article)
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id55.html (Jimmy Akin)
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html (Pete Vere)
 
Pax_et_Caritas said:
Rome has been saying for some time now that the SSPX is not in true schism. They are in an irregular situation due to the illicit consecration of Bishops against the will of the Pope, but it does not constitute formal schism.

Here’s ac article with all the recent quotes from Rome:

renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070410
Click to expand...
Produce the document. Rome has not said this in any official capacity that I know of.
 
Yes, the SSPX is “schismatic” but hey, if you’re an archbishop and give transexuals Communion as one did in the left coast — that is “A OK.” After all, we don’t want to offend anyone. The fact of the matter is Archbishop Lefebvre transmitted what he received. This is a fight for the faith. A battle of good and evil. Don’t be deceived. Cardinal Hoyos, recently having ordained priests to the Institute of the Good Shephard vested in the sacristy at the church with a great picture of Archbishop Lefebvre hanging on the wall clearly visible in a picture. One day the good Archbishop and Bishop Mayer of Brazil will be vindicated and their images will then be not only present in that church, but venerated in churches in the north, the south, the east, and the west as Saints of the Church.
 
EddieArent said:
Yes, the SSPX is “schismatic” but hey, if you’re an archbishop and give transexuals Communion as one did in the left coast — that is “A OK.” After all, we don’t want to offend anyone. The fact of the matter is Archbishop Lefebvre transmitted what he received. This is a fight for the faith. A battle of good and evil. Don’t be deceived. Cardinal Hoyos, recently having ordained priests to the Institute of the Good Shephard vested in the sacristy at the church with a great picture of Archbishop Lefebvre hanging on the wall clearly visible in a picture. One day the good Archbishop and Bishop Mayer of Brazil will be vindicated and their images will then be not only present in that church, but venerated in churches in the north, the south, the east, and the west as Saints of the Church.
Click to expand...
The Archbishop of San Francisco apologized for this. See Catholic World news.

And of course, none of this alters Ecclesia Dei.
 
It would seem we’re back to pointing at someone else to clear the SSPX. Both wrong.
 
How many SSPX bashing threads do we really need? Or are we just having a little fun tonight?
 
Define this:
I am grieved. I think that this will have the effect of negating the Holy Father’s desire that the two forms should co-exist peacefully. Further, because I believe that this will be the occasion for heaping scorn and derision on the OF, which was what brought me into the Church and nurtured my growth in faith in Christ and in Holy Mother Church, I will no longer be participating in these fora. I feel that to do so would only present for me very near occasions of sin.
Click to expand...
God bless Holy Mother Church. God bless Pope Benedict. God bless all those here at Catholic Answers.
Click to expand...
 
BobP123 said:
Define this:
Click to expand...
Uh, this post had absolutely nothing to do with the SSPX and how you got this as a bashing regardless of what thread it was in. 🤷

When someone says that Bishop Niederauer is wrong for giving the Holy Eucharist to transvestites, I don’t run around saying that someone is bashing the Church (unless they procede to do so afterward). It is what it is. Wrong. And, so it is with the SSPX. BTW, we didn’t start this thread.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
That was a little histrionic on my part, that’s what that was.

If you mean that the Holy Father wants us to reconcile with the SSPX, I agree. I assume he wants the whole world reconciled. Are we then to say that the Orthodox and the "ecclesial communities DON’T have serious deficits? I don’t think so. That would be a lie.

Now, kindly show where the SSPX has been bashed.
Click to expand...
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKirkLVNV
That was a little histrionic on my part, that’s what that was.

If you mean that the Holy Father wants us to reconcile with the SSPX, I agree. I assume he wants the whole world reconciled. Are we then to say that the Orthodox and the "ecclesial communities DON’T have serious deficits? I don’t think so. That would be a lie.

Now, kindly show where the SSPX has been bashed.
Click to expand...
To bad–supposedly being in agreement does not stop one from being bias. I mean–just at the mention of the SSPX–is like scenting the water with blood. You may say the Orthodox have serious deficits–but you are quite cordial and respectful with them. Being cordial and respectfull to the SSPX does not come across with your cries of “excommunication”,“Ecclesia Dei” , “schism” , etc.
 
Walking_Home said:
To bad–supposedly being in agreement does not stop one from being bias. I mean–just at the mention of the SSPX–is like scenting the water with blood. You may say the Orthodox have serious deficits–but you are quite cordial and respectful with them. Being cordial and respectfull to the SSPX does not come across with your cries of “excommunication”,“Ecclesia Dei” , “schism” , etc.
Click to expand...
It actually has to do less with the SSPX and more to do with those who constantly declare the contrary. If nobody would deny the excommunication then there would really be no reason to talk about it. If all SSPX threads would cease today, you wouldn’t find me bringing them up!
 
Walking_Home said:
To bad–supposedly being in agreement does not stop one from being bias. I mean–just at the mention of the SSPX–is like scenting the water with blood. You may say the Orthodox have serious deficits–but you are quite cordial and respectful with them. Being cordial and respectfull to the SSPX does not come across with your cries of “excommunication”,“Ecclesia Dei” , “schism” , etc.
Click to expand...
So start a thread stating that there is no schism with the Orthodox and Protestants are not seriously deficit in their ecclesiology. I’m there.

Point is, no one in the Traditional Forum would assert such things because they know they aren’t true. BUT…we get all sorts of misinformation about the SSPX not being schismatic, how we can go to their Masses with the Holy See’s blessing, etc., etc. None that’s any truer than saying that the Orthodox and Protestants do not have deficits to one degree or another.
 
bear06 said:
It actually has to do less with the SSPX and more to do with those who constantly declare the contrary. If nobody would deny the excommunication then there would really be no reason to talk about it. If all SSPX threads would cease today, you wouldn’t find me bringing them up!
Click to expand...
Exactly. No one has to state the truth unless a lie is represented as the truth.
 
:rolleyes: The only reason why there are so many SSPX threads obviously is because most traditional Catholics have been raised by SSPX priest. Those who claim to be traditional, does not mean that you have a love for the Latin mass only, but for traditional doctrine too. A lot of people in this thread claim to be traditional but it is useless :confused: if everything you beleive is what St. Pope Pius X said and wrote against the Modernist and excomunicated so many people in the Vatican that were professors because of it. But now this professors are venerated and upheld as “greatest theologians of our time”. The humbled shall be exalthet and the Exalted shall be humbled, I think this really goes for SSPX haters. One day you will see that it was truly necessary and the Church will recognize what they did was good, just like with St. Athanasius. Dont get me wrong there are a few SSPX priest that tend towards Sedevantism and have hostilities towards Vatican II official’s but its only a few not the majority and I dont agree at all with those priest. Been raised SSPX and I will soon be going with a traditional Carmelite Monastery in “communion” with Rome. I think I have the SSPX to thank for, for allowing the mass to continue. There are WAY WAY too few indult masses. It is almost ridiculous compared to the SSPX and not to forget that all the indult masses were by people who left the SSPX, so thanks to their seminarian training we have the priest that give our indult masses. That is a big shout out for all you TLM lovers out there! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top