What Makes SSPX schismatic?

[Cat]

Something I think is very sad about this is that it gives Protestant teachers fuel for the fire. Catholics accuse them of endless splits and “33,000” denominations, but Protestant apologists point to SSPX and the other split-off groups and cry, “You’re doing the same thing!”

And as far as I can see, those Protestant apologists are correct.

This really makes it harder to convince Protestants that the Catholic Church is ONE, because it isn’t. I know that the Holy Spirit is the One who convicts souls. But why are we making His work harder?

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.

 

[Walking_Home]

And apparently you will not answer the question. I’ll assume that since there has obviously been some spontaneous combustion somewhere that you have not problem with the invalid marriages and confessions of the SSPX. Feel free to correct me on this assumption.

---

When the group from Brazil was regularized —the validity of the marriages performed prior was not brought into question. In an interview–it was stated that Nothing was required concerning the marriages —nothing. So it will remain to be seen now—what happens between Rome and the SSPX.

 

[TuEsPetrus]

SSPV are not conclavist, they are a Society of Priest who left the SSPX because of liturgical reason’s. ( It was real dumb). In their website they say they see sedevantism as a debatable subject, but if you are nto a sedevacantist they do accept you. Only thing is they tend towards sedevacantism and they have prolly a majority of sedevacantist priest but they see it as a debatable theological argument. One thing though you have to be a fully believing traditional Catholic in order for them to accept you, in one word they are not worth it.

 

[TuEsPetrus]

Something I think is very sad about this is that it gives Protestant teachers fuel for the fire. Catholics accuse them of endless splits and “33,000” denominations, but Protestant apologists point to SSPX and the other split-off groups and cry, “You’re doing the same thing!”

And as far as I can see, those Protestant apologists are correct.

This really makes it harder to convince Protestants that the Catholic Church is ONE, because it isn’t. I know that the Holy Spirit is the One who convicts souls. But why are we making His work harder?

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.

That is a horrible thing to say my dear friend. You do not simply want to do that. Since the Catholic Church is built on this earth you need to have an identity, and since obviously since the tower of babel we dont all understand the same language, God meant for this to happen to everyone so as a result of that it is a blessing to have different liturgies because of different Patriarchs. With those Protestants that point out that to you, you simply dont worry about that. Only reason why there was a split is because the ones who reformed our blessed mass were Protestants so in order for Catholics to mantain there stuff Catholic there is a inner-conflict in the Church that the Vatican is taking care of. But for us laity it does not really concern you, and you dont need to worry about that. As long as you teach orthodox-Catholicism your k. In fact most Protestant convert’s on my side tend towards the TLM I dont know why. Because I guess when they convert they want something that is actually different from what they were previously practicing and hence the TLM. It always amazes me in that respect. But dont give up, NEVER EVER think that the Church is not one. Remember what Athanasius said if even it was just a family who practiced “real faith” even if just a handful in the whole world, that is where the Church of Christ is. So if everyone starts going Modernist and you keep the real faith clean and pure and the Catholic religion clean and pure also you are the Church, the ground and pillar of truth, but up to this moment there are alot of good Catholics out there. Assuming though if that were too happen.

 

[BobP123]

I always thought they were schismatic because they are the only Catholic parishes I know of that don’t seem to have anything to do with the local bishop or the diocese they are located in. Are there legitimate parishes that aren’t associated with the local bishop?

The Eastern Rites have their own canonical status and they’re trying to work out the same for the SSPX. So far most of the local bishops are opposed to any such reconciliation. Is it any wonder that they have to resort to spreading falsehoods concerning the SSPX?

But I may be wrong. In fact, I hope I am.

 

[bear06]

---

When the group from Brazil was regularized —the validity of the marriages performed prior was not brought into question. In an interview–it was stated that Nothing was required concerning the marriages —nothing. So it will remain to be seen now—what happens between Rome and the SSPX.

This is not correct. The marriages had to be radically sanated. Radical sanation requires no paperwork nor does it require the permission of the parties sanated. It is used for Mass reversions such as Campos. The marriages of Campos held the same status as the SSPX.

Also, if you look at the protocol Archbishop Lefebvre signed and then reneged on you see the requirement for the radical sanation of the marriages:
fssp.org/en/protoc5mai.htm

• Sanatio in radice, at least ad cautelam, of the marriages already celebrated by the priests of the Society without the required delegation.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home
When the group from Brazil was regularized —the validity of the marriages performed prior was not brought into question. In an interview–it was stated that Nothing was required concerning the marriages —nothing. So it will remain to be seen now—what happens between Rome and the SSPX.

This is not correct. The marriages had to be radically sanated. Radical sanation requires no paperwork nor does it require the permission of the parties sanated. It is used for Mass reversions such as Campos. The marriages of Campos held the same status as the SSPX.

Also, if you look at the protocol Archbishop Lefebvre signed and then reneged on you see the requirement for the radical sanation of the marriages:
fssp.org/en/protoc5mai.htm
Quote:

• Sanatio in radice, at least ad cautelam, of the marriages already celebrated by the priests of the Society without the required delegation.

---

“Not correct—Had to be sanated”—just because You say so. Bishop Rifan is in a whole lot better position than you to know whether the marriages needed to be sanated. Since the sanatio was part of the protocol with Arch. Lefebvre—it stands to reason that it would have been part of the communication with Bishop Rifan in establishing the Apostolic Administration. As can be seen—Rome did not question the validity of the marriages–and nothing was required—no sanation.

Now to the protocol. Note the --at least at cautelam. At cautelam means-- for safety sake. Sanatio in radias for safety sake (to be on the safe side) in itself was not a determination of non-validity of the marriages.

unavoceca.org/Archives/2005/20050508.html

Following are some questions addressed to Bishop Rifan that will help you appreciate an PAA.

Question: Before the Apostolic Administration was established the marriages and onfessions were performed by priests who were not authorized by Rome nor did they have faculties from the local Ordinary. After the Apostolic Administration was established were these accepted as valid.
Answer: Rome **did not question **the validity of these Sacraments performed before the Apostolic Administration was established. **Nothing was required **concerning these marriages or confessions after the Apostolic Administration was established.

geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2948/fraselat.html
AD CAUTELAM. For safety('s sake). (“To be on the safe side.”)

 

[bear06]

---

“Not correct—Had to be sanated”—just because You say so. Bishop Rifan is in a whole lot better position than you to know whether the marriages needed to be sanated. Since the sanatio was part of the protocol with Arch. Lefebvre—it stands to reason that it would have been part of the communication with Bishop Rifan in establishing the Apostolic Administration. As can be seen—Rome did not question the validity of the marriages–and nothing was required—no sanation.

Now to the protocol. Note the --at least at cautelam. At cautelam means-- for safety sake. Sanatio in radias for safety sake (to be on the safe side) in itself was not a determination of non-validity of the marriages.

unavoceca.org/Archives/2005/20050508.html

Following are some questions addressed to Bishop Rifan that will help you appreciate an PAA.

Question: Before the Apostolic Administration was established the marriages and onfessions were performed by priests who were not authorized by Rome nor did they have faculties from the local Ordinary. After the Apostolic Administration was established were these accepted as valid.
Answer: Rome **did not question **the validity of these Sacraments performed before the Apostolic Administration was established. **Nothing was required **concerning these marriages or confessions after the Apostolic Administration was established.

geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2948/fraselat.html
AD CAUTELAM. For safety('s sake). (“To be on the safe side.”)

Sorry. If the marriages were not valid under Lefebvre as shown in the protocol he signed, the only way they could be valid under Campos is if the local bishop (of course this is before the reconciliation) gave the priests faculties.

I don’t think you realize what is involved in radical sanation. It can be as simple as the Holy Father saying “The marriage of anyone married by an SSPX priest and who reunites with Rome automatically has their marriage made sane upon return.” You seem to think that it involves some formal or lengthy process. My canonist friend, with regards to the SSPX, once referred to it as “canonical magic”. One minute it’s not “sane” and one minute it is.

Now, from what I understand, confessions are handled in a similar way on mass returns. The difference is that they are made valid upon the subsequent confession.

Also, the Church has a addressed the issue of the marriages and confessions of the SSPX and there was no question (link from Msgr. Perl posted somewhere above). Unless the local bishop has given them faculties, the marriages and confessions (unless there is a danger of death and there is no emergency faculties for marriage that I know of other than the couple not being able to get to a minister in so many days) are not valid.

 

[Walking_Home]

Sorry. If the marriages were not valid under Lefebvre as shown in the protocol he signed, the only way they could be valid under Campos is if the local bishop (of course this is before the reconciliation) gave the priests faculties.

I don’t think you realize what is involved in radical sanation. It can be as simple as the Holy Father saying “The marriage of anyone married by an SSPX priest and who reunites with Rome automatically has their marriage made sane upon return.” You seem to think that it involves some formal or lengthy process. My canonist friend, with regards to the SSPX, once referred to it as “canonical magic”. One minute it’s not “sane” and one minute it is.

Now, from what I understand, confessions are handled in a similar way on mass returns. The difference is that they are made valid upon the subsequent confession.

Also, the Church has a addressed the issue of the marriages and confessions of the SSPX and there was no question (link from Msgr. Perl posted somewhere above). Unless the local bishop has given them faculties, the marriages and confessions (unless there is a danger of death and there is no emergency faculties for marriage that I know of other than the couple not being able to get to a minister in so many days) are not valid.

---

You should be sorry. The protocol does not make a difinitive determination as to the marriages being non-valid. You on your own are reading that into it. For safety sake --does not mean what you want it to mean. As I said prior—Bishop Rifan knows more about this matter than you—so don’t go about putting your own spin into it.

As to the SSPX—what was said years ago may not be the mind of the the current Pope----it even may not have been the mind of our last Pope in his later years. Taking into account that the validity of the marriages in Brazil was not questioned —it remains to be seen what will be said of the SSPX marriages if an understanding is reached.

 

[bobzills]

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

 

[bear06]

---

You should be sorry. The protocol does not make a difinitive determination as to the marriages being non-valid. You on your own are reading that into it. For safety sake --does not mean what you want it to mean. As I said prior—Bishop Rifan knows more about this matter than you—so don’t go about putting your own spin into it.

As to the SSPX—what was said years ago may not be the mind of the the current Pope----it even may not have been the mind of our last Pope in his later years. Taking into account that the validity of the marriages in Brazil was not questioned —it remains to be seen what will be said of the SSPX marriages if an understanding is reached.

The protocol doesn’t have to. Again, you don’t seem to know how radical sanation is done. Again, it is not always nor does it need to be done with the knowledge of the parties.

Also, the marriages of the SSPX have been delcared invalid by the Vatican long after the protocol. You can persist in this but I’d hope for the sake of those considering marriage by an SSPX with no faculties that you at least say they are suspect and should be avoided. I’m not really sure how anyone in good conscience could say that the SSPX marriages are not suspect.

I actually don’t care a whole lot about Campos because all of their situations have been regularized and sanated. This is in no way the same for the SSPX at large. It’s canon law and I’m really surprised that people think there is an argument withing the Magisterium. I don’t even recall Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos saying the opposite even in an interview.

latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm

Concretely this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e, contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have the proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplied these faculties so that the sacrament was valid (cf. Code of Canon Law c.144).

 

[Walking_Home]

The protocol doesn’t have to. Again, you don’t seem to know how radical sanation is done. Again, it is not always nor does it need to be done with the knowledge of the parties.

Also, the marriages of the SSPX have been delcared invalid by the Vatican long after the protocol. You can persist in this but I’d hope for the sake of those considering marriage by an SSPX with no faculties that you at least say they are suspect and should be avoided. I’m not really sure how anyone in good conscience could say that the SSPX marriages are not suspect.

I actually don’t care a whole lot about Campos because all of their situations have been regularized and sanated. This is in no way the same for the SSPX at large. It’s canon law and I’m really surprised that people think there is an argument withing the Magisterium. I don’t even recall Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos saying the opposite even in an interview.

latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm
Quote:
Concretely this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e, contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have the proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplied these faculties so that the sacrament was valid (cf. Code of Canon Law c.144).

fssp.org/en/protoc5mai.htm
6. Particular Problems
(to be resolved by decree or declaration)

• Sanatio in radice, at least ad cautelam, of the marriages already celebrated by the priests of the Society without the required delegation.

Quote=bear06
I don’t think you realize what is involved in radical sanation. It can be as simple as the Holy Father saying “The marriage of anyone married by an SSPX priest and who reunites with Rome automatically has their marriage made sane upon return.”

---

From your link you will note the Sanatio in radice at least ad cautelum --was to be resolved by decree or declaration. This is much, much more than the “simple saying” you are trying to sell here. .

A **decree or declaration ** entails documentation and the involvement of the bishop. No matter how you want to spin it–the fact remains–Bishop Rifan stated that Rome did not question the validity of the marriages and nothing was required–therefore no sanation. This has a direct bearing on what happens between Rome and the SSPX.

 

[bobzills]

Concretely this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e, contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have the proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplied these faculties so that the sacrament was valid (cf. Code of Canon Law c.144).

Here is my take on the situation.
According to the SSPX, their marriages and confessions are valid, because of their theory of supplied jurisdiction. However, it’s not clear as to the validity of marriages and confessions from the point of view of the Church. . On the one hand, it is first flatly stated here that marriages and confessions of the SSPX are invalid. But on the other hand, the same authority says that they are valid, if you think that they are. And the SSPX says that they are valid because the Church supplies faculties in a state of emergency. The people at SSPX contend that the Church is in a state of emergency, otherwise, why would they be there? So, it looks like the people at SSPX are in a state of invincible ignorance, from the point of view of the Church, and so, since they are acting sincerely and in good faith, the Church supplies the faculties and their confessions and marriages are valid according to Church law.

 

[Aramis]

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.

Further, they, as an organization, rejected canon law by electing a person who was formally and publicly excommunicated from the church, Mr. Bernard Fellay, as their superior general.

Ecclesia Dei is explicit that he is excommunicated; as such he is no longer entiled nor allowed to function as a priest, let alone a bishop, and in so doing is in Grave Error, and most likely, therefore, Mortal Sin. And in knowingly accepting the position having been informed of his excomunication, he has in fact lead these priests to grievous error, and thus perhaps and probably mortal sin.

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

That’s schism, friends.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

---

And todays Rome burns.

If I didn’t know any better I would’ve assumed this statement coming from an anti-Catholic Fundamentalist American Evangelical… Oh wait that was their argument first, wasn’t it!!!

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

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

For confessions to be valid the confessor needs to be given status by his local bishop. As priests of the Society have their own bishops and don’t report to the Ordinary, they are invalid.

 

[bear06]

Here is my take on the situation.
According to the SSPX, their marriages and confessions are valid, because of their theory of supplied jurisdiction. However, it’s not clear as to the validity of marriages and confessions from the point of view of the Church. . On the one hand, it is first flatly stated here that marriages and confessions of the SSPX are invalid. But on the other hand, the same authority says that they are valid, if you think that they are. And the SSPX says that they are valid because the Church supplies faculties in a state of emergency. The people at SSPX contend that the Church is in a state of emergency, otherwise, why would they be there? So, it looks like the people at SSPX are in a state of invincible ignorance, from the point of view of the Church, and so, since they are acting sincerely and in good faith, the Church supplies the faculties and their confessions and marriages are valid according to Church law.

It didn’t say that actually. The marriages are invalid. There is no emergency provision for marriages, just confessions. If you’ll notice, the ignorance part had to do with confessions. Also, it didn’t say if they thought they were. It said if they were ignorant. So, if someone hasn’t heard that the confessions are invalid then they are OK (at least the penitent is).

The Church has said that there is no emergency. Again, the Pope is the Supreme Legislator. To continue to say that there is an emergency when the Supreme Legislator has said there is none is not ignorance, it’s a rejection of the Roman Pontiff’s ruling in the matter. This really is a no brainer. I mean, really, Luther thought he had a state of emergency too. It’s one thing to be a bishop in a third world country who cannot communicate with the Vatican and feels that he must ordain another bishop and it’s a completely other thing to have a bishop in endless conversation with the Vatican.

 

[bobzills]

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

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.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
And todays Rome burns.

If I didn’t know any better I would’ve assumed this statement coming from an anti-Catholic Fundamentalist American Evangelical… Oh wait that was their argument first, wasn’t it!!!

---

His Excellency Most Rev. Malcolm Ranjith

wdtprs.com/blog/2007/10/archp-ranjith-on-bishops-who-resist-summorum-pontificum-instruments-of-the-devil/

The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum on the Latin Liturgy of July 7th 2007 is the fruit of a deep reflection by our Pope on the mission of the Church. It is not up to us, who wear ecclesiastical purple and red, to draw this into question, to be disobedient and make the motu proprio void by our own little, tittle rules. Even not if they were made by a bishops conference. Even bishops do not have this right. What the Holy Fathers says, has to be obeyed in the Church. If we do not follow this principle, we will allow ourselves to be used as instruments of the devil, and nobody else. This will lead to discord in the Church, and slows down her mission. We do not have the time to waste on this. Else we behave like emperor Nero, fiddling on his violin while Rome was burning. The churches are emptying, there are no vocations, the seminaries are empty. Priests become older and older, and young priests are scarce.”

 

[bobzills]

The Church has said that there is no emergency.

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?