/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Breaking news: water is wet.

>>774586

SSPX jurisdiction status: supplied.

St Athanasius gives his nod of approval. Pope Liberius was mad.

Reminder that Pope Benedict taught the heresy that Jews are saved through the old covenant and don't need Christ.

>>774586

Never understood how SSPX and Sedes can say "There is nosalvation outside the Catholic Church™" while being outside of the very same Church

>>775502

SSPX is in schism

>2009

In 2016 Pope Francis lifted some restrictions. They can now validly and licitly hear confession.

>Never understood how SSPX and Sedes can say "There is nosalvation outside the Catholic Church™" while being outside of the very same Church

SSPX are not sedes. Just because SSPX are not recognised by the heirarchy doesnt mean they aren't within the Church. Canon law provides the right for the laity to form organisations for worship. The only problem wit SSPX is theyre disobedient and have some ecclesiastic restrictions

>>775545

>SSPX are not sedes

which is true, but that anon said "SSPX AND Sedes". they are both still in schismatic standing.

>>775507

>Never understood how SSPX and Sedes can say "There is nosalvation outside the Catholic Church™" while being outside of the very same Church

Because their point of view is they are inside the Catholic Church, and it's the anti-pope/Vatican II sect that's outside it. Inside or outside is by holding the true Catholic beliefs, not who occupies the physical buildings.

>>775556

Sspx are not schismatic. Both the pope and sspx consider each other to be legitimate, just the pope has enacted penalties on them. This is different from schism in that e.g. the orthodox and catholic churches consider each other to be illigitimate

>>775529

It's not m8. The Pope's have said the SSPX is in the Church. Can't be in schism if you're in the Church.

>>775617

>>775789

"CDF prefect says SSPX in schism, suspended from sacraments"

https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=20046

>In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed that: "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in the Church."[20] The status of the SSPX was not changed by Benedict in 2009.[1] This has to some extent been superseded with regard to the exercise by SSPX ministers of ministry within the Catholic Church, but not as regards the canonical status of the society as viewed by the Holy See.[citation needed]

Nope. Schismatics, sway.

>>775610

If you're not with the Seat of Peter, you're not with the Church. Pure and simple.

>>776640

>2009

>>776642

Sedevacantists are with the Seat of Peter. That's why they're named what they are. They believe in the Seat, just that it's currently unoccupied (like it is every time a pope dies).

>>776664

Not an Argument.

>>776642

SSPX aren't sedevacantists… or that's what they say. You can say that you're okay with Pope Francis on all your documents but as long as you continue to refuse to submit doctrinally to the Roman Pontiff, you are as good as schismatic.

>>776712

Not meant to be, though saying not an argument to it wouldn't have been much of one either. But even casual perusal of the topic does turn up things like Pope Francis' letters from 2016 and 2017 that really beggar how someone could be practically schismatic when the very official they're supposed to be schismed from doesn't support such an interpretation.

>>776640

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jK0h5qiui_w

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pitQdPJIDLc

Michael Davis refutes you.

Fr Gruber refutes you.

The Popes say the SSPX is within the church and refute you. Please explain how the sspx are in schism. To continue to obstinately hold someone to be a schismatic whom the popes affirm to not be, is to be a schismatic yourself.

>>776711

>Sedevacantists are with the Seat of Peter.

>it's just empty

great, so it's just a twist on the orthodox pov. great, just great. not schismatic at all.

>>776737

What the late Michael Davies or the late Fr. Gruner have to say on the subject has no authority over the Vatican. There are (or were) in schism. You are in schism if you are part of this non-canonical organization.

The Pope and the Church officials have the right of way here, quit playing mind-games with yourself and get in the Ark.

>>776726

I've already said it, and I will say it again. Officiating sacramental confessions is not 1:1 with officiating SSPX. Until they are officially canonized within the Church, they are de-facto schismatics.

https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/11/27/doctrine-remains-problem-in-relations-sspx-affirms-after-vatican-meeting/

>sspx says main thing keeping them away is DOCTRINE (so not just schismatics, but heretics)

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/cdl-burke-sspx-in-schism

>Cardinal Burke, most respected traditional cardinal and spent time as the highest canon lawyer on earth, says sspx are in schism

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/guest-contribution-qa-with-the-pont-comm-ecclesia-dei-about-sspx-schism-and-sacraments/

>official Ecclesia Dei document answering if they are in schism basically says they might be but we won't say so because it wouldn't be ecumenical

(if they weren't in schism it would be ecumenical to say so. THE ONLY REASON for them not to say is if they are in schism.)

http://papastronsay.com/OfficialDocuments/canonical.pdf

>SSPX associated groups rejoining say they are ending their SCHISM in official vatican documents, have seen multiple but this is the only one I remember off the top of my head

again coming into "full communion with the Church" and being regularized is ENDING SCHISM according to the official documents of it actually happening, not just hypotheticals schismatics invent.

and I'll end with the classic

>“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

If you do not submit to the Pope, you are NOT Catholic, it's that easy. They have separated themselves from the Body of Christ and will only damn themselves to hell.

>>776737

>>776739

Fr. Gruner had his faculties revoked and still did mass in disobedience, he is a schismatic.

Why would you be surprise he said other schismatic disobedient people are also not schismatic?

Also the channel you posted is literally an SSPX channel that mostly features content from SSPX priests, and one of the premier figures on it literally got his start at the infamous Most Holy Family Monastery (vaticancatholic).

Are you joking by posting that like it's an actual source?

>the sspx says they aren't in schism

wow thanks for the insight

Acting like SSPX aren't in schism is totally ridiculous

I will again for emphasis repost the offical statement from the ecclesia dei

>“Statements made by Cardinal Castrillón need to be understood in a technical, canonical sense. Stating that the Society of St. Pius X “is not in formal schism” is to say that there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism. Up to now, the Church has sought to show the maximum charity, courtesy and consideration to all those involved with the hope that such a declaration will not eventually be necessary.

WHY would they hesitate to make that decision, unless the decision would be "unecunemical" ie they are in schism?

This ONLY makes sense if they are actually in schism. There is literally NO way to reasonably interpret the available information without inventing some false idea of "partial communion" because you don't want to be mean to schismatics sending people to hell. The people buying into the sspx being fine are pushing the same ecunemical tripe that they often claim to hate.

Again in that document, it says people who attend sspx chapels have to avoid developing a "schismatic mentality"

How do you get a schismatic mentality from people who aren't schismatics? Can you become an arian by listening to an orthodox priest? If listening to and participating in the SSPX community might turn you into a schismatic then it's obvious SSPX are schismatics and are pushing others to schism.

Like this isn't at all complicated, the higher ups are being nice and ecumenical I honestly have no idea how anyone who has looked into this at all falls for this.

SSPX are schismatics and sending people to hell, no Catholic should expose themselves to anyone who associates with them.

this includes

>fatima center

>the remnant

>angelus press

and anyone else who seems to defend them

again with extra emphasis with an ex cathedra statement

We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

If you do not submit to the Pope (and not implicitly or in some vauge way, but ACTUAL submission).

You are not a Catholic. You can not claim to be a Catholic. You will go to hell unless you repent.

There is no gray area, sspx and schismatics cannot be tolerated nor anyone who apologizes for people damning so many souls to hell.

I'll top off my post with a fantastic quote from St. Irenaeus

He shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, [positively] destroy it — men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. Matthew 23:24 For no reformation of so great importance can be effected by them, as will compensate for the mischief arising from their schism. He shall also judge all those who are beyond the pale of the truth, that is, who are outside the Church; but he himself shall be judged by no one.

SSPX will not lead to anything good

SSPX have not led to anything good

anything the SSPX produces will not lead anything good

nothing of significance will be accomplished by them

they cannot and will not ever effect any reformation of any significance

ALL the sspx and ALL any schismatic can ever accomplish is misleading souls and damning them to hell, most particularly their defenders will be punished.

If there is even the possibility of schism you should flee as from hell fire, with a group as clearly schismatic as the SSPX who so openly are disobedient there can be no justification for having anything to do with them in any way. Defending them in scandal, posting any of their resources is scandal, doing anything in their defense whatsoever is scandal. It is only a good way to be damned along with those around you.

>>776640

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X

Go to canonical situation

https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternité_sacerdotale_Saint-Pie-X

The French article as more info if you understand it

>>776851

A wikipedia article does not have authority over the Vatican. If they are non-canonical, they are non-canonical. Period. If they are non-canonical, they are objectively in a state of Schism.

This is the definition of schism. Go to a canonical parish if you want to be a part of the Catholic Church.

>>775610

They are just crypto-prots.

There really is basically no difference between Luther and one of those people.

>>776925

This. Some statements by archbishop Lefevre mirror Luther's words on the papacy exactly.

although the archbishop changed his ideas more often than the days

For example:

According to Martin Luther, "The Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all churches, has become . . . the very kingdom of sin, death and hell; so that not even the Antichrist, if he were to come, could desire any addition to its wickedness."

According to Marcel Lefebvre, in his Aug. 29, 1987. letter to the four bishops-to-be, "The See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome being occupied by Antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below."

According to Martin Luther, "These [church laws] hold good only so long as they are not injurious to Christianity and the laws of God. Therefore, if the Pope deserves punishment, these laws cease to bind us, since Christendom would suffer."

According to Marcel Lefebvre, "In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith…. If they are forced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey."

>>776739

https://sspx.org/en/faq-page/isnt-the-sspx-schismatic-faq12

Sspx explain well how they are not in schism. You don't understand schism. Rome says they are not in schism. Stop lying.

Give me one reason how a single priest within the sspx is schismatic, let alone how the entire society is schismatic (newsflash, organisations can't commit schism, only individuals, hence why the excommunications were lifted against the eastern churches, despite no change in profession of faith, because they were meaningless anyway, schism is an individual act not a sin by association).

To all those saying the sspx is in schism, answer me this, would you refuse to commune with an sspx priest? Would you refuse to commune with a lay person who attends sspx masses? If you would refuse then that means YOU are the schismatic.

I want to do a survey of the vehement anti-sspx posters here: Who here masturbates/watches porn? If you do this, then I understand why you hate the sspx because you are labouring under immense spiritual pride and are a reprobate with no faith, hope or charity

https://gloria.tv/video/8Q3eqRM4H1sC4puwj84CEgzxF

This is now an Archbishop Lefebvre appreciation thread. Lefebvre contra mundum. The modern day St Athanasius who like St Athanasius preserved the Catholic faith and tradition in the face of corrupt bishops, cardinals and Popes who sought to invent a new faith. Like St Athanasius disobeyed his superiors out of necessity of preserving the faith and operated in other bishops jurisdictions using supplied jurisdiction and was wrongfully invalidly excommunicated by a Pope.

If you like or go to the old rite mass, then you owe + Lefebvre a debt of gratitude for if he had not disobeyed the unjust commands to renege on sacred tradition then there would be no old rite anymore, only novus ordo.

+Lefebvre will be canonised as a saint. +Lefebvre ora pro nobis.

>>776967

To all those saying the EOC is in schism, answer me this, would you refuse to commune with an EOC priest? Would you refuse to commune with a lay person who attends EOC masses? If you would refuse then that means YOU are the schismatic.

And yes I refuse communion with both the EOC and the SSPX unless Rome says otherwise.

>>776969

I don't do any of that so there goes your ad hominem down the toilet.

>>776970

>let me just ordain this four bishops.

Nothing personal JPII.

30 June 1988 was the day your founder and friends left the church.

>faith, hope or charity

The lack of charity is what characterises a schismatic.

But let's get this over with.

Is the SSPX in schism? If not then you accept the council of Vatican II entirely and recognise as legitimate every pope since St. John XIII. Do you accept this? Well excellent my friend. What's taking the society so long to issue an official declaration?

If not you guys are in schism unless during the ongoing negotiations with Rome Pope Francis declares you guys inside the church again.

>>776974

>>776977

What the winnie the pooh is this cultist mentality?

>>776975

I would commune with an Eastern priest and lay person if they let me. Rome has allowed Catholics to do so. So no I am not schismatic.

Rome also says you can go to sspx masses, receive and fulfil your Sunday obligation. Would Rome allow that if they were in schism?

V2 has errors so I can't accept it. I can never accept that the Muslim God is the same as the trinity. That is heresy. If you do not have the father then you do not have the son. Thankfully St Paul vi said v2 was not dogmatic and explicitly refused the protection of the holy spirit thus one does not have to accept it. I accept all the popes. No one in the sspx is sedevacantist.

>>776978

What is this Vatican 2 cultist mentality. It's like you worship a council of modernists that isn't even dogmatic.

>>776979

>I'm not a schismatic I just refuse an Ecumenical council because my personal interpretation tells me it's wrong

OK kid

>>776981

>What is this Vatican 2 cultist mentality. It's like you worship a council of modernists that isn't even dogmatic.

<grug no like ecumenical council

<church must be wrong, grug always right

>>776983

Really taking the intellectual low ground here and refusing the engage in the substance.

Do you worship the God of the Muslims or the Catholic God? If you accept V2 and nostra aetate then you worship the Muslim God not the Catholic one. The Church has defined that if you do not accept the trinity then you worship a different God. This is not my interpretation but the eternal faith of the Church.

>>776988

This article can explain it better than I ever could.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/do-muslims-worship-the-same-god-catholics-do

>>776988

>Do you worship the God of the Muslims or the Catholic God? If you accept V2 and nostra aetate then you worship the Muslim God not the Catholic one. The Church has defined that if you do not accept the trinity then you worship a different God. This is not my interpretation but the eternal faith of the Church.

The church is merely saying that in some religions people only see a ray of the truth.

The pagan philosophers (Plato for example) who also believed in God did only see a ray of the truth.

Muslims reject Christ, but they claim to profess the faith of Abraham, they claim, doesn't mean its true and the church certainly isn't forcing Muslims to accept what she says they believe. There are muslims who indeed see 0.1% of the truth, and there are those who are in complete opposition to it (let's remember Islam has no central teaching. One day is one thing tomorrow is another).

And let's even assume it meant they worship the Christian God, the document still says no matter what if you don't believe Jesus is God and don't join the church you're winnie the poohed (this last part applies to you too).

The church isn't claiming there's any spiritual equality between the heathens and Catholics.

Any Muslim, Hindu, Jew etc who reads this and stays in their respective satanic cults are winnie the poohed into oblivion.

But hey I guess your heretical interpretation condmended by the CDF and in other documents is the right one after all.

>>777005

What this anon says even better than me

>>777005

What this anon says even better than me

>>777007

>>777003

>>777005

>>777003

Nostra Aetate: "3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth"

According to Nostra Aetate, the muslims adore the One-God. Do you also adore this God? If so then you are a muslim not a Catholic. No amount of legalism and corrupt intellectualising can overcome this error. Either you worship the God of the muslims or the Catholic God. Which do you worship? If you worship the Catholic God you can't adore this One-God that the Muslims supposedly adore and you must reject Vatican 2.

>>777005

Do Muslims adore the One-God? If you disgree then you disgree with Vatican 2.

>>777013

>>777016

Why don't you ask "do Muslims worship the same God as catholics"?

Why always taking the other side anon?

It's almost as if…

>>776975

1. The excommunications never happened.

person who violates a law out of necessity* is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity.

if one inculpably thought there was a necessity, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70),

and if one culpably thought there was a necessity, he would still incur no automatic penalties[2] (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

2. Even if the excommunication happened so what? Why would the whole society be excommunicated because 4 of it's members were?

>>776966

What the SSPX thinks about their status does not matter. What the Vatican thinks about their status is what defines the issue.

They are non-canonical. They are schismatic. Period.

>>776969

>Who here masturbates/watches porn?

I do not. What exactly do you hope to accomplish by antagonizing the actual Church?

>then I understand why you hate the sspx because you are labouring under immense spiritual pride and are a reprobate with no faith, hope or charity

You're insane.

>>776970

If you are non-canonical, you are illicit, you are in violation of the communion necessary to be counted among the true flock. That is the definition of schism.

Who has manipulated you so hard that you cannot even google what "schismatic" means?

>>777052

The excommunication is not the actual issue, the issue is that they are non-canonical, that is a schism. They are illicit.

>>776981

>what is this council of trent mentality

>what is this seat of st. peter mentality

>what is this romish mentality

I have no idea what demon's gotten inside of you, but it must be an intense one.

>>777077

Almost perfect.

>Vatican 2 vs tradition

https://sspx.org/en/faq-page/what-should-catholics-think-of-vatican-ii-faq6

I used to call the Sspx schismatic and non catholic. Now I regularly attend one of their chapels

>>777200

They are still schismatic and not fully Catholic, and now, so are you.

>>777200

>>776799

read this

>>777202

>not fully Catholic

funny way of saying not Catholic

>>777205

I only say this so that the bridge be not burned.

>>777209

It's just stating the truth clearly

>>777030

Well do you? Do you worship the same God as the Muslims?

>>777074

Non canonical does not mean in schism. As a lay person I have no canonical status does that mean I'm in schism? Schism means: refusal to be in communion with the Pope and refusal to be in communion with other Catholics. Sspx do not refuse to be in communion with the Pope and any catholic can receive from sspx priests.

It is an insane frothing at the mouth delusion to think canonical irregularity equals schism. When St Athanasius was excommunicated by Pope Liberius and exiled from the patriarchate of Alexander and offered the sacraments without canonical regularity was he in schism?

Rome has declared the sspx is indeed within the church. That means no schism. Rome has spoken. You uppity lay people cannot overrule Rome. You commit the sin of usurpation and schism if you declare someone to be schismatic whom Rome has not declared to be.

>>777202

By excommunicating this lay person you have just committed the sins of usurpation and schism. Repent as schismatics go to hell.

>>777202

An FSSP priest told me I could go and receive at an SSPX mass and fulfill my Sunday obligation. Does that mean he's a schismatic too?

>>777076

Tell me where and why they became non-canonical, because they were canonically founded

>>777202

His Eminence Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos stated that the Catholic faithful may assist at and fulfill their Sunday obligations at an SSPX Mass if they do so out of a love for the Traditional Latin Mass and not a desire to seperate themselves in their conscience from the Vicar of Christ.

Is his eminence a schismatic too?

>>777202

The Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, the former Secretary, second in charge of the PCED, responded to my query personally, in a letter dated 20 March, 2009, by stating: "Our response is that it is possible to fulfill the Sunday and holy day obligation by assisting at Masses of priests of the Society of St. Pius X, but until such time as their situation is regularized in the Church, even though they are part of the Church, we cannot recommend your doing so."

Is he a schismatic too? He also said sspx are part of the church!

>>777228

It's actually OK to receive Mass at SSPX considering the circumstance (it has to the case that no canonized parishes are nearby), in much the same as way as a Catholic can attend an Orthodox Mass or Confession.

Unfortunately, the Orthodox remain in Schism, just like the SSPX.

>>777224

>Non canonical does not mean in schism.

Non-canonical does mean "schism". It is the definition of schism.

> As a lay person I have no canonical status does that mean I'm in schism?

laity cannot be "canonized", I don't know what you're talking about

> Schism means: refusal to be in communion with the Pope and refusal to be in communion with other Catholics

No, Schism means that you are not a Church canonized by the Catholic Church.

>>777225

Do you all creep out of a schismatic discord to band-wagon Catholics?

>>777238

You're literally just making things up as you go along to suit your own interpretation. Define canonical and define schism. Canonical means according to canon law: well one can argue that the sspx is canonical as it was formed under the canons and approval of the local ordinary and this has never been validly rescinded. As for operations, in canon law the supreme law is the salvation of souls which trumps all other laws. There is also a state of emergency clause which allows priests to dispense with canon law according to emergencies. Canon law is designed to serve man, not man to serve canon law. It is perfectly canonical to operation under the state of emergency as the Church is in the worst crisis ever.

Canon law is not an eternal tradition but a disciplinary measure and invention. The early bishops did not have canon law thus were not canonical, however they were not in schism. No where does it say to be uncanonical is to be in schism. The Church defines schism as a personal sin of refusing to be in communion with the Pope or with other Catholics. No mention of canonicity.

Please show a clear dogma where it says those who are uncanonical are anathema. You won't be able to because there is none and you are just usurping papal authority to make up judgments as you go along.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

>>777239

No. I am Catholic not a schismatic. I am in communion with the Pope and all other Catholics.

>>777052

The Canon law isn't above the pope. The Pope is above all authority on the Earth. Including the Canon Law that derives its power from the papacy.

So if the pope says you're excommunicated and in schism then you are.

>but the bishop felt like he was doing good

So do some people when they murder unborn babies.

Murder is murder regardless if you do it in good faith, as well as schism.

You guys become the very liberals you hate with this kind of feeling shit.

And Lefevre knew very well what he was doing and what would be the consequences. It's not like someone never warned him.

>Even if the excommunication happened so what? Why would the whole society be excommunicated because 4 of it's members were?

Whomever joins a schismatic is one as well.

>>777222

When I don't. If a Muslim said to me he worships the one God like we do I'd answer well up to a certain point, the Greeks of St. Paul's time also adore the unknown God but only saw a bit of him. But when you my brownskinned friend start worshipping God and start to ascribe him with some of the properties described in the Koran you start worshipping the Devil instead because many of your doctrine goes against the very own definition of God, just as well as the pagans when they turned their attention to the other gods instead of the unknown one. And besides when you learn there is a Christ and a Catholic Church then by rejecting, because now you know who Christ is, apart from the lies of the Koran you are indeed worshipping another God.

>>777228

Nope. Pope Francis gave his permission as far as I'm aware but only in extraordinary situations, the same way that in an emergency you can go to a EOC mass I guess.

>>777231

If you do so with that purpose in mind then you aren't a schismatic.

Now if you take the claims of the SSPX seriously then you are one.

>not a desire to seperate themselves in their conscience from the Vicar of Christ.

By taking the stand of the SSPX on VII, the schism question and supporting Lefevre you are in schism.

Another thing is to go there because there's no TLM in miles around you and there's a need to go there just for that. It's ita dangerous because the society priests have a schism mentality.

But you don't become a schismatic as of now.

>>777251

If you don't worship the same God as the Muslims then according to nostra aetate you don't worship God. So you reject Vatican 2 then. Either you accept Vatican 2 and adore the Muslim God or you adore the Catholic God and thus reject Vatican 2.

I adore the Catholic God and reject the Muslim God as it is not the same God, thus I cannot accept Nostra Aetate and thus Vatican 2. Am I schismatic?

>>777251

This FSSP priest said it was fine to go SSPX mass regularly even though there was an FSSP parish nearby. Is he schismatic?

>>777251

The founders of the FSSP supported Lefebvre and were in the SSPX until the consecrations. Were they in schism? FSSP owes its existence to the SSPX, does that mean its in schism? The TLM only still exists because Lefebvre preserved it. Does that mean that if you support the TLM you are a schismatic?

The absolute state of the ultramontanists: everyone I disagree with is a schismatic

>>777264

No, but if you're telling the truth, he's simply wrong.

A schismatic is a rogue parish, a non-canonized organization operating as a Catholic Church, without operating under a Catholic authority directly linked to the Vatican.

I have no earthly clue why you keep this up:

"did they do this? are they schismatic?" It's completely nonsensical.

>>777246

>You're literally just making things up as you go along to suit your own interpretation.

No, to be a non-canonical organization means you are in a state of schism. That's the literal definition.

>Canonical means according to canon law: well one can argue that the sspx is canonical

No, you cannot argue it is canonical if it is not considered canonical by the Vatican, which is the sole authority in this situation.

>Canon law is designed to serve man, not man to serve canon law. It is perfectly canonical to operation under the state of emergency as the Church is in the worst crisis ever.

what are you smoking?

>>777267

>e founders of the FSSP supported Lefebvre and were in the SSPX until the consecrations. Were they in schism?

Yes. They are no longer in schism because they were declared canonized by the Church.

>The TLM only still exists because Lefebvre preserved it.

I strongly doubt it.

>>777694

I'm telling the truth. FSSP hate SSPX. He did the whole beware their "schismatic mentality" and why don't you come to the fssp parish instead schtick. But they are by the book so I think he is right and you are wrong.

SSPX don't have any parishes (because they know that that would be an act of schism) only chapels and mass centers and do not operate as an apostolate either (because again that would be an act of schism). They do everything according to canon law including using supplied jurisdiction which is in canon law. So how exactly are they in schism? Why would Rome and all these bishops be telling people its OK to go to them if they were in schism? Why would ecclesia dei say they are a part of the Church. If you are in schism you are no longer a part of the church.

Basically Rome is right that SSPX are in the church and not in schism and you are wrong and are a schismatic and usurper.

>>777695

>I strongly doubt it

Who would offer it then? Indults only existed to draw people away from SSPX. Fssp was only founded to counter and draw people away from SSPX. All the people who offer the old rite mass now were taught by SSPX priests or by people who were taught by SSPX priests.

TLM would not exist because JP2 wanted to end it completely.

Thank you +Lefebvre for preserving the mass of St Peter. Pray for those ungrateful people who hate you despite reaping the fruits of your efforts.

>>777695

Please show me where being non-canonical means being in schism. Also Pope Francis granted faculties for SSPX to have licit ordinations. How can they be uncanonical and in schism if they have faculties for existing as priests under the personal jurisdiction of the Pope?

An underground Chinese bishop consecrated a bishop without papal mandate and told JP2 apologetically asking for the latae sententiae excommunication to be lifted. JP2 responded that he had not incurred the excommunication and it was OK because he had deemed it grave necessity. Was that Chinese bishop in schism according to you?

>>777769

>I'm telling the truth. FSSP hate SSPX.

OK, then why would he approve you going to their mass?

>He did the whole beware their "schismatic mentality" and why don't you come to the fssp parish instead schtick. But they are by the book so I think he is right and you are wrong.

By the book, attending a non-canonical sect is an act of Schism. Either you're leaving more out, like what you just did here, or I really do not think that Priest endorsed you attending a SSPX service.

>So how exactly are they in schism?

They are non-canonical. They must be canonized by the Vatican to not be in schism. End of definition. End of story. Quit trying to re-define it over and over and over like a madman.

>Basically Rome is right that SSPX are in the church and not in schism and you are wrong and are a schismatic and usurper.

???

what a fantastic leap of logic

>>777776

>Please show me where being non-canonical means being in schism.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

The way the Church verifies an organization as having submission to the Supreme Pontiff, and having communion with the larger Catholic Church, is through canonization.

If you are not canonized, you are not part of the Church.

There you go. Quit worming around the definition of schism.

>How can they be uncanonical and in schism if they have faculties for existing as priests under the personal jurisdiction of the Pope?

Because the apostolic succession is not what is disputed here, their canonical status is. If you want an example, look at the Orthodox Church, like I already told you.

>>776974

>The modern day St Athanasius who like St Athanasius preserved the Catholic faith and tradition in the face of corrupt bishops, cardinals and Popes who sought to invent a new faith.

So, our old calendarists consider themselves the new St. Maximus the Confessor, while sspxfags think themselves the resurrection of St. Athanatius.

>>777264

That's simply not true.

>>781973

Because he’s the hero the Church deseves, but not the one it needs right now. So we’ll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he’s not our hero. He’s a silent guardian. A watchful protector.

I legitimately don't get SSPX and the like.

If you are a Catholic, you HAVE to submit to Rome. No ifs, ands, or buts. Submission to the Pope is a core component of Catholicism. So the Pope is pushing heresy, modernism, pedofaggotry and regularfaggotry? Tough shit guys, that's Catholicism for ya. You MUST go along with it, it is God's will.

>>781979

You don’t have to like a pope. You don’t have to like the way he talks to reporters, the way he addresses people in public, or the kinds of shoes he wears. You don’t even have to like the approach he takes to various topics. But you do have to respect the teaching authority of his office when he exercises that authority officially.

>>781990

>He is declaring heresy as dogma ex cathedra.

No he isn't.

>>782004

>>782003

Here is the Pope of Rome praying with heretics:

"The majority of us know how to coexist, it’s easier for us, and that’s a clear message. It’s a message that we have the same Father, up in Heaven, and the same Father down on earth, we adore him… What you have done, visiting these towns, the synagogues, mosques and Christian churches, is an act of brotherhood and a seed. A seed to build that culture of encounter that we all have to carry forward."

-Pope Francis

“We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked”.

-Pope Francis

Evangelii Gaudium 6 n. 247

Here is he pandering to the Jews:

“The Jewish People can no longer be accused of having killed God, as they were for a long time. When one reads the account of the Passion, it is clear.”

-Pope Francis

On Heaven and Earth 2, page 188:

Here is he endorsing sodomy:

"Last year I received a letter from a Spanish man who told me his story from the time when he was a child. He was born a female, a girl, and he suffered greatly because he felt that he was a boy but physically was a girl….He had the operation….He changed his civil identity, he got married and he wrote me a letter saying that it would bring comfort to him to come see me with his bride: he, who had been she, but is he. I received them. They were pleased.”

-Pope Francis

L’ Osservatore Romano, Oct 7, 2016

Maybe I used ex cathedra incorrectly but when the pope says this it becomes dogma. Supremacy of the pope in these matters is Roman Catholic doctrine.

>>782019

>when the pope says this it becomes dogma

wrong

>>782025

Your Pope preaches heresy and prays with heretics. This is not a man of God.

>>782031

>opinions

>>782019

>but when the pope says this it becomes dogma

No. There is a very specific ritual by which Papal Infallibility can be invoked. Francis has never done this.

>>782031

Unfortunately, positions of power sometimes attract bad men. This is hardly the first time it's happened. If something like this were grounds for calling the whole Deposit of Faith invalid, we all probably would have dropped Catholicism long before Francis.

>>782033

So he only preaches heresy at certain moments and at other moments has "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered".

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

>>782031

<look I may have been wrong about both things that I claimed, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong

Sure, orthoprot, and (((Freemasons))) are totally christians not a fruit of Luther's Protestant devolution.

>>782057

I said I may have used the term ex cathedra incorrectly, I wholly admit to being unfamiliar with that specific concept.

This is what the Vatican's own website says: "the Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls".

Do you deny that in Roman Catholic doctrine the Pope has the final say in questions affecting the whole church? Is that not the position of the Vatican? I'm genuinely curious.

You call me Orthoprot or whatever but there would have been no need for ecumenical councils if the Bishop of Rome had the authority to just rule on issues unilaterally. Why were the councils called then? Why did Byzantine emperors call the councils, not the pope of rome?

>>782033

The Orthodox are fully catholic. The Bishop of Rome however is not catholic at all. He prays with muslims and Jews and denies God.

"I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being."

-Pope Francis

Another gem from the man whom Latins claim to have universal, immediate, and unlimited authority over the church. I hope he is not infallible as if so we are truly in the hands of Lucifer.

>>782065

>Do you deny that in Roman Catholic doctrine the Pope has the final say in questions affecting the whole church?

Yes, only ex cathedra.

>Why were the councils called then? Why did Byzantine emperors call the councils, not the pope of rome?

Politics. The byzantine emperors was pretty notorious for messing with the seat of the patriarchs pretty consistently, see photius and st. ignatius at Constantinople.

Let me also remind you, the Reformation was not so much fueled by righteous indignation at the Church by Her flock, but rather heads of state that would dismember Her to remove Her authority. See: the entire history of England and etc etc

>>786031

>Ctrl-F synod

>0 results

>>782086

He is clearly saying that God is not solely the God of Catholics, that is, only for Catholics, but a God of all people, in response to interviewer Eugenio Scalfari saying that he believed, ‘being, that is, in the tissue from which forms, bodies arise…’

Interesting that people will rationalize all of the political/ecumenical exhortations of the Holy Father, defend communion in the hand, all the scandalous VII documents, defend the protestant NO mass to the absolute end… but when it comes to Lefebvre, a man that preserved the Holy Mass of the Saints and Crusaders, refused to accept the modernist mass and the scandalous (non-binding) traducing documents of VII, they'll denigrate him as a crypto-prot, schismatic "heretic" who is outside the Church. If I have to go to a terpsichorean clown mass to be in "full communion" I'd certainly rather go to an SSPX Church. You can take that to the bank.

>>774586

BXVI is an apostate. If burning incense to Caesar is apostasy then every modern Pope is an apostate.

"everyone i don't like is an apostate" - SSPX

>>790078

Satan couldn't ask for a better soldier than Lefebvre.

>>790354

Dude. You are just sticking your head in the sand. How can you deny that endorsing false religions and WORSHIPPING IN THEIR HOUSES OF WORSHIP is apostasy?? How can you deny that kissing a Koran is apostasy? I bet Francis could literally go on TV and deny the Trinity and you would still defend him.

>>790354

>>790357

You know, it's always amusing how modernists eschew any mention of 'Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus' (guise, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews adore the One God!!!1! (nevermind John 14:6 and the clear teaching of the Church before VII)), but when it comes to the SSPX, well gee, shucks, they're seditious schismatics outside of the Church–the crime? preserving the teaching of the Church as it was for 1900+ years.

>>790358

>Dude. You are just sticking your head in the sand.

You are saying Christ lied, and claim that Hell has triumphed over the Church. You're not on our side as long as you hold to this heresy.

> How can you deny that endorsing false religions and WORSHIPPING IN THEIR HOUSES OF WORSHIP is apostasy??

No false religion has been endorsed, merely tolerated (which has always been the Church's line, we've never actually persecuted other religions unless just war qualifications are met).

Neither have we "worshiped in their house of worship". Quit preaching lies.

>>790365

Satan holds your tongue.

>>790367

https://www.businessinsider.com/ap-pope-visits-rome-synagogue-in-sign-of-interfaith-friendship-2016-1?IR=T

>Francis said several times that Jews were the "elder brothers" of Christians, repeating the words first uttered by John Paul during his historic visit to the synagogue 30 years ago.

He speaks extremely positively about the false religion of Judaism and always has. You claim this isn't an endorsement?

>https://www.wsj.com/articles/pope-francis-prays-in-mosque-in-sign-of-commitment-to-christian-muslim-relations-1417282839

>ISTANBUL—Pope Francis further demonstrated his commitment to improving relations between Christians and Muslims on Saturday, as he prayed in Istanbul’s historic Blue Mosque

He. Literally. Prayed. In. A. Mosque.

>>790375

>Well, guess I should just sit on my hands all day then!

Better to sit on your hands then beat your fists against the true Church.

>That's why, as a layperson, it's your responsibility to defend orthodox teaching. Do you want to see Jesus' Church morph into a Protestant mess, effectively killing Her by a thousand cuts from the modernists? No? Then go to an SSPX Church.

the SSPX are not canonized, you are not fulfilling any communion with the True Church without Cephas.

>He speaks extremely positively about the false religion of Judaism and always has. You claim this isn't an endorsement?

Yes, it is not an endorsement, and it's true, the Mosaic Jews came first. That they have fallen in the dark for 2,000 years is something to be lamented, and we should pray for them.

>He. Literally. Prayed. In. A. Mosque.

Unless he was worshiping as a Muslim to Allah, in denial of Christ, this does not mean he was committing apostasy. If I entered a mosque and said a Hail Mary, I'd consider it more of a revolutionary act than a heresy.

For a schismatic, you should be more concerned about your own soul.

>>790380

>Unless he was worshiping as a Muslim to Allah, in denial of Christ, this does not mean he was committing apostasy. If I entered a mosque and said a Hail Mary, I'd consider it more of a revolutionary act than a heresy.

HE WENT IN WITH A MUSLIM MUFTI AND PRAYED ALONGSIDE HIM!!! So if the Roman martyrs had burned incense in front of the image of Caesar but in their heads said hail marys, you think that would have been a cool revolutionary act and not apostasy? Are you serious?

>>790382

>HE WENT IN WITH A MUSLIM MUFTI AND PRAYED ALONGSIDE HIM!!!

Still not proof of apostasy or a heresy. I'd say being a veritable schismatic is more dangerous, spiritually speaking.

>So if the Roman martyrs had burned incense in front of the image of Caesar but in their heads said hail marys, you think that would have been a cool revolutionary act and not apostasy

that's a false equivocation, you seem to operate under "magical thinking".

>>790380

>>790382

Also I'm not sure I believe you're even a Catholic after reading that post. When was the last time you went to Confession? Do you even go to Confession?

>>790384

Going to confession in a few hours, actually. When will you go to a canonized Church and confess your schism? If you do not have Cephas, you do not have the Church of Christ.

>>790383

>that's a false equivocation,

They are the exact. same. thing.

> you seem to operate under "magical thinking".

This is a non-sequitur. Do you know what "magical thinking" means?

>Why do the SSPX have a bad relationship with the Holy Father?

https://twitter.com/Pontifex/status/1111697027107184640

>…

>>790386

>They are the exact. same. thing.

"False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not."

you are equivocating martyrdom with a Pope showing up for a photo-op, you seem like you're really confused trying to justify your schism.

>Do you know what "magical thinking" means?

"Magical thinking is the belief that one's ideas, thoughts, wishes, or actions can influence the course of events in the physical world."

It was mostly banter, but I will tell you: just because you think Pope Francis doing a photo-op with some muslim is equivalent to Holy Martyrs giving in, it isn't.

>>790387

He literally claims that Christians and Muslims believe in the same God… I mean what the hell. That's heresy right there, out in the open.

>>790391

>He literally claims that Christians and Muslims believe in the same God… I mean what the hell. That's heresy right there, out in the open.

That's not heresy, heresy would be denying that Jesus Christ is God. Jews and Muslims believe in God, the Father, but deny the Son, so while they may worship the same God, they do not know God.

This is why we call Catholicism the True Religion and the "Full revelation". In any case, being a schismatic, you're in a far worse state than Francis, objectively.

>>790393

>Eeegads! He attended a synagogue and preached peace with jews? What a dastardly fellow! How dare he get invited to their house and show them respect instead of using the time to condem them like a baptist preacher! The absolute horror! Everyone knows Jesus would have condemed them and made a mockery of the jews hospitality!

Wait, so you think Jesus would have gone into a Pagan temple and showed respect to the idols and pagan priests? Am I understanding you right?

>>790394

Christians believe that Jesus is God. Muslims deny that Jesus is God. Therefore they do not believe in the same God. If you deny the Son you are also denying the Father.

>>790395

More funky equivocation, quit justifying your schism with these inane arguments.

>>790398

How much respect did Jesus show to the Pharisees my man? You have read the Bible, right?

>>790397

>Christians believe that Jesus is God

Christians believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jews and Muslims only believe in the Father, so while they worship God, they do not know God, nor approach Him without the Son.

Apostates, are those that were in the faith and left it, which does not apply to Francis.

Heresy, are those that defy the Faith in some way, which does not apply to Francis.

Schism, is to be part of the Church, and to break communion with the Church, which does not apply to Francis, but does apply to you.

>>790399

So is Francis a failed martyr? A pharisee? A jew? A muslim?

Pick one already.

>>790400

>So is Francis a failed martyr? A pharisee? A jew? A muslim?

Why are you being disingenuous and purposefully trying to twist the points I'm making? You know I'm right. You know Jesus would never have respectfully walked into a mosque with a mufti and prayed. You know Jesus would never have gone to a modern-day synagogue and shown respect for rabbis teaching false doctrine. You know that if Francis had been alive during the Roman persecutions he would have been burning incense to Caesar. You just can't admit it because your whole worldview depends on not admitting that something is wrong with the Church.

>>790401

>Why are you being disingenuous and purposefully trying to twist the points I'm making? You know I'm right

No, I think your nuts. You act disingenuous, twist points, and shift goal-posts, and then accuse me of doing it.

They say the Jew shrieks as he strikes you, and you are definitely a good Jew in that sense.

>You just can't admit it because your whole worldview depends on not admitting that something is wrong with the Church.

I think you're a hypocrite, and you cannot be a friend of the Church or of Christ if you accuse both of lying. Has Hell prevailed over the Church or not?

>>790393

>nominalist definitions of love

If you had been Pope during the Arian crisis the entire church would have fallen because apparently loving heretics means indulging them in their perversion against Logos.

Does a father love his son while disciplining him? Yes.

>>790403

It's funny how you absolutely refuse to engage with anything that I'm saying, and all you can do is call me nuts and a hypocrite.

Can you answer my questions about Jesus though? Do you think he would take off his shoes before entering a mosque?

>>790403

RCC apologists set up this false dichotomy where you either have to either accept Francis or else "hell has prevailed". Total fallback argument. Never taking into account the possibility EOC is correct.

>>790405

Show me a man who is like Jesus in every way. Now, show me a Pope who is like Jesus in every way. Your critique of Francis would extend to every other Pope, you are an enemy of the Seat.

>>790408

if all the SSPX just revealed they were EOC I wouldn't mind, I'd just ignore you happily