SSPX isn't schismatic

cora.dashjr.org/trad/yaysspx.html

I hope to put another pamphlet online today that explains why the Traditional Latin Mass is much better than the Novus Ordo.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

[quote=coralewisjr]cora.dashjr.org/trad/yaysspx.html

I hope to put another pamphlet online today that explains why the Traditional Latin Mass is much better than the Novus Ordo.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne
[/quote]

This is NOT going to end well from what I have seen around here.

I do agree that while the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre might have been disobedient, I don’t see the society as being schismatic.

I just love the way that the SSPX and folks like the SSPV get lumped in together around here. There are distinct differences between the those groups.

Oh, and just for the record, I only assist at indults at the moment and for the forseeable future.

Without addressing the question of whether any of their beliefs or Liturgical preferences may be schismatic, those SSPX churches of which I am aware all seem to be operating without the permission of the local Bishop, which would seem to fit the definition of schism:

[quote=CCC]2089 *Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; **schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
[/quote]

Let us not go there.

[quote=Chatter163]Let us not go there.
[/quote]

The SSPX is outside the bonds of Communion with the Successor of St. Peter and the Bishops in communion with him. They are, by definition, in schism from the Church; in the same way that the Orthodox are as well. I hate using the term “schismatics” because of the pejorative sense, but the SSPX are Separated Brethren.

Until I hear otherwise from Pope Benedict XVI…I believe them to be in schism…Im not saying I don’t appreciate their desire to hold on to tradition…Lord knows I want to…but they crossed the line and it resulted in them no longer being in full communion with Rome…therefore I do not have anything to do with them and I suggest you find yourself an Indult TLM to go to instead of going to one done by the SSPX.

[quote=BillyT92679]The SSPX is outside the bonds of Communion with the Successor of St. Peter and the Bishops in communion with him. They are, by definition, in schism from the Church; in the same way that the Orthodox are as well. I hate using the term “schismatics” because of the pejorative sense, but the SSPX are Separated Brethren.
[/quote]

I disagree. The SSPX is in communion with Rome. The Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated very reverently - much more reverently than any Novus Ordo I grew up with. The SSPX has the altar rails, the veils on women’s heads, the official language of the Church. Please reread the pamphlet on my website. I’m praying for you.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

[quote=coralewisjr]cora.dashjr.org/trad/yaysspx.html

I hope to put another pamphlet online today that explains why the Traditional Latin Mass is much better than the Novus Ordo.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne
[/quote]

You pamphelt starts out with an outright lie.

It says, "Is the society of Saint Pius X Schismatic? Excommunicated? Rome says NO."

Please read Ecclesia Dei

Doesn’t matter what we think, it only matters what the Holy Father thinks and Ecclesia Dei clearly states that they are in schism.

I just love the way that the SSPX and folks like the SSPV get lumped in together around here. There are distinct differences between the those groups.

I have not seen that done here. The SSPV is an off shoot of the SSPX. The SSPV are clearly sedevacantist. The SSPX pays lip service to the Holy Father while ignoring him and the bishops of the Catholic Chruch.

They have set up a separate hierarchy and opperate within various dioceses without approval from the local ordinaries.

[quote=coralewisjr]I disagree. The SSPX is in communion with Rome.
[/quote]

How can they be in commuion with Rome when they do not do as Rome commands?

They continually ordain priests with out Rome’s approval and their bishops are excommunicated as they were ordained without a papal mandate.

It is Rome who determines who is in communion with them and it, that is Rome, has stated that the SSPX is outside of that communion.

And let us not forget the fact that the SSPX was instutited in Switzerland as a pious union by Bishop Adam and later was suppressed (along with their seminary) by Bishop Mamie (the successor of Bishop Adam).

So the SSPX was never a religious order in the Catholic Church.

[quote=dumspirospero]Until I hear otherwise from Pope Benedict XVI…
[/quote]

[quote=webpage]This was recently shown to be the case in Hawaii, where Bishop Ferrario decided to excommunicate, in May 1, 1991, some followers of the Society of Saint Pius X, for supporting the Society and attending its Masses. Rome declared that the decision “lacks foundation and hence validity.” Bishop Ferrario’s attempted excommunication of Society followers was overturned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June 28, 1993. “From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned Decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity.” (Apostolic Nunciature, Washington D.C.)
[/quote]

Bro…it has nothing to do with the way they celebrate the mass or how reverant they are…it has to do with Ordaining Bishops without the approval of Rome amongst other things…granted, they may be very reverant at Mass, but they have crossed the line and brought about their own separation from Rome…They are in Schism.

[quote=coralewisjr]I disagree. The SSPX is in communion with Rome. The Traditional Latin Mass is celebrated very reverently - much more reverently than any Novus Ordo I grew up with. The SSPX has the altar rails, the veils on women’s heads, the official language of the Church. Please reread the pamphlet on my website. I’m praying for you.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne
[/quote]

[quote=coralewisjr]cora.dashjr.org/trad/yaysspx.html

I hope to put another pamphlet online today that explains why the Traditional Latin Mass is much better than the Novus Ordo.

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne
[/quote]

As Byzcath said, it doesn’t really matter what we think, it matters what the Successor to Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, thinks. And he doesn’t merely think the SSPX is in schism, he knows it and has said so. Ecclesia Dei…read it.

Regarding your preference for the TLM: that is entirely subjective.
Lots of people, such as our Dumspirospero, on these forums prefer the Indult to the Novus Ordo, but they manage to express themselves without denigrating the Mass of Paul VI. There is NOTHING in the realm of objective truth that demonstrates that the TLM is “better” than the NO, which was promulgated by Paul VI, celebrated by him, and then also by his successors. Both Masses are beautiful and both are equally subject to abuses (there have been threads without number discussing this very issue). Also, altar rails do not an orthodox Mass make. If they did or if Communion in the hand is wrong, then the first Mass was deficient…and given Who the Celebrant was, I’d be careful about asserting their necessity.

This case in question dealt with individual laity not with the SSPX as a whole.

I believe that Bishop Bruskewitz has excommunted the SSPX and its followers within his diocese and this has been upheld by Rome.

Statement issued by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz

[quote=JKirkLVNV]As Byzcath said, it doesn’t really matter what we think, it matters what the Successor to Saint Peter, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, thinks.
[/quote]

It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks. What matters is the truth.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]There is NOTHING in the realm of objective truth that demonstrates that the TLM is “better” than the NO, which was promulgated by Paul VI, celebrated by him, and then also by his successors.
[/quote]

geocities.com/militantis/sacrilegecontents.html

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Both Masses are beautiful and both are equally subject to abuses (there have been threads without number discussing this very issue).
[/quote]

If you are going to claim that the mistranslations and issues at the above website are abuses, then you might note that you are claiming that 99% of the USA N.O. are said in abuse.

[quote=JKirkLVNV]Also, altar rails do not an orthodox Mass make.
[/quote]

They certainly don’t. When I was younger, the church I went to said N.O. Masses and had altar rails also. Of course, they took it out as soon as the priest died…

[quote=JKirkLVNV]If they did or if Communion in the hand is wrong, then the first Mass was deficient…
[/quote]

You forget that those receiving the Eucharist at the first Mass were all bishops (or higher).

You are wrong. Here is the respective Canon.

Can. 17 Ecclesiastical laws are to be understood according to the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful or obscure, there must be recourse to parallel places, if there be any, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

There is absolutely no historical evidence that the Church distributed Holy Communion in any other way than in the hand originally. To assert otherwise is to engage in serious rad trad fantasy and denial! I’m not say we shouldn’t rec. on the tongue, I recieve on the tounge, but this kind of argument (as well as the assertion that the SSPX are not schismatic) is like trying argue that an elephant is a cheese sandwich. You can believe it if you want, but it simply isn’t so.

Communion in the hand results in abuses like this:

Homosexual Activists Disturb Masses, Some Denied Communion, Some Steal It Anyway

LOS ANGELES/ ST PAUL- MINNEAPOLIS, May 16, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Feast of Pentecost is the celebration in the Christian calendar of the descent of the Holy Spirit onto the Disciples of Christ after His resurrection and ascension into heaven as recorded in the bible. In recent years, homosexual activists have used the feast as an annual pretext for protests to make demands that the Catholic Church change her teaching on the sinfulness of homosexual acts.
Archbishop Flynn of St. Paul-Minneapolis, Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles and bishop Matthew Clarke of Rochester New York have been singled out for praise by the Rainbow Sash Movement as being especially friendly to them and their demands. Since the election of Pope Benedict XVI however, word has come down definitively from Rome that the protesters may not receive Holy Communion. Ten days ago, Flynn wrote a letter to the local representative of the group informing him that the group and its supporters would be obliged to remove their sashes before receiving Communion.
In the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, however, a representative of Roger Cardinal Mahoney took the initiative and wrote to the Rainbow Sash Movement, assuring them that there would be no change to existing policy where homosexual activists have been allowed to receive the Eucharist sacrilegiously. The archdiocesan statement did not directly address the question of whether protestors were welcome to receive Communion while wearing their sashes. "As in the past, members of the Rainbow Sash Movement who come to the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels (the Cathedral) this Sunday will be most welcome to attend any of our Masses."
The group responded with a press release where they praised the “warm welcome” they received Sunday, from the Los Angeles Archdiocese. Seeing no further need to protest in a region where their goals are already largely met, the protesters removed their sashes. The press release said, "because of this warm welcome members decided not to wear their Rainbow Sashes."
Faithful Catholics writing in to Open Book expressed their frustration with the misrepresentation of the issue by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. “Colleen” wrote, "The arch(diocese) of LA statement really irks me because it persists in putting forward this fake argument that actively homosexual people are not welcome in the Catholic Church and that is just completely false. Every baptized Catholic and in fact any person, even a non Catholic, is welcome at any Catholic parish Mass at anytime."
Colleen pointed out that the real issue is being avoided. "Anyone living in a state of mortal sin needs to refrain from taking Holy Communion without first attending Confession and having the sincere wish to turn away from sin."
In Rochester, those wearing the sashes were resisted at first by some Catholic parishioners. The release said, “Eventually the Rainbow Sash Members received communion with the support of fellow parishioners.” No statement has been issued by the Rochester diocese.
A first hand account came from who attended the Mass at the Cathedral of the St. Paul-Minneapolis Archdiocese. The commenter, who is not named, said that well over a hundred protesters came and disrupted the Mass and refused to remove their sashes. All those wearing the sash were refused Communion, as well as those who were wearing rainbow pins or ribbons.
(Note that an “EMHC” is an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, a lay person delegated by a priest in an emergency to distribute Communion.) "A few decided to take (Communion) themselves anyway by swiping it out of the EMHC’s plate as they went by after being blessed by the priests instead… and one decided that they should be the EMHC to the Sashers, swiping a Host somehow and breaking it up into pieces to give to other Sashers – stopped quickly, and the Sacrament rescued, by our deacon)."
The commenter went on to describe the disturbance that the protest created at the high Cathedral Mass on one of Christianity’s holiest days. “Honestly, the tension felt by all regarding the presence of the Rainbow Sashers (who were making comments all the way up the Communion lines and waving at people as they went by) overshadowed much of the Mass itself. Particularly for those of us who were seated near enough to see and hear the Communion line (and see the irreverence towards the Eucharist… one person without a Sash received and then turned and handed the Host to a Sasher behind her, who immediately ate it before anyone could do anything.”

(from yesterday’s LifeSiteNews email)

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

[quote=dumspirospero]Until I hear otherwise from Pope Benedict XVI…I believe them to be in schism…Im not saying I don’t appreciate their desire to hold on to tradition…Lord knows I want to…but they crossed the line and it resulted in them no longer being in full communion with Rome…therefore I do not have anything to do with them and I suggest you find yourself an Indult TLM to go to instead of going to one done by the SSPX.
[/quote]

Ditto. That’s all I have to say on the matter.

Coralewisjr, how can you reconcile what you say with the Ecclesia Dei:

**ECCLESIA DEI **

**Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II **

**Given on July 2, 1988. **

  1. With great affliction the Church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on June 30 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 Society of St. Pius X founded by the same Archbishop 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]

  2. This affliction was particularly felt by the successor of Peter, to whom in the first place pertains the guardianship of the unity of the Church,[2] even though the number of persons directly involved in these events might be few, since every person is loved by God on his own account and has been redeemed by the blood of Christ shed on the cross for the salvation of all.

The particular circumstances, both objective and subjective, in which Archbishop Lefebvre acted provide everyone with an occasion for profound reflection and for a renewed pledge of fidelity to Christ and to his Church.

  1. 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 last June 17, Archbishop 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]
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.