SSPX

[photosynthesis]

So.... I'm not really clear on the SSPX. Are they in schism... aren't they in schism? what's the deal?

[rkwright]

in schism, end of story


edit: while my first post was short and sweet, I didn't mean it in a mean way... I'll find you the document...

Edited February 3, 2006 by rkwright

[rkwright]

Read the whole letter at [url="http://www.catholicdatabase.com"]Catholicdatabase.com[/url] under encyclicals, look under JPII at other writings for 'ECCLESIA DEI'

I'll quote the important parts...

[quote] 1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on 30 June last by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the Church of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the same Mons. Lefebvre. These efforts, especially intense during recent months, in which the Apostolic See has shown comprehension to the limits of the possible, were all to no avail.(1)[/quote]

And the clincher
[quote]3. In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.(3) In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(4)[/quote]

Edited February 3, 2006 by rkwright

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei #3']In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.[/quote]

[quote name='Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei #4']The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth."[/quote]

Yep, the bishops of the SSPX are excommunicated and the priestly fraternity is, [i]de facto[/i], in schism.

Validity and licitness are two completely separate issues. Because Archbishop Lefevbre was validly ordained (sic. consecrated) a bishop, when he ordained (sic. consecrated) the SSPX bishops, the action was valid. However, since he did not have permission from the Holy Father, which is required, the action was schismatic in nature (cf. CCC 2089). This action created the suspension and excommunication of the bishops and those they ordain.

The ordinations that these bishops perform are valid, but illicit. Those who are ordained are immediately suspended from having faculties.

With that being the case, they can still say Mass, because they are validly ordained, however, they don't have faculties (which are granted by the local Ordinary) to administer ANY sacraments, which include saying a licit Mass, 1962 or otherwise......

It is under dubious sentiments that one who is communion with Rome should ever attend an SSPX Mass. Those who are attending the Mass are not excommunicated, only the clergy. However, they are participating in a schismatic action and therefore it is illicit.

The reason we are not to go to SSPX Masses, is because we know them to be illicit.

The thing is that they CLAIM.....they don't have any basis. They don't have any proof. They are in error. Notice that my quotes from their own website answer your questions, but don't really answer THE questions. That is the problem....they don't tell the whole truth, because the whole truth lies within the Church, today.

Their claims are without basis and without merit. They distort what little bits of truth that they have, ie. partial statements from deceased Cardinals Ottaviani and Baggi.

The Vatican is quite consistent. The heirarchy and the presybyterate of the SSPX are excommunicated. They are excommunicated, not because they celebrate the Tridentine Mass, but because they adhere to the licitness of the ordinations to the epispcopate and the incorrect view of Tradition. This is per Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei (cited above), given Motu Proprio by Pope John Paul II.

The SSPX is not holding a course in limbo. The SSPX is in schism. There is more to being in schism than denying the Holy Father.....by definition. They refuse to submit to the Holy Father on the standing issues. (cf. CCC #2089)

Bishop Fellay is assuming that the SSPX is correct and that the Church is in error. That much is simple and that much proves that it is a disobedient attitude that prevades.

The only acceptable answer would have been for bishop Fellay to go into the meeting with biretta (hat) in hand and admit that he is wrong. Then he would need to do WHATEVER is necessary to make it right. The Church is not in error and the Church does NOT need to make any concession.

[Desert Walker]

Cam, beyond mere stobbornness, why does this group continue its stand which led to schism. What is it exactly that they claim gives them authority over the Pope in Rome?

What would they have to do to be reconciled that is?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Feb 3 2006, 11:41 AM']Cam, beyond mere stobbornness, why does this group continue its stand which led to schism.  What is it exactly that they claim gives them authority over the Pope in Rome?

What would they have to do to be reconciled that is?
[right][snapback]874325[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ultimately they believe that the "Conciliar Church" is flawed. They believe that the "Conciliar Church" has succumbed to the heresy of Modernism. That is why they take the stand they do.

This view is incorrect. They think that they are being faithful to the "Immemorial Church" and not the "Conciliar Church." The SSPX accept the validity of the Sacraments, although they find them to be illicit, because of adherence to said heresy.

Again, an incorrect view.

[Resurrexi]

Noone can be compeletely sure is the SSPX is schism, so please do not say so: it is not a fact! I myself do not know! I try to be prudent and just do not attend their Masses. Dont hate the SSPX, it is a group of really good and holy priests and has large numbers of holy and devout lay people. They do some really good things and arent evil or anything.

[jezic]

I think we can be sure.

JPII issued the Ecclesia Dei document. Is a papal declaraction not enough?

[rkwright]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 3 2006, 10:01 PM']Noone can be compeletely sure is the SSPX is schism, so please do not say so: it is not a fact! I myself do not know! I try to be prudent and just do not attend their Masses. Dont hate the SSPX, it is a group of really good and holy priests and has large numbers of holy and devout lay people. They do some really good things and arent evil or anything.
[right][snapback]875097[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1- We are sure they are in schism. Look at the stuff posted, it clearly says it.

2- No one has said anything mean about it, we would welcome them back into the Church if they would come.

[Cam42]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Feb 3 2006, 11:01 PM']Noone can be compeletely sure is the SSPX is schism, so please do not say so: it is not a fact! I myself do not know! I try to be prudent and just do not attend their Masses. Dont hate the SSPX, it is a group of really good and holy priests and has large numbers of holy and devout lay people. They do some really good things and arent evil or anything.
[right][snapback]875097[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[quote name='Ecclesia Dei #3'][b]In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - [u]constitutes a [i]schismatic act[/i][/u].[/b] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.[/quote]

[quote name='Ecclesia Dei #4'][b][u]The root of this [i]schismatic act[/i][/u] can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition.[/b] Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth."[/quote]

Crystal clear. rkwright, there is the support for my answer given earlier....an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition.

If you want to read the whole document, here it is; [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html"]Apostolic Letter given Motu Proprio; Ecclesia Dei.[/url]

[Inquisitor Generalis]

Interesting that you all quote Ecclesia Dei. The head of the Ecclesia Dei commission, Cardinal Hoyos, has stated that the SSPX is not in schism.

[Guest Rick777]

No Cardinal has the authority to turn over a papal edict (in this case Ecclesia Dei).

Second, the words of Cardinal Hoyos are dubious. Let's look at them:

"Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism."

By "formal" Hoyos may simply mean that the schism and sentence was not ferendae sententiae but merely latae sententiae. Some argue that Ecclesia Dei did not mention a ferendae sententiae because Lefebvre was already excommunicated based on latae sententiae, which would make the schism less than formal.

Even if one puts the best light on Hoyos' remark, if Hoyos believes it wasn't a formal schism, he must believe it was a material schism. This is important because the SSPX has not even admitted to a material schism, let alone a formal schism.

-taken from Catholic Apologetics International

[Inquisitor Generalis]

1. Cardinal Hoyos never even attempted to overturn a Papal edict.

2. This is the quote I was referring to:

[quote name='Cardinal Hoyos']"We are not facing a heresy. [b]One cannot say in correct, exact, precise terms that there is a schism [here].[/b] There is a schismatic attitude in the consecration of bishops without a pontifical mandate. They are inside the Church; there is only lacking a full, a more perfect — as was said in the meeting with Msgr. Fellay — a fuller communion, because there is communion"[/quote]

Edited February 14, 2006 by Inquisitor Generalis

[Guest Rick777]

Not in exact formal terms. The excommunication was based on latae sententiae, making the schism less than formal, but schism nonetheless.

[Inquisitor Generalis]

[quote name='Rick777' date='Feb 14 2006, 02:59 AM']Not in exact formal terms. The excommunication was based on latae sententiae, making the schism less than formal, but schism nonetheless.
[right][snapback]886866[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

"One cannot say in correct, exact, precise terms that there is a schism [here]." Could the good Cardinal be any clearer? His words were exact and precise, not formal.

Edited February 14, 2006 by Inquisitor Generalis