Sedevacantists and "Una Cum" [SSPX] Masses

[austinemarie]

QUOTE: "...second, that the clergy of the SSPX are guilty of the sin of schism."

This is insane.

Schism is defined as refusing to be in communion with the Roman pontiff, or those who are in communion with the Roman pontiff.

How can SSPX be in schism unless there is a Roman pontiff to be "in schism from"?

That accusation was based on granting that Benedict XVI is pope. SSPX obviously forbade attending the Novus Ordo and the Indult Mass. Is that not refusing to be in communion with those who are in communion with the Roman Pontiff?

QUESTION         5
         Why should Catholics have nothing to         do with the Novus Ordo Missae?

QUESTION         10
         May we attend the Indult Mass?

QUESTION         13
         What are we to think of the         Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP)?

[Gloria1]

Food for thought, austinmarie...what a confusing time to be a Catholic.

[Ourladyofconsolation06]

Everyone, listen up. Until Austinmarie answers my question, please refrain from answering his rhetorical questions. He's just trying to start an argument. He's come to Fish Eaters to stir the pot. DONT FEED THE TROLL!

So, I'll ask again.

If the SSPX is guilty of the sin of schism for praying for an "anti-pope" in it's masses, and if it's separated from the unity of the Church, my question is, Where is the Church?
Where is the mystical bride of Christ? Where is the visible Church on Earth? Until you answer this vital question, you condemn yourself through your own arguments.

[Catholicmilkman]

That accusation was based on granting that Benedict XVI is pope. SSPX obviously forbade attending the Novus Ordo and the Indult Mass. Is that not refusing to be in communion with those who are in communion with the Roman Pontiff?

I guess that all depends on what the Church's definition of what it means to be in communion with someone. Anyone have a clear definition of communion?

[Ourladyofconsolation06]

communion

To be one in Faith, Governance, and Worship.

[ancientpapacy]

QUOTE: "...second, that the clergy of the SSPX are guilty of the sin of schism."

This is insane.

Schism is defined as refusing to be in communion with the Roman pontiff, or those who are in communion with the Roman pontiff.

How can SSPX be in schism unless there is a Roman pontiff to be "in schism from"?

That accusation was based on granting that Benedict XVI is pope. SSPX obviously forbade attending the Novus Ordo and the Indult Mass. Is that not refusing to be in communion with those who are in communion with the Roman Pontiff?

QUESTION         5
         Why should Catholics have nothing to         do with the Novus Ordo Missae?

QUESTION         10
         May we attend the Indult Mass?

QUESTION         13
         What are we to think of the         Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP)?

Well, in the case of the Novus Ordo there are practical objections involving sacrilege, so SSPX could be excused there.

Regarding the indult, you're right: SSPX has no authority to take the position it takes, and yes-- that position, pace Mgr Lefebvre, pace Mgr Fellay, could be interpreted as schismatic.

[ancientpapacy]

• first, that the clergy of the SSPX say gravely illicit Masses (since they have no jurisdiction to say Mass nor to administer the other sacraments)

• second, that the clergy of the SSPX are guilty of the sin of schism.

Quote:

“Since the confection and administration of the sacraments is divinely committed to the ministry of the Church, it is self-evident that sacraments can only be conferred by someone who has been legitimately deputed by that same Church.”

One way to judge polemical writing is to test it by subjecting it to that method of refutation known as reduction to the absurd.

In this case, the objection made against SSPX: "the clergy of the SSPX say gravely illicit Masses (since they have no jurisdiction to say Mass nor to administer the other sacraments)" applies just as much to the Thuc line, which can claim no more than the same supplied jurisdiction that SSPX does.

Further, if SSPX is guilty of schism, then Fr Cekada as well as Bishops Dolan and Sanborn were ordained in a schismatic seminary and they should not even be priests, which means that their own ministry is objectively illicit, or at least would not exist without the "schism" of SSPX.

If the sacraments "can only be conferred by someone who has been legitimately deputed by that same Church,” then either supplied jurisdiction suffices, or it would seem that all "unapproved" Tridentine Masses are illicit.


Thus Fr Cekada's article would refute not only the SSPX's position, but his own-- hardly the standard for successful polemical writing.

[NorthernTrad]

communion

To be one in Faith, Governance, and Worship.

So you would worship in at a Novus Ordo? 

[Ourladyofconsolation06]

So you would worship in at a Novus Ordo?

Last time I checked, the Novus Ordo isn't the only form of Worship in the Present Church.

[Gloria1]

Fr. Cekada only thinks certain of the Thuc line are valid, I think.  

I really like AncientPapacy's reduction to the absurd.  I have never understood the need to hammer and hammer away at the SSPX by thee clergy.  One would think that ripping off all that property would be enough, and they'd say they "agree to disagree".  It reminds me of the unceasing demands of various Special Interest groups.  All we can do is pray for God's Justice.