From another thread:

[quote = Ladislaus]

Let's pretend you're living at the time of Pius XII.  He rolls out his Holy Week changes.  You form a group, without canonical approval, dedicated to preserving the old Holy Week rites.  You consecrate bishops without papal mandate to preserve Holy Orders within the group.  That would be clearly schismatic; you would be refusing to submit to the Holy Father.

 There's no difference between that and what the SSPX is doing if you say that it's certain with the certainty of faith that the V2 popes are true popes.

 Besides that, it's YOU who have to provide irrefutable proof that the SSPX is NOT schismatic; that burden is on you, not me.  And it matters not to me, given that I hold their legitimacy to be in doubt.  Canon Lawyers clearly state that refusal of submission to a Pope is not schismatic if it's rooted in well-founded suspicions about his legitimacy.  It's not worth my time to prove to you that your position is schismatic.

[/quote]

Does someone here have a little time to provide an irrefutable proof that the SSPX is not schismatic?. This is a most serious accusation.

This is a very serious question about a very grave matter and made in good Faith.

That, and, there's a little something about epikea and supplied jurisdiction- something both sede's and SSPX'ers rely on- that makes it unable to be proven 'irrefutable' during its use.

Cantranella- don't bother wasting your time.

Do the accusations of schism not go the other way round? As in "Is the novus ordo church in schism from the Catholic church?"

IF they are, what authority to their cardinals and bishops and even pope ( or false pope ) have to declare anyone else as schismatic?

Who has the true faith? Is it us or is it them?

If it is us, then they are in schism.
It is is them, then we are outside the church.

The answer to the question ought to be obvious.
They trace their religion back to all of the heretics condemned by the church.
We base it on what the tradition of the church is, has been, and always shall be.
The church continues in us, NOT IN THEM.
They began a new counter-Catholic sect, which falsely claims to be the Catholic church.
THEREFORE, they are in schism.
yet they accuse actual Catholics of their own sin in this matter.
they accuse us because we show them up to be the liars and false catholics that they are.

Cantarella,

Where do you assist?  Are you an SSPXer?  Indulter?  Novus Ordite?

I'm curious.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote

Does someone here have a little time to provide an irrefutable proof that the SSPX is not schismatic?. This is a most serious accusation.

A Catholic cannot be a schismatic for defying and rejecting the laws, teachings, and acts of an Antipope.  

The SSPX cannot be in schism, as these men are not Popes.  

But they believe them to be so.

I think that many who go to SSPX are not sure about the status of these "popes" but for those that actually buy into the the SSPX line of thinking, they are not truly believing these men are popes in the sense of what a pope truly is.

They are following a "cardboard" pope, a figurehead, much like the Queen of England.  It gives them security to have a picture of the "Pope" in their chapels, to help convince themselves that they are in union with them and are not in schism.  

They live their Catholic lives divorced from the "Pope" in Rome, with their chapels, schools, seminaries, priests, and even bishops, which exist outside the jurisdiction of what they call the Catholic Church.  Why worry about sedevacantism, if you can live as though these "popes" don't exist anyway?

The SSPX most certainly would be schismatic if they were acting this way to a true Pope, but as a true Pope cannot do the things that Paul VI and his successors have done, we are in reality talking about an impossibility.  

For the sedevacantists who like to employ this argument, let's put it like this - if the SSPX is in schism, then the sedevacantists certainly are. And if the sedevacantists are not in schism, then the SSPX certainly is not. Sedevacantists do not even recognize there is a Pope to submit to.

Thus, sedevacantists who want to make such an argument will shoot themselves in the foot. On the other hand, dropping the name of the man universally recognized as Pope from the canon, according to Pope Benedict XIV, is an objectively grave act. Sedevacantists live in a glass house and want to throw stones.

This is how the Society has answered this charge - the truth of the matter is that the SSPX is a canonically established society of apostolic life that was illegally suppressed. The possibility of a sentence of suppression being illegal, that is, being unjust or invalidated by an error of fact is taught by St. Thomas, St. Robert, Innocent III among others. Those who receive the unjust sentence must still maintain an attitude of respect toward their superiors, and ask for the decree to be officially rescinded, as in fact the Society has done and is doing.

Innocent III formally admits the possibility of this conflict. Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God's judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous.

But all this is unnecessary - on the face of it, as once they implicitly admitted the true Mass was never abrogated while trying for a period of time to maintain otherwise in public, before admitting it expressly, similarly too they now implicitly admit that the Society's apostolate is valid and licit, and will soon admit that expressly.

Then there are painful cases that concern sins so severe they are penalized by excommunication reserved only to the Pope.”

SSPX priests who confront these cases in the confessional absolve the penitent from the sin, and from the excommunication. According to Church policy, the priest must then send the case to Rome to be examined, and the excommunication formally lifted.

Bishop Fellay says, “Every time – absolutely every time – we have received an answer from Rome that the priest who took care of this confession did well, that it was perfectly in order, and it was both licit and valid.” Rome would then comment on the penance, whether it was sufficient or not enough.

In other words, Rome does not say the confession was invalid. Rome accepts the validity of the SSPX confession. Bishop Fellay asks, “So why is it said that our confessions are invalid if this is the way Rome deals with us in the case of these most serious matters?”

Who has ever heard of such a thing - that priests who are supposed to be under suspension can not only absolve validly, but even lift the excommunications of others! With, of course, the necessary notification to the Roman authorities. And this suffices to prove the point, the SSPX is still a legitimately and canonically erected society of the Catholic Church.

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote

Does someone here have a little time to provide an irrefutable proof that the SSPX is not schismatic?. This is a most serious accusation.

A Catholic cannot be a schismatic for defying and rejecting the laws, teachings, and acts of an Antipope.  

The SSPX cannot be in schism, as these men are not Popes.  

Yeah, but they claim that the V2 Popes are popes, so they are clearly committing the sin of schism even if they are mistaken that these are popes.  As per everything else, Ambrose, you have no idea what you're talking about.

ONLY thing that would exonerate one from schism is to at least entertain doubts about the legitimacy of these men.  If you dig deep enough, most SSPXers will admit that they do not have the certainty of faith regarding the legitimacy of the V2 popes, which is why I've been pushing that question on the other forum ... to snap them out of their schismatic stupor.  Their attitude does tremendous harm to the Catholic Faith.

If you believe with the certainty of faith that the V2 popes are popes, then you are in schism in adhering to various Traditional Catholic organizations that operate outside of submission to Rome.

I was not talking about the subjective sin of schism, that should have been clear for you.  

If a man who owns a store, goes out in the night to rob his neighbor's store, but in the darkness accidentally breaks into his own store and steals items, is he guilty of theft?  Subjectively, he is, objectively no, as he stole his own property.

Those that hold the SSPX time of thinking might incur subjective guilt for schism, but they are not in schism from the Church.  

In order to be in schism, one must separate themselves from the authority of the Pope.  Those who hold the SSPX position have not done this.  

Quote from: 2Vermont

So, it is applying the conclusions of sedevacantism that makes the SSPX not schismatic.  Interesting.

2Vermont, of one thing you can be sure, if it's a post by "Ambrose," no matter what the difficulty would be, it's ALWAYS reducible to a conclusion based on sedevacantism.  It's the one-size-fits-all-answer;  it's the great Panacea.  


He must be an imposter, because St. Ambrose was nothing like that.


.

Or you're wrong and what he says is true.