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

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

The Episcopal Consecrations of 1988, 1991 and 2015 - Some Perspectives

By
+ JMJ In defense of the recent consecration of Fr. Faure by Bishop Williamson, some have argued that the 1991 consecration of Bishop Rangel (RIP) by the Bishops of the SSPX present an equivalent standard of action and principles.  From this they conclude that the SSPX's condemnation of Bishop Williamson's action is flawed as the principles of the 1991 consecration and that of 2015 are equivalent.
2 comments
Read more

America Magazine: Why liturgy is not a space for self-expression

By
 + JMJ Introduction I subscribed to Jesuit Review America Magazine in order to improve my perspective on the crisis of the Church. At first, I found that I had a hard time reading through the articles that caught my attention.  Actually, at best, I didn't get further than a few sentences.  Mostly due to demands on what time I have left on this Good Earth. Then a title caught my eye in a latest article ... someone is saying that the Liturgy is not a space for self-expression.  Then there's the Performative Piety?  What does this mean? What is Performative Piety? I had a sense that "Performative Piety" is the practice of making external acts of piety to be seen by others and Matthew 6:1 (link) confirms this thought. Let's break down the Knox translation: Be sure you do not perform your acts of piety before men ,  for them to watch ;  if you do that,  you have no title to a reward from your Father who is in heaven. If you stopped after the first ph...
Post a Comment
Read more

SSPXasia Timeline

By
+ JMJ The SSPXasia website has an excellent compilation of documents.  One day I may try to fuse it with my own chronicle project. P^3 https://sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Archbishop_Lefebvre_and_the_Vatican/Part_I/ (1987) June 29: Ordination Sermon of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre July 8: Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger July 28: Letter of Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre October 1: Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger October ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Canonical Mission and State of Emergency - A Response to Mr. John Salza - Part B

By
 +  JMJ  I was trying to think of a way to map out the time course I discussed in Part A of this article.  Early this morning it came to me that this is more about obedience and duty than canon law.  As is my wont, I mapped out my thoughts (see image) to draw linkages between the core concepts. My conclusion is that, at least subjectively, Archbishop Lefebvre had sufficient information to make good decisions concerning whether or not he was obliged to obey.  I know that the Jesuits, some Sedevacantists and the priests that left over the years will not agree with my thoughts. So be it.  The core pieces of information include: Attacks against the SSPX were launched because they kept the Tridentine Mass and the pre-conciliar understanding of the Truths of the Faith. The authorities in the Church were willing to go against the laws of the Church. The same authorities encouraged the various dangers to the Faith embedded in popular interpretations of ambiguo...
Post a Comment
Read more