Tradition!

[Aloysius]

Why it is wrong, or why it is understandable?

 

The word schism was definitely thrown around a lot. But over time, the consensus that emerged is that, while consecrating bishops without a mandate is a schismatic action, the fact that one completed a schismatic action does not in and of itself put them in schism per se. (Actually, I have heard arguments that the consecration also does not constitute a schismatic action, technically speaking, but rather a less serious act of disobedience, but I am not really qualified to assess that argument.) There has also been talk of a 'schismatic mentality', which is an imprecise term, but one which I agree with, that generally describes people who again, may not be in schism per se, but seem to be operating with that mindset and orientation, and it is dangerous.

 

The SSPX does officially accept the Pope and his authority. At least in a general sense. Some of their priests can be a bit wacky. But in general, according to what the Society stands for, they do accept the Pope. They just believe that the situation warrants disobedience at the moment.

 

I have heard rumours that if the SSPX continue in this way, Pope Francis might officially declare them to be in schism. Just a rumour mind you, but I do hope it does not come to that.

 

I was talking to my priest a couple weeks back about the Society, because I heard that he meets sometimes with the SSPX priests here in the city. He said that they really are not 'the enemy' for a faithful Catholic. They are not the people we should be spending our energies fighting against. I hope that attitude becomes more widespread in the future.

 

as of December 2013, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has put it on record that he believes that the leaders of the SSPX are indeed in schism.  That is the more recent of the back and forth contradicting statements from Rome on the matter, obviously there have been previous statements out of Rome stating more to the effect of what you are saying, but right now the CDF basically considers them to be in actual schism.  Mind you it wasn't a formal declaration, just the way Mueller phrased it in an interview, but seeing as the CDF is in charge of handling the relations with the SSPX, for all intensive purposes the leaders themselves are currently in schism as far as those who would deal with them in Rome are concerned... meaning those in Rome now treat it as an attempt to heal an schism, not merely regularize an irregular canonical situation with schismatic overtones.  But that is getting way too bogged down in semantics, and in a discussion about rites of the Church, the SSPX issue is peripheral, representing a symptom of the still unresolved tension between two usages of the Roman Rite.

 

as far as the OP goes--don't worry, most Catholics don't even understand the nature of Eastern Christianity and Eastern Catholicism.  The abridged version of the categories for simplicity's sake (though some disagree about the terms sometimes, these are the most accepted terms to keep it straight) is "Roman Catholic" and "Eastern Catholic"--both of which are in union with the Pope; then "Eastern Orthodox" which are not in communion with the Pope and the smaller "Oriental Orthodox" who are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox.  Eastern Catholics follow most of the same rituals as the Eastern Orthodox, the main difference being their recognition of the Pope of Rome.  their liturgies are quite beautiful, and I truly believe to understand the spirit of the liturgy and to understand what makes it different from just a "prayer service", one should definitely make a point to attend an Eastern Divine Liturgy (the term they use for the Holy Mass).  It can also be good to attend an Extraordinary Form Roman Mass--the old Latin Mass--to gain a deeper appreciation for the Liturgy (find one approved by your diocese, of course, and only if you're curious... you might want to just go to an Eastern Catholic Mass in English).  Both experiences can definitely enrich your everyday Sunday Mass because both of them put you into touch with different aspects of the Liturgy that connect with different periods in the history of our Faith, and to many aspects which actually date back to apostolic times.  there is a tremendous depth to the faith, and a great deal of diversity and ancient traditions surrounding it, that can be intimidating until you realize you really don't have to know it all haha, but it can be beneficial to go and experience a taste of these different forms of worship that have come to us over millenia of people worshiping Our Lord.

[Nihil Obstat]

They were treated like schismatics in an informal sense in the 80s and 90s too. I get that people want to treat it that way, but IMO they are clearly not.

[NotreDame]

I met a priest from the Ukranian rite, he was married legitamately, that was an eye opener to me that some roman catholic priests actually can be married, that is others outside of anglican priests that are married converting to the holy roman catholic church.

 

But he technically isn't Roman Catholic.  He's Ukrainian Rite Catholic. 
 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

But he technically isn't Roman Catholic.  He's Ukrainian Rite Catholic. 
 

 

 

Is the pope roman? :P