Seems like there is a fair amount of that going around. From the Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly to the Synodal Way to the Diocese of Ahiara back in 2012-2018 (whose priests eventually got their way in the form of a bishop from their own tribe, even after being threatened with suspension and/or excommunication). Meanwhile the SSPX have…
Seems like there is a fair amount of that going around. From the Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly to the Synodal Way to the Diocese of Ahiara back in 2012-2018 (whose priests eventually got their way in the form of a bishop from their own tribe, even after being threatened with suspension and/or excommunication). Meanwhile the SSPX have been in "irregular communion" for about 40 years and they're doing better than ever.
I think the Church since Vatican II has wisely learned from the Orthodox that schism isn't something to treat as a really big deal. Witness the weird dichotomy wherein a person who mostly rejects the pope's authority is a schismatic, but a person who wholly rejects it is a "separated brother in Christ". Francis and Benedict both referred to Patriarch Bartholomew as their "brother" and "Andrew". Pope Tawadros II celebrated the Divine Liturgy at Saint Peter's earlier this year. We cannot allege that these men are somehow "invincibly ignorant" as the old catechetical materials would put it, so the only conclusion is that schism (to greater and lesser degrees) just a reality in the life of the Church and accept that perfect unity in Christ won't exist until the Second Coming.
Schism strictly defined as "imperfect" or "impeded" communion does not imply heresy as some might "twin" the two.
Since popes and documents refer to the Eastern Orthodox Churches as "sister Churches" the only thing "missing" is the EO acceptance of total supremacy over the whole Church by the bishop of Rome. This is especially true as the papacy has "developed" into it's current manifestations with the pope having "universal, ordinary and immediate jurisdiction" over all the local Churches.
Rome has tolerated heresy, but not schism, the Orthodox have tolerated schism but not heresy (hence the many doctrinal canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church).
The SSPX are in schism, per the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. Even if the excommunication of their Bishops has been lifted, they will remain in Schism until they submit to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and the Professio Fidei.
Canonically irregular in Latin means contrary to the regula, or rule of the Church. What it means is that the SSPX has no canonical status in the Church. If the SSPX has no canonical status, it means they are in schism. It's a euphemism similar to describing "separated brethren" for Protestants and Orthodox.
You've also expressed elsewhere the erroneous idea that if a group are in schism with the Church, they should have no holiness or grace or validity of Sacraments. This is a false understanding of ecclesiology. Everyone in schism with the Church, is lacking full communion with the Church, but still possesses partial communion by virtue of Baptism, with the degree of this communion depending on their whether they have correct governance and doctrine, and apostolic succession. This is why the Orthodox can have 7 valid Sacraments, why Protestant baptisms and marriages are usually valid, etc.
Seems like there is a fair amount of that going around. From the Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly to the Synodal Way to the Diocese of Ahiara back in 2012-2018 (whose priests eventually got their way in the form of a bishop from their own tribe, even after being threatened with suspension and/or excommunication). Meanwhile the SSPX have been in "irregular communion" for about 40 years and they're doing better than ever.
I think the Church since Vatican II has wisely learned from the Orthodox that schism isn't something to treat as a really big deal. Witness the weird dichotomy wherein a person who mostly rejects the pope's authority is a schismatic, but a person who wholly rejects it is a "separated brother in Christ". Francis and Benedict both referred to Patriarch Bartholomew as their "brother" and "Andrew". Pope Tawadros II celebrated the Divine Liturgy at Saint Peter's earlier this year. We cannot allege that these men are somehow "invincibly ignorant" as the old catechetical materials would put it, so the only conclusion is that schism (to greater and lesser degrees) just a reality in the life of the Church and accept that perfect unity in Christ won't exist until the Second Coming.
Schism strictly defined as "imperfect" or "impeded" communion does not imply heresy as some might "twin" the two.
Since popes and documents refer to the Eastern Orthodox Churches as "sister Churches" the only thing "missing" is the EO acceptance of total supremacy over the whole Church by the bishop of Rome. This is especially true as the papacy has "developed" into it's current manifestations with the pope having "universal, ordinary and immediate jurisdiction" over all the local Churches.
Rome has tolerated heresy, but not schism, the Orthodox have tolerated schism but not heresy (hence the many doctrinal canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church).
The SSPX are in schism, per the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. Even if the excommunication of their Bishops has been lifted, they will remain in Schism until they submit to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and the Professio Fidei.
Canonically irregular in Latin means contrary to the regula, or rule of the Church. What it means is that the SSPX has no canonical status in the Church. If the SSPX has no canonical status, it means they are in schism. It's a euphemism similar to describing "separated brethren" for Protestants and Orthodox.
You've also expressed elsewhere the erroneous idea that if a group are in schism with the Church, they should have no holiness or grace or validity of Sacraments. This is a false understanding of ecclesiology. Everyone in schism with the Church, is lacking full communion with the Church, but still possesses partial communion by virtue of Baptism, with the degree of this communion depending on their whether they have correct governance and doctrine, and apostolic succession. This is why the Orthodox can have 7 valid Sacraments, why Protestant baptisms and marriages are usually valid, etc.