Onepeterfive sspx
![onepeterfive sspx onepeterfive sspx](https://onepeterfive.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/14907652_1192645914145731_4478594715274566148_n.jpg)
The entire SSPX keeps itself apart from the Apostolic College and its head, the Pope.
![onepeterfive sspx onepeterfive sspx](https://onepeterfive.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SSPX-1-640x395.jpg)
But these SSPX priests are not incardinated in a diocese, and do not submit their minds and hearts to the Roman Pontiff, nor to the body of Bishops. The SSPX priests are validly ordained, as are the priests of the Orthodox Christian Churches. Perl: “Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.” Praising Lefebvre and maligning Pope Francis does not excuse this sin. They are in a state of formal schism, since they are Catholics who know that the Church is one and has Her authority from Christ, and they know the requirement to submit to that authority. Those Catholics who reject or resist the authority of Pope Francis, who reject Vatican II, who possibly reject other Popes and Councils, are schismatics. Thus, anyone who commits formal schism by rejecting the authority of the Roman Pontiff or the body of Bishops or the Church Herself is excommunicated.Īll persons, whether Bishops, priests, deacons, religious, or laity, who adhere “to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre” are excommunicated latae sententiae. The sinner in this case cuts himself off from the Church (latae sententiae), and so no juridical judgment (ferendae sententiae) is needed, though one can also be issued. Under the eternal moral law as well as Canon Law, anyone who commits the sins of apostasy, or formal heresy, or formal schism is automatically excommunicated by the very nature of the act (and by canon law). To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.” Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. Regarding the SSPX, though, Salza is clearly correct and Flanders badly misrepresents the official position of the Apostolic See. I will also mention again that he false accuses me of taking the position that Popes are infallible in everything they teach, whereas I have asserted innumerable times that non-infallible teachings and decisions of discipline are subject to a limited possibility of error. However, he takes a position called “Recognize and Resist”, which is itself schismatic. Salza has done good work arguing against sedevacantism. On the topic of the SSPX, I find John Salza’s articles to be generally correct and also insightful. * The Failed Defense of the SSPX – Reply to Boccaīut with his “update” article, Flanders has ended this debate. * The SSPX is Transgressing Divine Law – Reply to Xavier * Does the SSPX Have an Extraordinary Mission? The main person siding against the SSPX, and defending Church authority, at OnePeterFive was John Salza: The “update” is essentially that the debate is over. Flanders published this article: The SSPX Debate: Update. Flanders has sided with the SSPX, and against the authority of the Catholic Church. Timothy Flanders, editor in chief of OnePeterFive, had proposed a “debate” on the SSPX.