Servus_Mariae Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 +JMJ+ Ok...I've done allot of reading on the Society and understand their views fairly well. I agree with many of thier sentiments (a great desire for a return to traditional piety) though obviously am repulsed by any aversion to the reforms of Holy Mother Chruch. I believe that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite can and should be celebrated as beatifully as the EF so often is. Now...because of my great affiintiy for the traditions of the Church, I am being questioned by many friends about where the SSPX stands. I must admit I am very confused myself. I know the Bishops were excommunicated due to their illicit consecrations. However, thier seems to be debate as to whether or not the order itslef is schismatic (how does this related to the priests laity etc)...and what needs to be done to remedy this situation. I have two friends who have joined them this past year...to my great sorrow, and for obvious reasons would like to know where they stand. Thanks in advance! +Per Mariam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 [quote name='Servus_Mariae' post='1761251' date='Jan 25 2009, 01:41 PM']+JMJ+ Ok...I've done allot of reading on the Society and understand their views fairly well. I agree with many of thier sentiments (a great desire for a return to traditional piety) though obviously am repulsed by any aversion to the reforms of Holy Mother Chruch. I believe that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite can and should be celebrated as beatifully as the EF so often is. Now...because of my great affiintiy for the traditions of the Church, I am being questioned by many friends about where the SSPX stands. I must admit I am very confused myself. I know the Bishops were excommunicated due to their illicit consecrations. However, thier seems to be debate as to whether or not the order itslef is schismatic (how does this related to the priests laity etc)...and what needs to be done to remedy this situation. I have two friends who have joined them this past year...to my great sorrow, and for obvious reasons would like to know where they stand.[/quote] As far as I understand, the formal term "schism" means a group that has deliberately separated themselves from their church of origin, with the schismatic group believing they are now the true church while the group they've left has gone astray. A schismatic sect has no intention of ever rejoining the church they split from, though they are usually eager to accept members from it. So, it's hard to say in the case of the SSPX. It depends on whose comments you read, and when. If they think that Vatican II was erroneous and they're the only real Catholics now, they're in schism. If they think there's a bit of a misunderstanding about their status and that administrative details and grandstanding got them into a situation they hadn't wanted, then they're not. Both have happened to various groups throughout church history. It's hard to tell for sure until it's all over. I don't read a lot of official SSPX stuff, because it's just not that important to me, but what I did seemed to be in complete denial of any irregularity of their status at all. So... it's strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aalpha1989 Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I agree that it is hard to say with the SSPX. However, their priests and bishops have been told by the Church that they are not to celebrate the sacraments and they continue to do so- surely that is not a sign of unity? Their biggest problem is that of obedience. They always claim to recognize the Holy See, but they also use scathing language to criticize certain actions by the Pope (WYD, for example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 [quote name='aalpha1989' post='1761318' date='Jan 25 2009, 03:32 PM']I agree that it is hard to say with the SSPX. However, their priests and bishops have been told by the Church that they are not to celebrate the sacraments and they continue to do so- surely that is not a sign of unity? Their biggest problem is that of obedience. They always claim to recognize the Holy See, but they also use scathing language to criticize certain actions by the Pope (WYD, for example).[/quote] I'm kinda confused myself-their FAQ section about re: John Paul II is basically a page dedicated to dissing everything about him. But, they claimed to recognize his authority. I don't think they send very clear messages. -Katie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) [quote name='philothea' post='1761306' date='Jan 25 2009, 12:22 PM']As far as I understand, the formal term "schism" means a group that has deliberately separated themselves from their church of origin, with the schismatic group believing [b]they are now the true church[/b] while the group they've left has gone astray. . . .[/quote] I am no fan of the SSPX, but I do not believe that the SSPX claim to be a Church; instead, they are a "priestly fraternity." Edited January 25, 2009 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 the excommunications and penalties against the four bishops of the SSPX were rescinded as of January 21, 2009. the society itself still has no regular canonical status within the Church yet, pending talks between it and Rome. they are not in formal schism and the Ecclesia Dei commission has used very ambiguous language about their status.. wherever their precise status is at the moment, I think we can very clearly say it's moving in the direct towards full unity. it is acceptable to attend their masses if you have a serious reason to though it is not recommended at all. the SSPX does not have an aversion to all reforms; if they did, they wouldn't use the 1962 missal of blessed John XXIII... they are against many of the reforms as they were actually done in the past (soon to be) 50 years since the Second Vatican Council. criticism of various things John Paul II did does not translate into not recognizing his authority. John Paul II was not, gasp, shock, my favorite pope of all time (and I do not attribute the title "the great" to him myself)... John Paul II probably wouldn't rank in my top 10 favorite popes... that doesn't make me a bad Catholic, I just don't like a lot of things that he did.. and I'm not required to as a Catholic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 [quote name='Aloysius' post='1761432' date='Jan 25 2009, 04:49 PM']criticism of various things John Paul II did does not translate into not recognizing his authority. John Paul II was not, gasp, shock, my favorite pope of all time (and I do not attribute the title "the great" to him myself)... John Paul II probably wouldn't rank in my top 10 favorite popes... that doesn't make me a bad Catholic, I just don't like a lot of things that he did.. and I'm not required to as a Catholic.[/quote] It's fine to not be a big fan of JPII, everyone is entitled to their personal opinions-but the fact that they seem to devote a lot of energy to criticizing him as a group, in public, while at the same time proclaiming that they are acceptant of his authority is kind of a mixed message, imo. -Katie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Therese Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 As far as I'm concerned, if they're in schism, I would know that they aren't being led by the Holy Spirit. End of discussiion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) "The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics." -Cardinal Castrillón [i]President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”[/i] And now the Bishops are no longer excommunicated. Edited January 25, 2009 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aalpha1989 Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 [quote name='Aloysius' post='1761432' date='Jan 25 2009, 03:49 PM']the excommunications and penalties against the four bishops of the SSPX were rescinded as of January 21, 2009. the society itself still has no regular canonical status within the Church yet, pending talks between it and Rome. they are not in formal schism and the Ecclesia Dei commission has used very ambiguous language about their status.. wherever their precise status is at the moment, I think we can very clearly say it's moving in the direct towards full unity. it is acceptable to attend their masses if you have a serious reason to though it is not recommended at all. the SSPX does not have an aversion to all reforms; if they did, they wouldn't use the 1962 missal of blessed John XXIII... they are against many of the reforms as they were actually done in the past (soon to be) 50 years since the Second Vatican Council. criticism of various things John Paul II did does not translate into not recognizing his authority. John Paul II was not, gasp, shock, my favorite pope of all time (and I do not attribute the title "the great" to him myself)... John Paul II probably wouldn't rank in my top 10 favorite popes... that doesn't make me a bad Catholic, I just don't like a lot of things that he did.. and I'm not required to as a Catholic.[/quote] I always love reading your posts on controversial topics because you say what I believe much better than I ever do. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1761446' date='Jan 25 2009, 04:57 PM']"The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics." -Cardinal Castrillón [i]President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”[/i] And now the Bishops are no longer excommunicated.[/quote] Ok, what exactly is their deal with Vatican II, though? Do they accept it or not? Or are they working toward that? I think there is a lot of grey area here...-Katie Edited January 25, 2009 by Tinkerlina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1761451' date='Jan 25 2009, 05:00 PM']Ok, what exactly is their deal with Vatican II, though? Do they accept it or not? Or are they working toward that? I think there is a lot of grey area here...-Katie[/quote] I will have to look more into it. But Bishop Fellay has said they do accept Vatican II in that it does not reject tradition. They are worried about the some of ambiguous language within the Vatican II documents. Edited January 25, 2009 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 [url="http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/080711"]The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei confirms officially: Society of St. Pius X within the Church, not in formal schism; Catholics commit no sin nor incur any canonical penalty for Mass attendance[/url] By Brian Mershon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1761451' date='Jan 25 2009, 02:00 PM']Ok, what exactly is their deal with Vatican II, though? Do they accept it or not? Or are they working toward that? I think there is a lot of grey area here...-Katie[/quote] I believe that the SSPX reject some of the hings taught at Vatican II. That said, I don't think it is that big of an issue. Edited January 25, 2009 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1761438' date='Jan 25 2009, 03:52 PM']It's fine to not be a big fan of JPII, everyone is entitled to their personal opinions-but the fact that they seem to devote a lot of energy to criticizing him as a group, in public, while at the same time proclaiming that they are acceptant of his authority is kind of a mixed message, imo. -Katie[/quote] I know they criticized JPII when he preached the mutual submission between husband and wife. (Can't find the quote right now.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now