Skip to main content

Is the SSPX in Schism???

Image
By
 +
JMJ

 

Post Traditionis Custodes  I've noticed the echo chamber harping on see the 'SSPX is in schism'!

Let's keep this up to date - at best TC states a schismatic act occurred in 1988.  

Fast forward to an official statement from Rome in 2014 (see original Post here).

The best they can say is that the SSPX is 'not in full communion'.

As my American friends would say 'Duh'!

P^3


























Labels:

Comments

  1. UnknownJuly 29, 2021 at 9:46 AM

    Hi Tradical

    B16 states in the LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
    TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
    CONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATION
    OF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE
    that the consecrations were not legitimate, any descent Trad would have to be ignorant to believe that, he also says there was a danger of schism, not a schism. There was no danger at all. it is clear from the quote below that the excommunications were regarded by Rome as legitimate and therefore the lifting is explained below as not removing the guilt of the act. Anyone decent Trad who thinks this lifting is a nullification is also ignorant and cannot comprehend the explanation below. Notice in the title Archbishop Lefebvre's name was not included amongst the 4 bishops, did not state 6 bishops. Again any decent Trad would be ignorant to assume that ABL and BDCM had theirs lifted. If they were lifted and a Trad thanked B16 for it those trads would do the heroic Bishops (ABL and BDCM) a great dishonor by thanking B16 for stating they were guilty. The truth demands a nullification not a weakling's thank you for an evil gesture.
    Quote from letter below

    An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

    https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. TradicalJuly 29, 2021 at 11:49 AM

    Hi Anon,

    I'm not certain if you are criticizing me or just generally upset.

    These points have been discussed elsewhere on the blog, but a few points by way of explanation:

    a. The information that I posted here are to demonstrate from a legal position, the best that they can accuse the SSPX is 'not in full communion.

    b. The validity of the excommunication is a point that I've discussed here and from Rome's point of view the excommunications were imposed automatically by the performance of episcopal consecrations without papal mandate. From the SSPX and my point of view, there are a number of issues with the 'excommunication' as well as the decree.

    c. Lastly,++Lefebvre and +de Mayer were not listed because they had died and excommunications cease at death.

    P^3

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 4 - The Mass (Updated with Postscript)

By
+ JMJ Introduction "I don’t understand why they are so afraid of this Mass!!!" A Conservative Catholic priest spoke these words to me one evening in his parich parking lot in 2011, mere days before Pope Benedict XVI issued his follow up to Summorum Pontificum ( 2007-07-07 Motu Proprio , Letter to Bishops , ), Universae Ecclesiae ( 2011-04-30 Motu Proprio , Note ). The people who were afraid that night were bishops. This conservative priest had started a project a year or so earlier – very simply a Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration chapel. Earlier that evening I had visited this chapel with some friends and ended up in a conversation with the priest after everyone had left. Word reached the bishops palace after the completion of the chapel and the priest received a phone call and visit from his local ordinary. My impression (this being now ~15 years ago) was that he was nervous about how the visit would proceed. The bishop came, made a visit to OLJC in the Blessed Sacrament and ...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

By
Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...
8 comments
Read more

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

By
+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.  Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3
30 comments
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