What Makes SSPX schismatic?

[Carlus_Magnus]

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

It’s schismatic because they refuse communion with Rome. Schism is refusing communion with other Catholics, rending the body of Christ, they are refusing Communion with Rome, and with others who they admit are Catholics.

 

[GerardP]

It’s schismatic because they refuse communion with Rome. Schism is refusing communion with other Catholics, rending the body of Christ, they are refusing Communion with Rome, and with others who they admit are Catholics.

That’s not the case. Rome actually refuses communion with the SSPX and consequently it’s own past.

Schism is the refusal of the “right” of the Pope to exercise his authority correctly. What we’ve had since the Council are Pope who have refused to exercise their own authority correctly.

The SSPX are simply disobedient to this wrong headed and negligent policy.

The SSPX also helps anyone who asks for it. There are many diocesan priests getting instruction from the SSPX under the radar of their local bishops.

 

[palmas85]

Palmas,

The communicant still receives graces from the reception of a validly confected Eucharist. And a priest always has the ability to confect the Eucharist, this can never be removed from him. However, it is a grave sin for a priest to confect the Eucharist when he has been suspended a divinis or excommunicated. In those cases, the priest is forbidden from exercising his priestly office. However, if the communicant is aware that the priest is excommunicated or suspended he should avoid participating in such a Mass since the priest is doing something sinful.

There was a good example of this recently in St. Louis where Archbishop Burke warned his flock not to attend a Mass said by an excommunicated priest in his diocese. He said to do so knowingly would be a mortal sin.

How can I possibly receive grace from the Eucharist if as the Bishop says I am comitting a Mortal Sin by doing so? I somehow doubt that I can commit a mortal sin and receive sacramental grace from the same action, yet that appears to be exactly what you are saying.

 

[Sure]

How can I possibly receive grace from the Eucharist if as the Bishop says I am comitting a Mortal Sin by doing so? I somehow doubt that I can commit a mortal sin and receive sacramental grace from the same action, yet that appears to be exactly what you are saying.

I’m sorry. You are correct. If you were receiving the Eucharist in the case that Archbishop Burke details you would not be receiving the graces because you would not be in the state of grace.

 

[Aramis]

How can I possibly receive grace from the Eucharist if as the Bishop says I am comitting a Mortal Sin by doing so? I somehow doubt that I can commit a mortal sin and receive sacramental grace from the same action, yet that appears to be exactly what you are saying.

if YOUR ordinary has placed the SSPX under bans, then no, the SSPX mass provides you no grace, since you commit a sin (disobedience) by attending, and it will not fulfil sunday obligation, either, no matter the reasons for going.

If your ordinary has not placed them under bans, you commit a sin if you knowingly enable the SSPX priest to sin by offering the mass in violation of the relevant punishments (suspension and/or excommunication). Those priests commit grave sins by offering a mass open to the public.

You’re far better off going to an FSSP mass.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

This thread is on the SSPX.

Excellent deduction.

Why the implication that people who attend the OF Mass don’t know St. Thomas Aquinas? That seems like a stupid assertion, especially considering the US universities that truly teach St. Thomas Aquinas in depth like Thomas Aquinas College, University of Dallas, Christendom College, Magdalen College, etc. all have very well attended daily OF Masses (and sometimes in Latin) on campus.

You mean they are university educated and still do not know of the Summa? Remember the best Universities are not in the US. The present sitting *President went to Yale.*Apparently his grades were not bad.

No one here is in favor of liturgical abuse.

Yes I agree traditionalists are not in favor of liturgical abuses.

Please discard your strawman, it’s worthless.

It is you and your brethren JKIRK, that is guilty of contextomy.

 

[historybrat]

That’s not the case. Rome actually refuses communion with the SSPX and consequently it’s own past.

Schism is the refusal of the “right” of the Pope to exercise his authority correctly. What we’ve had since the Council are Pope who have refused to exercise their own authority correctly.

The SSPX are simply disobedient to this wrong headed and negligent policy.

The SSPX also helps anyone who asks for it. There are many diocesan priests getting instruction from the SSPX under the radar of their local bishops.

First off let me say that I am not here to bash the SSPX. I have great respect for most of them. I wish they would come back into full communion with Rome because we need more people like them in the church. And I’ll say up front, while I’m fairly well educated I don’t have the time nor the desire to spend hours researching like others on this board.

That being said I find your argument does not make sense. Jesus Christ is our head and he appointed the pope has his representative. He promised the church would always led us and hell would not prevail against his church. Does that not mean that we need to be in communion with the head (the church) not that the head needs to be in communion with the rest of us. Cause anything else means hell has prevail, and Jesus lied. That just doesn’t make sense. Again I’m not here to bash the SSPX, but that arguement does not make sense.

Historybat

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

This thread is closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.