What makes sspx schismatic? on their site they seem to profess loyalty to the pope
The words I highlighted are the important part of it. They say that the are loyal to the pope, but they don’t do what he says. Pope John Paul II pronounced that Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops he consecrated illicitly were excommunicated, as well as all those who “formally adhere to the schism”. SSPXers will say that the pope was wrong; that they are not excommunicated and that there never was a schism. Well, I know that it was not an ex cathedra statement, but to say that the pope was wrong in the reading of Canon Law and the pronouncement of excommunication…
Here is the entire papal document (Ecclesia Dei)which will tell you everything.
The other poster Rand Al’Thor is right. How can they be loyal to the Pope when it was their disobedience to the Pope which caused the schism. They deliberately ordained some bishops against the explicit instructions of the Pope not to do so. How can that be construed as loyalty??
Perhaps Loyalty and Obedience are quiet different qualities. Can one not be obedient(not recognizing fully the Pope’s authority and yet loyal or be obedient yet dis-loyal.?
What does it matter? These people have separated themselves from the True Church and have endangered their salvation…
Sounds like they are adhering to everything the pre vatican II church practiced and taught. So if it was good enough to get those people to heaven shouldn’t it still be good enough?
santaro, I do believe that obedience to the pope was certainly something that the pre-VII Church practiced and taught.
The problem isn’t so much about theological issues as it is about obedience and discipline. Bishiop Lefbvre (sp?) illicitly ordained several bishops.
While I am very sympathetic to the SSPX I do believe that until another Pope comes along and decides that they aren’t in schism…in schism they shall be.
I understand what you are saying, But as far as the people attending the church who may not know much better are their sacraments valid? Or ar they going to hell like the people who were excommunicated?
I attend an SPPX chapel and am not convinced that Bishop Levebre acted incorrectly at all
Mostly the ceremonies of such chapels are pre Vatican 2 because it is felt that the Council caused such a dense pall of fog to descend upon the Church it is best to stand still until the fog lifts ( I hope that makes sense?)
Having been around since before Vatican 2 and up to now, the changes were insiduously infentessimal but creeping nevertheless more and more.
How can adhering to Church teaching of centuries now be construed illicit?
In all charity, melanie01, I don’t think it was Church teaching of centuries that bishops were allowed to ordain other bishops in disobedience to a direct order from Rome.
Be that as it may, the SSPX did (and continues to) raise some valid concerns. I pray fervently that all members of the SSPX will soon follow the path of some former members back to complete communion with Rome.
SSPX sacraments are valid but illicit.
As far as I understand it, the lay people who attend mass at SSPX chapels (regardless of whether they should or not) are not excommunicated and are not necessarily in schism.
Lack of obedience.
So you are publicly stating that you know better than Pope John Paul II.
Did God fail to protect His Church from this “devilish” council?
If you are referring to Vatican II it was not as you suggest and this had nothing at all to do with SSPX going into schism. No doctrines were changed that SSPX rejected. Their schismatic act was the result of disobedience to the Pope.
I’m just curious… What made them disobey the Pope? What did the Pope ask of them that they willfully disobeyed the Pope?
Thank you all and God Bless.
I am on your side, man. Just a question for those whom are pro-sspx.
This would be like saying that those who practiced the forms of the faith that were restricted at Trent would still be just in illicit practice after Trent. While this issue is more complicated than that it is an adequate analogy.
If they are in authentic ignorance than they are not in “formal adherence” to the Society which is the disposition necessary for the formal juridical actions taken by the Holy See.
On the contrary St. Augustine says that it is better to act under obedience.
All their sacraments are valid but illicit except Confession and Matrimony which are illicit and invalid.
Archbishop Levebre felt that modernism had completely saturated the Church and that it was his responsibility to ordain bishops who were not so infected. He felt that he was justified by the grave necessity clause on this issue. Pius XII issued a moto proprio that required that a mandate from the Holy See be received before the licit ordination of a bishop unless there is a grave necessity. When the Archbishop made his intentions known the Holy See intervened stating that there was no such grave necessity. After a period of negotiations he was allowed to ordain one bishop and not multiple bishops. To this he agreed and then ordained the original intended number. This caused the Holy Father to issue the moto proprio Ecclesia Dei in which all involved were excommunicated as the act itself was schismatic in nature - usurping of the authority of the pope.
So if the Confessions are invalid and Matrimony is invalid then there are a lot of people over there that are going to hell because their sins are not forgiven and they are living in adultery? Am i to understand this correctly?