Are the SSPX in schism?

[down under]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home

"However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command."
----------------------------------------------------------------

If you read the section by St. Jerome provided above---you will note that St. Jerome specifies 2 separate acts. The denial of the Divine right of command is not included within the transgression of the command (disobedience). It is a separate act on its own. St. Jerome does not incorporate the two acts into one.

Concerning the papacy---denial of the Divine right to command--would be :
1. rejecting the papacy altogether---there is no such office as the papacy---ex. the protestants.
2. primacy of honor---there is a type of office---but has only primacy of honor. ---ex. the Orthodox.

So to sum up. They are schismitc without fully being in schism. there masses are valid but not licit. there bishops are excommunicated but trying to reconcile. The faithful are warned away without actually being told not to go. The sspx is outside of the church to an extent, but hope is not lost on a reunioun.

in other words sspx is in deep du du. and if they don't straighten up and fly right they will be in formal schism. As for now the faithful are warned that this could go either way.

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Mike_NC

Then why did JPII refer to the Archbishop's acts as schismatic?

Why did he warn us from joining the schism in Ecclesia Dei?


Is it possible to claim to follow the Pope with words, yet have the actions not follow suit?

And once again, why do you refuse to answer my question regarding the establishment of tribunals to consider annulments and other issues of Canon law without Papal Authority?

1. How is that just mere disobedience? Where is the line?
2. How does the SSPX justify doing so if they follow the Pope and yield to his Divine right of authority as they claim?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am trying to get a clearer picture of what initially happened. Everything stems from the consecrations. Was this an act of schism or not. What you ask of the tribunals, etc stems from this act. So you see--it can not be easily determined if the tribunals/annulments are an act of direct denial of papal authority---or acts of self--preservation.

Can one believe in the Divine right to command and then disobey--by St. Jerome it seems to be yes---otherwise it would not be two separate acts he speaks off. Remember St. Jerome states--"not every disobedience is schism" then goes forth to define the two acts---one being the disobedience itself, the other the denial of the Divine right to command.

The act of disobedience If on its own were to be schism--then St. Jerome would not have stated "not every disobedience is schism".

You ask about JPII and Ecclesia Dei. ---- I don't know why---just that he did. I am just trying to get a clearer picture of what happened initially based on on St. Jerome.

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by down under

So to sum up. They are schismitc without fully being in schism. there masses are valid but not licit. there bishops are excommunicated but trying to reconcile. The faithful are warned away without actually being told not to go. The sspx is outside of the church to an extent, but hope is not lost on a reunioun.

in other words sspx is in deep du du. and if they don't straighten up and fly right they will be in formal schism. As for now the faithful are warned that this could go either way.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess --If one wanted to see the SSPX in the most negative light possible. It may just be better to leave SSPX to the Pope and let them be.

[BobP123]

Originally Posted by WanderAimlessly

No matter how some will spin it (by selective quotations, etc.), they are in schism because they are not in full communion with Rome.

And you're enjoying every minute of it, I'll bet. Sad.

[Mike_NC]

Yes but some disobedience is schism.

What I am trying to say is:

JPII referred to SSPX as a schism

If SSPX was not originally in schism when the Archbishop consecrated those four bishops, then did SSPX enter into it when they established tribunals for annulments without Papal Authority?

Are the establishment of those tribunals mere disobedience or something more? Do you see where I am going?

Some disobedience can also be denying the Divine right...

JPII words carry a great deal of weight since the other areas are gray.

[Mike_NC]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am trying to get a clearer picture of what initially happened. Everything stems from the consecrations. Was this an act of schism or not. What you ask of the tribunals, etc stems from this act. So you see--it can not be easily determined if the tribunals/annulments are an act of direct denial of papal authority---or acts of self--preservation.

Can one believe in the Divine right to command and then disobey--by St. Jerome it seems to be yes---otherwise it would not be two separate acts he speaks off. Remember St. Jerome states--"not every disobedience is schism" then goes forth to define the two acts---one being the disobedience itself, the other the denial of the Divine right to command.

The act of disobedience If on its own were to be schism--then St. Jerome would not have stated "not every disobedience is schism".

You ask about JPII and Ecclesia Dei. ---- I don't know why---just that he did. I am just trying to get a clearer picture of what happened initially based on on St. Jerome.

Self preservation from what? The Church? The Pope? What is the "Self" that they were "preserving"? If not an entity outside the Church?

[Sure]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am trying to get a clearer picture of what initially happened. Everything stems from the consecrations. Was this an act of schism or not. What you ask of the tribunals, etc stems from this act. So you see--it can not be easily determined if the tribunals/annulments are an act of direct denial of papal authority---or acts of self--preservation.

Can one believe in the Divine right to command and then disobey--by St. Jerome it seems to be yes---otherwise it would not be two separate acts he speaks off. Remember St. Jerome states--"not every disobedience is schism" then goes forth to define the two acts---one being the disobedience itself, the other the denial of the Divine right to command.

The act of disobedience If on its own were to be schism--then St. Jerome would not have stated "not every disobedience is schism".

You ask about JPII and Ecclesia Dei. ---- I don't know why---just that he did. I am just trying to get a clearer picture of what happened initially based on on St. Jerome.

It's probably best to look to the appropriate Church documents to make our determination. The motu proprio Ecclesia Dei calls the act of consecration a "schismatic act" so there is really no debate there.

The only other document that has been issued is the response from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts whose role it is to interpret documents. They say: "As long as there are no changes which may lead to the re-establishment of this necessary communion, the whole Lefebvrian movement is to be held schismatic, in view of the existence of a formal declaration by the Supreme Authority on this matter."

They also state clearly: "Doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio and the Decree."

We should avoid forming our opinions based on rumors and hearsay and form them on current authoritative Church teaching.

Of course, as we have discussed elsewhere, the above rulings could be changed at any moment by Pope Benedict.

[bear06]

Of course, as we have discussed elsewhere, the above rulings could be changed at any moment by Pope Benedict.

And here's to praying they will be.

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Mike_NC

Self preservation from what? The Church? The Pope? What is the "Self" that they were "preserving"? If not an entity outside the Church?

----------------------------------------------------------

Self preservation in the context of existing. Self preservation in being able to exist.

You exist--and have the instinct of self -preservation (do what is necessary to exist)---does this automaticly put you outside the Church.

Currently--there have been some statements from Card. Castrillon Hoyos--that they are not in formal schism. So frankly it would better serve justice to let the Pope handle the matter---and let the SSPX be.

[Mike_NC]

What was the SSPX preserving?


Their existence as people and Catholics was not at stake nor preserved through their actions.

[Sure]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home

----------------------------------------------------------

Self preservation in the context of existing. Self preservation in being able to exist.

You exist--and have the instinct of self -preservation (do what is necessary to exist)---does this automaticly put you outside the Church.

Currently--there have been some statements from Card. Castrillon Hoyos--that they are not in formal schism. So frankly it would better serve justice to let the Pope handle the matter---and let the SSPX be.

There is a tension between what Card. Castrillon has said in interviews and what is the official status according to the Church. It is safe to say, that the official teaching is what is in effect and is what should inform our opinions.

I keep thinking back to the mid 60's when the issue of birth control was being discussed. Pope Paul VI was said to be in favor of allowing birth control and there was a committee convened that was said to agree that birth control should be allowed. Rumors were very strong that in fact birth control would be permitted. But the fact, through all of this the official teaching remained that birth control was NOT permitted. There were many problems of misinformation caused by people forming their opinions on the RUMORS and not on the official TEACHINGS. Now, let's be clear, I am not attempting to draw a moral equivalency between the SSPX and birth control. But I think this is a good example of why it is a bad idea to base an opinion on a rumor (even if it seems well-founded).

Here is an interesting post from a solid traditionalist priest, Fr. Zuhlsdorf on the same tension that you have noticed:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/02/card-...entine-indult/

[Sure]

Originally Posted by Mike_NC

What was the SSPX preserving?


Their existence as people and Catholics was not at stake nor preserved through their actions.

Mike,

Their argument was that they were preserving their own order and in a broader sense, the traditional liturgy of the Church.

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Mike_NC

What was the SSPX preserving? Their existence as people and Catholics was not at stake nor preserved through their actions.


It's not up to them whether they exist within the Church however the wanted to in spite of what the Pope wanted b/c the were supposed to be obedient.

What self-preservation? By that standard, Luther did that same thing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From what I understand---they are preserving the Faith as Catholics---from the mis-interpretation and mis-application of the Council.

The difference is Luther's act resulted in heresy---a charge you cannot put on the SSPX. Now in the future---if they start "ordaining" women to the priesthood, or some other comparable act --they may loose the ability to consecrate---but until such time---pointing to Luther serves no purpose. In other words--don't dump on them for what they have not yet done.

[Mike_NC]

Luther and others who have left felt they were preserving or restoring the Church.

[Mike_NC]

Here's the bottom line for me:

I sympathize and like much of what the SSPX stands for but if Pope John Paul II declared them to be in schism*, then that's enough for me.

IMO, SSPX should do everything in their power to reconcile and they are not in a position to dictate anything to Rome.

*which he did and we've seen enough documentation on this thread to prove that