FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
The accusation of schism - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: The accusation of schism (/showthread.php?tid=36054)

Pages: 1 2


Re: The accusation of schism - glgas - 05-05-2010

(05-04-2010, 02:16 PM)JayneK Wrote: I do not think that it is widely understood that an act of disobedience does not necessarily constitute schism.  To say "I cannot in good conscience obey the Pope in this instance but I do not deny his authority" is not schism.   My impression is that many trads fall into this category.  There also seem to be significant numbers who do maintain obedience to the Pope.  From what I can tell, trads who meet the definition of schism are a minority and the stereotype is unfounded.

The problem is with the suspended and excommunicated priests (SSPX as firat category, sedexxx priests the second).

If they would accept the authority of the Pope, they would ask for the lift of suspension, excommunication. (The SSPX almost certainly would get is w/o any further requirement)

As for the laity, if they adhere to them as the contempt of the


Re: The accusation of schism - franklinf - 05-05-2010

(05-05-2010, 04:50 PM)glgas Wrote:
(05-04-2010, 02:16 PM)JayneK Wrote: I do not think that it is widely understood that an act of disobedience does not necessarily constitute schism.  To say "I cannot in good conscience obey the Pope in this instance but I do not deny his authority" is not schism.   My impression is that many trads fall into this category.  There also seem to be significant numbers who do maintain obedience to the Pope.  From what I can tell, trads who meet the definition of schism are a minority and the stereotype is unfounded.

The problem is with the suspended and excommunicated priests (SSPX as firat category, sedexxx priests the second).

If they would accept the authority of the Pope, they would ask for the lift of suspension, excommunication. (The SSPX almost certainly would get is w/o any further requirement)

As for the laity, if they adhere to them as the contempt of the Church or the New Mass, then that individuals are schismatic: they deny the authority of the Magisterium in this question. If someone just attend their Masses without contempt toward the Church and the New mass, those people are sinners like all of us, but certainly not schismatic.

The other Traditionals FSSP , Institute of Christ, etc are living members of the Catholic Church, so are the diocesan priest celebrating TLM.

1) Don't spread lies. The SSPX priests were never excommunicated and the bishops are no longer excommunicated.

2) They do accept the authority of the Pope. Acceptance of authority =/= total obedience in all matters.

3) The issue of the suspensions is a moot point as the Vatican, in conjunction with the SSPX, has stated that that matter will be resolved after the doctrinal discussions.

4) Nice to see that you consider yourself to have magisterial authority, declaring that certain individuals are schismatic. Funny, I don't think Cardinal Hoyos or BXVI would agree with you. Furthermore, there is no sin in attending an SSPX Mass. Is this your own authority again or do you have proof of your accusation?




Re: The accusation of schism - Vetus Ordo - 05-07-2010

There is definitely a schism but not in the traditional camp where the SSPX and many other faithful stand.

The schism is in the Novus Ordo Church, a schismatic church herself as the late Arch. Lefebvre called it.