Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Johannes on January 08, 2025, 12:28:22 PM

Title: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Johannes on January 08, 2025, 12:28:22 PM
Schism is a sin against charity, because it attacks and rends the unity of the Church - the Mystical Body of Christ.

Many people say they are Catholic. The Arians thought they were Catholic. Luther taught the "true Church" was the invisible body of believers. Palma de Troya thinks they are, etc. But if one is in schism from the Body of the Church (forget about Bergoglio being pope or not) can they really be considered as Catholic?


THIS (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/what-is-the-'novus-ordo-church'/) poll on, What is the Novus Ordo "church"? (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/what-is-the-'novus-ordo-church'/)

(https://i.imgur.com/65qyZBr.jpeg)

This ^^ Demonstrates that over 75% of users who voted believe that the N.O. is NOT the Catholic Church but something else. So, for those who voted that way (75%), you would NOT want to be in communion with the N.O. "church" because it is a false church/religion. So, in effect, those who voted that way are of the opinion that the N.O. "church" is the entity that is in schism, or apostasy (depending on how you voted).

This evidence is further supported by THIS (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/francis-shows-up-for-mass-tomorrow-what-do-you-do/) poll: What would you do if Francis Shows up at Mass? (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/francis-shows-up-for-mass-tomorrow-what-do-you-do/)
(https://i.imgur.com/fVILYxn.jpeg)

This ^^ demonstrates that again around 75% are so repulsed by Jorge Bergoglio that the mere thought of being in communion with him and sharing in his presence at the Mass would cause them to rebuke, denounce, or flee from him (a clear sign of disunity and disavowal).

A good technical definition of Schism is given in Slater's Moral Theology - 1908:

(https://i.imgur.com/wMTRFqA.jpeg)

Source: Slater's Moral Theology (https://archive.org/details/manualofmoralthe02slat/page/390/mode/2up)

So, even ruling Bergoglio out as pope (though I know the R&R camp don't) another way one can be in schism is because one holds a false opinion about the Church and Her doctrines (errors of ecclesiology?). This is distinct from heresy.  As a result of these false opinions and forming of a "new body" they "separate themselves".  from the Body of the Church (which is exactly what Pius XII taught in M.C.)

As established from above, N.O. is a false sect/religion. So, this polling will not even take into account the Indult goers/members, who clearly WANT to belong to the N.O. and have offered the "pinch of incense" to new Rome (Sorry, but if you hold the N.O. church is the true Church then you cannot be in schism for being an indulter - "thou shalt not commit indultery").

But what about the rest of the groups who self-identify as "Catholic"? If one has even a single heresy, they are not Catholic. Also, if one has a false opinion about the Church or its doctrines, they are schismatic and not Catholic, refusing communion with other members, etc. The False Ecuмenism of Vatican 2 teaches the various sects to look at what they have in common while ignoring the doctrinal differences. How is this essentially any different than many of the "Trad" groups act/think?

Related Polls:

Poll: What did Vatican II teach? - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/poll-what-did-vatican-ii-teach/)

Poll: Can the Pope teach error(s) to the Church? - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/poll-can-the-pope-teach-error(s)-to-the-church/)

Poll: Are heretics members of the Catholic Church? - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/poll-are-heretics-members-of-the-catholic-church/)

Francis Shows Up for Mass Tomorrow What Do You Do? - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/francis-shows-up-for-mass-tomorrow-what-do-you-do/)

Poll: The visibility of the Church: how low can we go? - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/poll-the-visibility-of-the-church-how-low-can-we-go/)

Poll: What is the "Novus Ordo church"? - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/what-is-the-'novus-ordo-church'/)

Poll: Could a new "pope" fix the Novus Ordo church and make it Catholic again? - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/poll-could-a-new-'pope'-fix-the-novus-ordo-church-and-make-it-catholic-again/)

Are we in the Great Apostasy? - page 1 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/are-we-in-the-great-apostasy/)








Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Gray2023 on January 08, 2025, 01:09:13 PM
Just Curious.

Why do you ask these polls and make your statements?

What exactly are you trying to get at?
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Stubborn on January 08, 2025, 01:54:50 PM
I could only add 10 options but there is one more concrete one that I wanted to add:


Anyone who is Una cuм with "Pope Francis" is in schism because they unite themselves to the heretic Bergoglio in the sacred action of the Mass.
If you agree with this ^^ option - just thumbs down this post. (I am running a pretty sweet ratio, and I don't want to mess it up).
Priests and laypeople forget or deny that it is only their opinion that the Chair is vacant. Fr. Wathen states it as the Church has always taught it.... "We say that that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy."
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Stubborn on January 08, 2025, 02:02:49 PM
I could only add 10 options but there is one more concrete one that I wanted to add:

Anyone who is Una cuм with "Pope Francis" is in schism because they unite themselves to the heretic Bergoglio in the sacred action of the Mass.

If you agree with this ^^ option - just thumbs down this post. (I am running a pretty sweet ratio, and I don't want to mess it up).
Snip: "This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists...ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer"- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989

… And then, he (Dom Guillou) goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman
Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives
translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous.. you know, this famous una
cuм.., una cuм of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cuм? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel
en Brenne). You say una cuм in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not
Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim
that when we say una cuм summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace
everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the
prayer. Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom
Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed: "We therefore pray Thee with profound
humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to
accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we
offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to
maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy
Father the Pope." It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or
all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those
who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps,
unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the
Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of
course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! - Archbishop Lefebvre (http://www.ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Monseigneur-Lefebvre-et-lUna-cuм-Archbishop-Lefebvre-and-the-Una-cuм-Copy.pdf)
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Gray2023 on January 08, 2025, 03:56:13 PM
I wouldn't get tied in knots over it though, I doubt many on this forum will select this option (it seems to be more of a go-along-to-get-along, let-sleeping-giants-lie, issue here).
The problem is that us laity have no say in the matter at all.  We do the best we can under the circuмstances.  Inferring that people are being complacent is an arrogant stance.  There are many moving parts and God has only given each of us different parts of a puzzle to put together and none of us know what the final picture looks like. Most of us will die before we see anything Great.

I would say that it is more important to have apostolic succession then whether the "Una cuм" phrase is used or not.  

The four marks of the church

One (the unity of the Mystical body of Christ that is alive and strong in the Faithful)
Holy (from God.  The laity does this with pray, Sacraments, penance, duty of state)
Catholic (This is what we know from all the Church prior to Vatican 2)
Apostolic (This is why the Faithful like to check the lineage of their priest)

Lets not make it more complicated.
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 08, 2025, 04:02:13 PM
:laugh1:  We're 60 years into this crisis and one still has to have 10+ "answers" in a poll.

This proves that the crisis is a supernatural one, a historical anomaly, a unique chastisement sent by God.  ...one not easily explained, until God lets the Church explain it.

Until then, we pray.  Arguing about it has solved nothing in the last 60 years and it won't solve anything today.
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: forlorn on January 08, 2025, 04:17:18 PM

What is the "Thesis" of Sanborn and co?
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: forlorn on January 08, 2025, 04:20:36 PM
Argue all you like, or not, vote or don't, some people have a different opinion about these things. Simply stating "one is doing their best", or "finding answers is too hard", doesn't make it true. :facepalm:. Arrogance can take many forms.
It is not always correct or wise to claim ignorance, but it is the absolute opposite of arrogance. "I do not know enough to say for sure" is not and could not be arrogant. "I know for absolute certain" (where you seem to be) very well could be.

Now of course, you could be absolutely correct, because we could rephrase this discussion as an argument between a Catholic and agnostics, where the agnostics say they aren't sure and you assuredly declare your belief in God. In that case you would be totally correct, as you may well be in this case too, but that's a position you have to justify with a little more than just "anyone answering with uncertainty is an arrogant schismatic".
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: forlorn on January 08, 2025, 04:38:35 PM
I don't remember giving my position above, maybe you could enlighten me?
It was the point when you called people who weren't willing or felt unable to judge who was a schismatic "arrogrant".

Quote
One can in theory determine with some degree of moral certainty that a particular group is objectively schismatic without crossing into "arrogance" and without claiming "ignorance". 


And yes, of course, "Some things of this nature can be known". So go on, elaborate: what's your secret? How do you know with such certainty who is and isn't a schismatic without the Church having declared such?
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: forlorn on January 08, 2025, 04:50:54 PM
Well, I didn't actually say that, and that may be the case for some, not so for everyone. Arrogance can and does take many forms. The veiled forms can often hide behind a false humility or feigned ignorance, or self-righteous indignation.

Pretending You Don't Know Something When You Do - The Art Of Faking Ignorance
(https://talkafeels.com/en/pretending-you-dont-know-something-when-you-do-the-art-of-faking-ignorance)
  • It can be a way to avoid appearing boastful or arrogant. Pretending not to know something can make a person come across as more humble.
(https://talkafeels.com/en/pretending-you-dont-know-something-when-you-do-the-art-of-faking-ignorance)
[which in itself could be a form of veiled arrogance (false humility), "How dare you tell me to study and think to arrive at some sort of certainty, I have no obligation to ask those questions, nor answer them!"]
Are you suggesting that we wait for the N.O. schismatic false clergy to declare themselves such?

Are you suggesting that no one can know if someone is a schismatic otherwise?

No, I'm suggesting you give YOUR reasoning.
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: forlorn on January 08, 2025, 05:09:37 PM
Oh, ok, well to me it seems certain that some of the above groups meet the objective definition of being schismatic. Though I will keep my thoughts to myself about which particular ones for now, as I gather more information on them and the other polls I have been running.

I will point out that people pretending that they are all united in the faith seems somewhat absurd to me. for instance;

The SSPV clergy say you cannot go to Thuc-bishops.

RCI says, "do not come here for sacraments if you are a "feenynite" (same with SSPV).

Resistance is pitched against SSPX, and I would guess that some of their priests would at least be displeased to know their faithful go to SSPX chapels and vice versa.


Dogmatic Non-Una-cuм will not go to ANY Una-cuм Francis Masses as they consider it schism/sacrilege (almost all the Thuc-line bishops tell their faithful NOT to go to Una-cuм-Francis Masses.)

Some SSPX priest say it is ok to go to Indult, some say no. Most Sedes say you cannot go to the Indult.


From what I can tell, the only thing they all have in common is they say you cannot/should not go to the Novus Ordo (minus Bishop Williamson's exceptions).

These are just a few of my thoughts - since you asked...

Thank you for the quick response. You have raised good points, and I'll have to have a think about these before I attempt to reply (if I don't find the time tomorrow, then Friday or Saturday).

God bless.
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Gray2023 on January 08, 2025, 05:15:08 PM
Oh, ok, well to me it seems certain that some of the above groups meet the objective definition of being schismatic. Though I will keep my thoughts to myself about which particular ones for now, as I gather more information on them and the other polls I have been running.

I will point out that people pretending that they are all united in the faith seems somewhat absurd to me. for instance;

The SSPV clergy say you cannot go to Thuc-bishops.

RCI says, "do not come here for sacraments if you are a "feenynite" (same with SSPV).

Resistance is pitched against SSPX, and I would guess that some of their priests would at least be displeased to know their faithful go to SSPX chapels and vice versa.

Dogmatic Non-Una-cuм will not go to ANY Una-cuм Francis Masses as they consider it schism/sacrilege.

These are just a few of my thoughts - since you asked...

There are two confusing choices right now.

1》 Follow Pope Francis and the Vatican 2 church.

2) Join rhe scattered sheep who don't have a head.

Which do you choose?

Most here choose 2

Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Stubborn on January 09, 2025, 05:42:50 AM
There are two confusing choices right now.

1》 Follow Pope Francis and the Vatican 2 church.

2) Join the scattered sheep who don't have a head.

Which do you choose?

Most here choose 2
To me, here the pope is explaining R&R, but I'm interested in finding out what does this mean to you Gray:

1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted. - Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio 1559
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 09, 2025, 08:11:48 AM
Schism can be due to either 1) Refusing subjection/submissoin to and communion with the Holy See or 2) refusing communion with other Catholics.

Per 1 -- If Bergoglio is the Pope, a refusal of submission would constitute schism ... unless the individual entertains some well-founded doubt about the legitimacy of Bergoglio (per the Canonists).  Now, even though some groups hold that Bergoglio is pope, many entertain the possibility that he might not be (we've heard that from +Lefebvre, and even +Williamson and others), at which point, lacking the requisite dogmatic-fact-certainty regarding Bergoglio's papacy, that would absolve someone of schism per those Canonists.  Dogmatic Sedeplenists who refuse submission to and communion with Bergoglio would be schismatic.

Per 2 -- Some Trads dogmatize their conclusions / theories / positions about various subjects that are in fact not dogmatically certain and treat those who do not adhere to their positions as if they were non-Catholics, refusing Communion with them (e.g. priests refusing Sacraments).  By refusing communion with other Catholics, they too can be in schism (if they're wrong about their conclusions, which in most cases they are).  So, for instance, SSPV in treating CMRI and Feeneyites as non-Catholics (refusing them Communion), or the radical Pro-EENS crowd, meaning those who hold that anyone who believes in BoD is a heretic (even if the position is articulated in a way that the Church has tolerated and accepted, e.g. the position of some of the Church Doctors.  There is a distinction, too, where one can argue that a cetain POSITION is objectively heretical, but since the Church has not defined it clearly enough or weighed in on it, they still consider those who adhere to it Catholics, because the Church has not concluded otherwise.  So, for instance, if I were a Thomist priest, I might still argue that Molinism is objectively heretical, but since the Church said we should still consider those who adhere to it Catholic, I would still give Holy Communion to Molinists.  One might HAVE argued before the definition of papal infallibility or the Immaculate Conception, that these were objectively dogmas, but couldn't refuse communion with those who didn't agree with that ... until it was clearly defined by the Church.  In point of fact, they'd be right, since all dogmas were always dogmas, having all been revealed in the Deposit of Faith before the death of the last Apostle (St. John) ... but those who denied them would not be formal heretics (guilty of heresy) until the Church defined it with sufficient clarity to end all doubt and establish the certainty of faith regarding that conclusion.  Consequently, while one might ARGUE that a certain position is OBJECTIVELY heretical, one cannot refuse communion with (or, in the case of priests/bishops, the Sacraments to) those who do not hold your position.

So, many of the "dogmatic" positions, whether dogmatic R&R (while remaining Trad and refusing submmission to Bergoglio), meaning where it's dogmatically certain (dogmatic fact) that Bergoglio is pope, or else dogmatic SVism or dogmatic anti-BoDism, meaning that they'd refuse communion with thoes who disagree with their as-yet-not-defined conclusions ... those would be schismatic.  Unfortunately, many of the Trad positions have been illegitimately elevated to the level of dogma, and I find that there's only one that is a legitimate point of dogmatic contention, namely, the nature of the Church and of the papacy and the Magisterium where it pertains to the indefectibility of the Church.

I'm working on an essay on my Substack entitled "Dogmatic Indefectibilism" to lay all this out.  I actually have a half dozen (or more) essays in various states of completion on there, and have to "pull the trigger" on some of them.  While I can rattle off posts like this in a minute, I tend to be a bit over-perfectionist about the stuff there, trying to make sure they're very polished ... and I think it's a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 09, 2025, 08:31:12 AM
But, as per my discussions, "groups" per se aren't schismatic (even if they qualify under the criteria above) unless and until they're declared such by the Church's authority.  So, for instance, there are a few dogmatic R&R in the R&R "groups", but many of them entertain some doubts/questions regarding legitimacy that would absolve them of schism, and the same goes with other groups.  So, short of ADHERING to a declared schismatic group, schism isn't somehow some "social sin".  St. Pius X, for instance, actually gave permission to Catholics living in Orthodox territories where there was no Catholic presence, to receive the Sacraments from the schismatics (provided there was no danger to their faith or potential for scandal).
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 09, 2025, 08:32:30 AM
This is my favorite poll option though:
Quote
Those outed/banned by CathInfo are in schism because they upset some forum users.

:laugh1:
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Gray2023 on January 09, 2025, 08:53:46 AM
To me, here the pope is explaining R&R, but I'm interested in finding out what does this mean to you Gray:

1.In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted. - Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio 1559
That was dated in 1559.  I am not sure our current situation could be imagined.

If I believe that the Pope is the Pope then I must attend his approved masses.  If I believe that there is something really wrong with the Pope and the new masses, I must find a solution.  My family and I have decided that as long as the priest has Apostolic Succession and is Catholic, then we are able in this confusing time to go to their Masses.

A future Pope will fix this.

I think those who believe that Pope Francis is the Pope and attend churches outside jurisdiction are technically in schism with the Pope.  I understand that these are trying times, so I think God will show greater mercy for many souls who are doing the best they can.
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Stubborn on January 09, 2025, 09:37:51 AM
That was dated in 1559.  I am not sure our current situation could be imagined.
Ok, well, he is talking specifically about popes in that quote. What he was not doing is he was not imagining our current situation per se, but implied in his concern was the implication of "a" crisis due to a heretical pope and as such, should such a pope happen (as has happened with all the popes since PJXXIII), what is it that he told us we must do? 
1) judge or insist that he is not pope
2) decide if he is pope or not
3) contradict him (do not deviate from the faith with him)

Obviously the answer is #3. This means #1 and #2 are wrong, which means those who do either of those two things are wrong - according to Pope Paul IV that is.

Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 09, 2025, 10:56:06 AM
Apologies, I have a bunch of questions;

Who is the "Church's authority" right now? Do you believe all judgements must be suspended at this time - and no one can arrive at any sort of morally binding certainty about these things? Is it all just subjective and internal forum?

There's a vacuum of authority in terms of rendering judgments.  Obvioiusly, some groups believe there's no pope, but even R&R would consider the putative pope Bergoglio to be bereft of any CREDIBLE/BINDING authority.  In other words, if Bergoglio were to declare X, Y, or Z schismatic, no Trad would accept that as a legitimate exercise of authority.

Not ALL judgments must be suspended, but only judgements regarding matters not already decided by the Church.  So, for instance, I can judge the Orthodox to be schismatics (already decided), but I can't judge CMRI to be schismatics (not decided by the Church, and disagreed upon by Traditional  Catholics).  And by "judgment" here, I do not mean simply making a determination of fact, as an opinion, but a judgment that I would then consider objectively binding upon all Catholic consciences.  So, for instance, if I were a priest and I did happen to make the assessment that CMRI are schismatics (I personally disagree), I might opine that way about it, but I would not withhold Communion from someone simply for assisting at CMRI Masses or even for being formally part of the organization.  Since no one in a position of authority to bind consciences has determined that CMRI are schismatics, even if I personally think they are, my opinion means nothing and I can't impose it on someone else.

I'll get back to the other questions later.
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Stubborn on January 09, 2025, 11:03:04 AM
cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio

5. [By this Our Constitution,] moreover, [which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, decree and define:] as follows concerning those who shall have presumed in any way knowingly to receive, defend, favour, believe or teach the teaching of those so apprehended, confessed or convicted.........
But what is it that he told us we must do about it?

1) judge or insist that he is not pope?
2) decide if he is pope or not?
3) contradict him? (do not deviate from the faith with him)

Obviously the answer is #3. This means #1 and #2 are wrong, which means those who do either of those two things are wrong - according to Pope Paul IV that is.
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Stubborn on January 09, 2025, 11:28:27 AM
No reason to start a whole new thread just to avoid answering the question, simply answer the clear question with a clear answer. 
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 09, 2025, 12:48:21 PM
For lay people - do you NOT consider sharing communion and a normal sacramental life as "adhering" to a group? I mean what exactly would fit your description of it? Would it be having to state verbally that one belonged to such a schismatic group, or internally think of themselves as a member of it, but they would be "good" if they are just using the schismatic clergy as "sacrament dispensers"?

No, receiving the Sacraments (even regularly) from a group does not constitute adherence to the group.  Even in Canon Law, if one attended Greek Orthodox rites even, one would only be considered SUSPECT of schism/heresy ... and only after 6 months of attendance.  It's well known that many sedevacantists and Resistance folks assist regularly at SSPX Masses, for instance.  They've simply made the judgment that it's licit to receive Sacraments there, based on various rationales ... even though they do not "agree with" or "adhere to" the group's positions.
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Ladislaus on January 09, 2025, 12:56:30 PM
In one sense, schism can be a "social sin" if the acts of the schismatic are shared communally. In another sense, it could only be internal and/or expressed externally by removing oneself from all other Catholics and refusing communion with them or say secretly hating the pope and refusing submission to him in spiritual matters. Do you agree with this?

As previously mentioned, receiving Sacraments from a schismatic group might render one "suspect" of schism, but it's not necessarily objectively the case ... and ESPECIALLY since the groups we're talking about here haven't even been authoritatively declared to be in schism.  You keep speaking of this as if a declared schismatic group like the Orthodox are in the same category as various groups Trads have "declared" to be in schism.  Even IF it were a declared group, it's not certain ... but then in the case of a group who has not been declared and the assessment is based merely on your own private judgement, there's not a chance that merely assisting at those Masses would constitute schism of any kind.

So your premise seem to be not only that declared (and professed) schismatic groups are in the same category as groups that profess to be Catholic and about whom the Church has not authoritatively determined otherwise.  That's apples and oranges.  Not only that, but then you're implying that this putative schism (based on your private judgment) is even somehow contagious or communicable.  So, if someone whom you do not consider to hold schismatic positions attends a chapel of a group that does in your opinion hold to schismatic opinions, even though he himself does not adhere to the schismatic posiiton, but has merely judged it licit to attend the chapel (for reasons, say, such as those I articulated) ... now that person is schismatic not for actually holding the schismatic opinion but merely for holding that it's OK to go there for Mass since the Church hasn't been declared schismatic.  Or, as some groups do, you hold a position to be heretical, so that even if I don't hold that heretical position, I'm a heretic for just disagreeing with you that it's heresy?  In other words, I don't agree with the alleged heresy, but you judge me a heretic for disagreeing with your assessment of the theological note.

These dogmatic types of opinions and positions are in fact the primary tendency to schism among the majority of Traditional Catholics, i.e THIS thinking is precisely the closest thintg to schism, where ironically it's those who declare many/most other Trads to be guilty of schism that are actually most in danger of being schismatics themselves.

Here's an example.  You hold that the CMRI are schismatic.  I have nothing to do with the CMRI and disagree with many of their positions.  But I disagree with your judgment that the CMRI are schismatic.  Therefore, you delcare that I'm a schismatic for not considering the CMRI to be schismatic, even though I actually have no connection whatsoever to their group or their attitudes or whatever you consider problematic about them.  Where does it end?  If I'm CMRI, I'm schismatic?  If I don't think the CMRI are schismatic, I'm schismatic?  If I don't think that someone who doesn't think the CMRI are schismatic is schismatic, then I am schismatic?  ad infinitum et ad absurdum
Title: Re: Poll: What "Trad" groups are Schismatic?
Post by: Seraphina on January 09, 2025, 02:39:45 PM
OTHER because I’m unqualified to declare schism.