Replies

It would seem that there is a budding schism among the SSPX. That's certainly ironic.

As I've posted previously, I'm in favor of reunification with SSPX on very generous terms. Including establishment of a sui iuris church.

Although I view the SSPX schism as primarily an issue for the western (Roman Catholic) church to resolve, the schism has caused a scandal for the universal Catholic church as a whole.

I'm in favor of the Pope making it crystal clear these guys are excommunicated schismatics and that anyone who attends their Liturgies or in any way supports their schism is automatically excommunicated.

Inviting these clowns into the Church, unrepentant, bearing tons of noxious antisemitic and heretical theology and general lunacy will only halt the reform within that is well underway.

Let the sspx dead bury the dead williamson. Who cares..

>>>>It would seem that there is a budding schism among the SSPX. That's certainly ironic.

Not really, it wouldn't even be the first such schism. When you are born of a particular sin, you tend to repeat it, and the SSPX as we know it today was born of a schismatic act, the Consecration of the four Bishops.

patent

It would seem that there is a budding schism among the SSPX.

Uh no. Contrary to the hopes of the enemies of tradition, Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson are on exactly the same page. Here is a statementment from Bishop Fellay, (pdf file)

Bishop Fellay Statement

Compare that to the full statement by Bishop Williamson posted above in post #7.

It's not at all ironic. Schism breeds further schism. It has always been that way. Once you set yourself up as "knowing better" than the buck-stops-here-authority, there's really nothing to prevent someone else seting himself up as "knowing better" than you. Notice the fissiparity of Protesantism--initially one, then within 4 years (1517-1521) two (Zwingli, Luther), then another 4 years 3 (Anabaptists in Zurich), then an explosion of Anabaptist sects, plus Calvin and the race was on. There may have been 20 or 25 significant groups after 25 or 30 years, a few hundred by the 1700s, then perhaps a thousand by the late 1800s and the splitting knows no end. Schism is schism-producing.

And before anyone protests that the SSPX doesn't intend to split from Rome--that's exactly what Luther insisted he did not intend--even as he did it. He only wanted to correct the bad portion of the Church--for him, the entire papal/episcopal Church; for the SSPX, the infected Vatican II papacy. But the reasoning used by both is remarkably similar. And Luther had absolutely no defense against Zwingli's rival interpretation of Scripture. He could pound the table and shout and tell Zwingli he was wrong, but he lacked any authority that Zwingli could be expected to recognize and submit to because Luther had claimed for himself the authority to sit in judgment on the pope. The pigeons he launched simply came home to roost.