Skip to main content

Is the SSPX Schismatic like CMTV would like you to believe???

Image
By
+
JMJ

Updated: The comment received today made it worthwhile to both bump this post as well as to respond to it.

I think this is worth repeating for the benefit of Michael Voris et al.

Last year I decided to write to Cardinal Mueller for an explicit answer.

Here's my letter:




Note the way I worded the questions, are the three classes to be regarded as members of the Catholic Church. I didn't just list those actual members of the SSPX (Bishops, Priests, Brothers, Sister), the 3rd order members and those laity who simply attend the Mass Centres.

I wasn't all that hopeful of a direct and explicit answer ... I wasn't too surprised ...

... here's the reply:



So ... those who adhere to the SSPX are to be considered as 'not in full communion'. 

What does 'not in full communion' mean?  Does it mean they are in formal schism? 

Nope, because if they were - then the CDF would have answered directly with a yes or no.

They did not.

I realize that Michael Voris and CMTV will say that 'not in full communion' is code for schism.

Actually, if he had studied the documents of the Second Vatican Council, he will find that it doesn't really mean that - even though it is applied to those who formerly would be called or labelled as 'schismatic or heretical'. 

It means that there is communion, but something is lacking.  In short that the SSPX, like the various protestants and orthodox (following the Vatican II mantra) are part of the Church of Christ.  It's like a huge sliding scale.

So, since Michael Voris will not criticise the Pope, then he (and his minions) should stop calling the SSPX 'schismatic' and simply use the words 'not in full communion' or the handy acronym NIFC.  

This way they won't be making a judgement that is well beyond their competence to make (including the Cardinals that are secretly whispering the contrary).

That would really solve a lot of problems for Michael Voris and CMTV.

P^3

Labels:

Comments

  1. AnonymousAugust 15, 2015 at 9:53 PM

    But the Vatican II mantra is incorrect. The laity who attend the SSPX Masses, and the SSPX members themselves are Catholics in communion with the Catholic Church.

    There really is no such thing as "full communion". The Church is one.

    -Andrew

    ReplyDelete
  2. TradicalAugust 16, 2015 at 4:54 PM

    Hi,

    Yes I was just making use of the phraseology currently 'employed' by Rome to prove a point. From Rome's point of view the descriptive title for the state of the sspx is 'not full communion'. This is, I agree, a highly ambiguous phrase that has been used to describe the state of the SSPX, protestants (heretics), and orthodox (schismatics) when all three are in objectively different.

    P^#

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jozaf the ThirdNovember 26, 2018 at 5:08 AM

    It is unfortunate that, by the document you have shown, the SSPX is officially declared "not in full communion with the Catholic Church." Pope Benedict XVI clarifies that the issue is not simply in the "disciplinary level" but also in the "doctrinal level." Thus, like the Protestants and the Orthodox, the SSPX has "no canonical status" and their ministers "do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church." Although they remain "part of the Church of Christ" as you say, they nonetheless are not in full communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Indeed, as St. Ambrose of Milan said, "ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia, et ibi Ecclesia vita eterna."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TradicalNovember 27, 2018 at 10:50 PM

      This is nothing new. The Pope had already said this officially and we've always known the root issue is doctrine.

      However, you missed a few key distinctions.

      First the Protestants and Orthodox are not members of the Catholic Church having separated themselves respectively vis Heresy and Schism.

      The next distinction is whether or not the SSPX validly exercises a ministry via the Sacraments. The answer is simply yes.

      Finally, the 'not in full communion' is an ambiguous phrase. One cannot be 'partially' in the Catholic Church ... one either is or is not Catholic.

      P^3

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

By
+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3
Post a Comment
Read more

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

By
 + JMJ   I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts.  After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3
Post a Comment
Read more

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

By
+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae
Post a Comment
Read more

What the heck is a congregation of "Pontifical Right"

By
+ JMJ In a discussion with a friend the question occurred to me that I didn't actually know was is involved in being a religious order of 'pontifical right'. I had a vague notion that this meant they reported to Rome as opposed to the local diocese. I'm also aware that, according to the accounts I have heard, the Archbishop received 'praise' and the written direction to incardinate priests directly into the SSPX.  This is interesting because it implies that the SSPX priests were no longer required to incardinate in the local diocese but in the SSPX. This is something that belongs to an order of 'pontifical right'. Anyway here's some definitions: Di diritto pontificio is the Italian term for “of pontifical right” . It is given to the ecclesiastical institutions (the religious and secular institutes, societies of apostolic life) either created by the Holy See or approved by it with the formal decree, known by its Latin name, Decretu
Post a Comment
Read more