Any SSPX "converts" to Rome out there?

[TrueLight]

So I guess the ends justify the means, right? It’s perfectly fine to have invalid confessions, illicit Masses, illicit ordinations, and flagrant disobedience so long as the ends are acceptable to those who want them.

What makes it tricky is that the Church has not declared them in schism – yet. Also, the church doesn’t recommend it enthusiastically, but she does allow the faithful to attend SSPX masses as long as there is no spirit of schism.

So there are mixed messages.

 

[Lormar]

1. Of similar clarity in the Code of Canon Law is the law surrounding schism. Canon 751 defines schism as “the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” One must note that schism not only occurs when one refuses or withdraws communion with members of the Roman Catholic Church, but also when one refuses or withdraws submission to the Holy Father personally. The action through which one refuses or withdraws one’s submission need neither be perpetual, nor pertaining to all judgments of the Roman Pontiff; insofar as one has not repented of one’s act of disobedience, thus persisting in placing one’s personal judgment above that of the Church, a single act of refusal to submit to judgment of the Holy Father within a single controversy constitutes schism. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, “The essence of schism consists in rebelliously disobeying the commandments: and I say rebelliously, since a schismatic both obstinately scorns the commandments of the Church, and refuses to subject to her judgment” (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae Q.39 Art. 1. Dominican Fathers translation).

Regarding the penalty for schism, canon 1364 ß1 states: “An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 ß1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 ß1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.” Canon 194 ß1 simply states that “one who has publicly defected from the catholic faith or from communion with the Church” is also “removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself,” meaning he automatically ceases to minister in the name of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, paragraph 2 of canon 194 specifies the removal from office “can be insisted upon only if it is established by a declaration of the competent authority.” As it applies to Archbishop Lefebvre, this simply means that his removal from office can only be enforced if the Holy Father or one delegated by him formally declares that Archbishop Lefebvre had, indeed, incurred schism. As for the penalties outlined in canon 1336, as they are additional penalties not directly applicable to the present case, they will not be addressed in the present canonical study.

Regarding the justice of the penalty of excommunication for schismatics, the Angelic Doctor notes: “Now a schismatic, as shown above (Art. 1), commits a twofold sin: first by separating himself from communion with the members of the Church, and in this respect the fitting punishment for schismatics is that they be excommunicated. Secondly, they refuse submission to the head of the Church, wherefore, they are unwilling to be controlled by the Church’s spiritual power…” (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae Q.39 Art. 4). In essence, excommunication of a schismatic is a just penalty because the Church cannot hold communion with an individual who refuses communion with the Church. Furthermore, one who refuses to submit himself to the judgment of the visible head of Christ’s Mystical Body acts in disunion with rest of this Body, and hense poses a grave danger to Mystical Body of Christ as a whole. For as our Lord teaches in the Gospel of St. Matthew, “Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand” (Matt. 12:25). Hence, excommunication is a just penalty for those who refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff, for as Sacred Scripture teaches: “Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinances of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation” (Rom. 13:1-2).

ourladyswarriors.org/articles/lefebvre.htm

 

[MillTownCath]

From the perspective of the Pope:

Someone who obeys the Church fully and goes to a Novus Ordo mass is called ____ what in contrast to someone who attends an SSPX mass and is not in full communion with Rome?

 

[TrueLight]

From the perspective of the Pope:

Someone who obeys the Church fully and goes to a Novus Ordo mass is called ____ what in contrast to someone who attends an SSPX mass and is not in full communion with Rome?

I give up. You tell us.

 

[ProVobis]

From the perspective of the Pope:

Someone who obeys the Church fully and goes to a Novus Ordo mass is called ____ what in contrast to someone who attends an SSPX mass and is not in full communion with Rome?

A saint?

What about someone who doesn’t go to Church at all? Is he or she in full communion?

 

[MillTownCath]

A saint?

What about someone who doesn’t go to Church at all? Is he or she in full communion?

Haha I don’t know I’m wondering if there is a term!

 

[Derek_Ellery]

So I guess the ends justify the means, right? It’s perfectly fine to have invalid confessions, illicit Masses, illicit ordinations, and flagrant disobedience so long as the ends are acceptable to those who want them.

1983 Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:

4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.

 

[SouthpawLink]

So I guess the ends justify the means, right? It’s perfectly fine to have invalid confessions, illicit Masses, illicit ordinations, and flagrant disobedience so long as the ends are acceptable to those who want them.

It could be argued that Canon Law itself permitted Archbishop Lefebvre to what he did, because he saw dire circumstances and acted for the good of the Church.

A person who violates a law out of necessity**is not subject to a penalty
(1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of
necessity1:
if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty
(canon 1323, 70),
and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic
penalties2 (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q11_archbishop_lefebvre_excommunicated.htm

 

[Sirach2]

SouthpawLink:

It could be argued that Canon Law itself permitted Archbishop Lefebvre to what he did, because he saw dire circumstances and acted for the good of the Church.

I suppose some “could argue” and look for loopholes, but Church teaching has always been clear. I’ll post from Pope Leo XIII, since some will not heed the section on hierarchy in V-2.

Bishops Separated from Peter and His Successors, Lose All Jurisdiction
15. From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.

No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.
Moreover, he who is set over the whole flock must have authority, not only over the sheep dispersed throughout the Church, but also when they are assembled together. Do the sheep when they are all assembled together rule and guide the shepherd? Can the Apostolic College be said to have been above its master in authority?

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html

 

[joanofarc2008]

It could be argued that Canon Law itself permitted Archbishop Lefebvre to what he did, because he saw dire circumstances and acted for the good of the Church.

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q11_archbishop_lefebvre_excommunicated.htm

No it cannot because what Archbishop Lefebvre was arguing was the decision of a Council which the finding has a level of doctrine which cannot be argued in this manner and therefore this makes a rather circular logic once one understands what a council is.

 

[Derek_Ellery]

I suppose some “could argue” and look for loopholes, but Church teaching has always been clear. I’ll post from Pope Leo XIII, since some will not heed the section on hierarchy in V-2.

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html

You don’t get it do you? Levebvre did not cede from the seat of Peter, he disobeyed an order that he thought would lead to the destruction of the faith. Levebvre was most certainly not a schismatic, he, unlike yourself, realized that the Church has a moral obligation to resist an order to sin.
** 1983 Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:**

4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

Robert Bellarmine - Dr. of the Church

Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice, II.29.)

 

[piouswoman]

I’m an ex-sspx’er who has reconverted back to Rome.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I’m an ex-sspx’er who has reconverted back to Rome.

I’d love to hear more if you don’t mind. What caused you to make that decision to leave the society? What were the consequences? What do you think about the SSPX from your current position?
Thank you.

 

[TimothyH]

What makes it tricky is that the Church has not declared them in schism – yet. Also, the church doesn’t recommend it enthusiastically, but she does allow the faithful to attend SSPX masses as long as there is no spirit of schism.

So there are mixed messages.

I thought that the faithful were only allowed to go to an SSPX chapel if there were no other alternative, no other close by parishes.

Is this not the case or is it just a matter of uenthusiastic or not enthusiastic recommendation?

I’m not making a comment, simply asking so that I can understand.

-Tim-

 

[TrueLight]

I thought that the faithful were only allowed to go to an SSPX chapel if there were no other alternative, no other close by parishes.

Is this not the case or is it just a matter of uenthusiastic or not enthusiastic recommendation?

I’m not making a comment, simply asking so that I can understand.

-Tim-

I’ve seen references that suggest that if there is no EF nearby, you can attend one, while visiting a new town for example.

I’m pretty sure this was rehashed in some other thread with the usual debate.

I’m kind of worn out by SSPX discussions, to be honest.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I thought that the faithful were only allowed to go to an SSPX chapel if there were no other alternative, no other close by parishes.

Is this not the case or is it just a matter of uenthusiastic or not enthusiastic recommendation?

I’m not making a comment, simply asking so that I can understand.

-Tim-

Last thing I’ve heard is that the faitful are allowed to attend mass there, but that we are not encouraged to do that.

It is all very vague and not at all helpful.

 

[sicutincensum]

I’m also a former “SSPXer”. A hardliner one, albeilt not the type of the fans of +Williamson line, but more a hardliner of those stricly aligned with +Fellay. That is, I never had any sedevacantist tendency, nor had doubts about the validity of the new rites, nor thought that E-SSPX-NS, and always believed the solution to the crisis is in the hands of the Pope. I was, however, an hardliner in the sense that I would never, ever, go to the new Mass, and I was very suspicious of any Ecclesia Dei community, thinking they “divided” the forces of Tradition.

Things began to change this summer, in anticipation to the Sep. 14th meeting. What convinced me of the wrongness of the SSPX position was their absolute refusal of the OF. So, for me the first step was to aknowledge the licity and goodness of the OF, while still attending the SSPX, and then, step by step, I understood the madness of the whole thing. I eventually started losing the subtle schismatic tendencies I had gathered while in the SSPX.

This said, all the SSPX priests I knew were great and they greatly helped me many times.

 

[paul11b]

The SSPX is very tempting to me, I attended their Mass a couple of times (which were great) but I haven’t been back since because my parish priest told me that I could not attend Mass at their chapels. The thing is this, I understand where the SSPX is coming from, I even agree with a lot of what they say, but their Masses ARE illicit. The question with the SSPX is not validity, their Masses are certainly valid, the question is licitness. Since the SSPX has no canonical status, they have no local bishop, and no jurisdiction. Therefore, (since jurisdiction is required for the sacrament of confession) all of their confessions are invalid, and all of their Masses are illicit. Remember if a priest celebrates a black mass it is valid, but it is not licit.

To go against the Pope and to go with the SSPX is like saying Jesus is wrong, when he said that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, because why else would someone leave it. Remember that we are called to be obedient, obedience is key throughout the Catholic faith, MANY of the saints preached about obedience (St. Padre Pio, St. Josemaria Escriva, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, St. Francis de Sales…the list goes on) and they were following the example of obedience the was set by Christ himself when He was obedient unto death, death on a cross. After the second Vatican Council (which didn’t call for MANY of the changes we see in some of the Masses today) the Pope said “Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est” which is Latin for “Rome has spoken, the matter is closed,” once the Pope pronounced this we as loyal subjects of Christ are required to obey the successor of Peter (who Jesus made head of the Church). I assure you that we have not acquired some great knowledge in our life that makes us so smart that we know better what to do than the Pope does.

Also St. Alphonsus Ligouri said that we must always be obedient to the Pope, if the Pope told him to get into a row boat and to row across the ocean in the midst of a great storm St. Alphonsus said he would do it, and that if he died then it would be the Pope’s fault for telling St. Alphonsus to do it, but that it is not his place to question the Pope. My point is that we are called to be obedient to the Pope, and always do what he says even if it seems to be wrong to us, and if we are doing what is wrong because of the Pope, then that is something the Pope has to answer for, not us. However, when we go on our own and join an illicit society that is NOT in communion with Rome, then we are disobedient to the Pope, and if Archbishop Lefebvre leads us down the wrong path, he is NOT accorded the same status of the Pope. If we do something that is wrong because Archbishop Lefebvre told us to then that is on us, because Archbishop Lefebvre is not the Pope, Jesus did not build the Church on the Rock of Archbishop Lefebvre, therefore we CANNOT follow the SSPX without risking our souls.

I agree that there have been abuses in the Novus Ordo, but there are GOOD Novus Ordo Masses too, if you go to a Novus Ordo and the are using Gregorian Chant, an Organ, and generally being Catholic then YOU HAVE TO GO TO THAT MASS IF THERE IS NO LATIN MASS AROUND YOU. If the Novus Ordo has dancing girls, they are blessing you with a supersoaker, and the priest is beat-boxing the consecration, then I would avoid that Mass. If there is a good Novus Ordo around you and there is an SSPX Latin Mass around you, YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE NOVUS ORDO, THE SSPX DOES NOT FULFILL YOU OBLIGATION AS A CATHOLIC BECAUSE IT IS ILLICIT.

Remember there were abuses in the liturgy before Vatican II as well, in Malachi Martin’s book Hostage to the Devil a possesed priest would change the words because he was speaking Latin and no one knew the difference, he would also baptize in the name of the earth, the wind, and fire. Liturgical abuse is not something new. We as Catholics that do understand and know are faith should try to change our parishes from within, we cannot abandon our Church, if we see something wrong, we should speak up, but we cannot go outside of the Church and expect to still be a part of the Church.

 

[sicutincensum]

IA hardliner one, albeilt not the type of the fans of +Williamson line, but more a hardliner of those stricly aligned with +Fellay. That is, I never had any sedevacantist tendency, nor had doubts about the validity of the new rites, nor thought that E-SSPX-NS, and always believed the solution to the crisis is in the hands of the Pope.This said, all the SSPX priests I knew were great and they greatly helped me many times.

This said, Bishop Williamson isn’t a sedevacantist nor does he advocate that outside the SSPX there is no salvation (on the contrary, I heard him preach against that idea), but many of his fans tend to hold some of those radical ideas.

 

[jmj1984]

Extra large sigh as regards this entire thread