Attending “Friends of the Society of St. Pius X” Chapel does not fulfill Sunday obligation!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Big_Feet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wasserfall said:
As as Rorate points out, different letters from PCED to different individuals have said opposite things. From my point of view, this is a letter to a private individual, just as the previous one was, and is applicable to that private individual.
Click to expand...
But it is the most recent. I guess what I have never understood about this whole controversy is why anyone would want to roll the dice and gamble on whether or not they were commiting sin by activities that are clearly illicit. Why just stick with what the Church has? This would be the most Catholic action.
 
According to comments I’ve seen elsewhere, the chapel at issue is the (independent) “St. Michael the Archangel Catholic Church” in Jacksonville, Florida. Its priest, Marshall Roberts, is the subject of this article: Alleged Predator Priest is Chaplain at Florida Church. Apparently, he was kicked out of his seminary in 1993 for, ahem, misconduct, then joined the SSPX and was ordained by them. Awash in new “rumours,” he publicly split from them in 1997, forming some sort of organization called the “Society of St. John,” which was “troubled by financial difficulties and allegations that two of its members had sexually molested a minor.” Evidently Fr. Roberts drifted down to Florida to try again.
 
pnewton said:
But it is the most recent. I guess what I have never understood about this whole controversy is why anyone would want to roll the dice and gamble on whether or not they were commiting sin by activities that are clearly illicit. Why just stick with what the Church has? This would be the most Catholic action.
Click to expand...
Or, as someone other than myself wrote, you cannot fulfill a legal obligation in an illegal manner.
 
MarkThompson said:
According to comments I’ve seen elsewhere, the chapel at issue is the (independent) “St. Michael the Archangel Catholic Church” in Jacksonville, Florida. Its priest, Marshall Roberts, is the subject of this article: Alleged Predator Priest is Chaplain at Florida Church. Apparently, he was kicked out of his seminary in 1993 for, ahem, misconduct, then joined the SSPX and was ordained by them. Awash in new “rumours,” he publicly split from them in 1997, forming some sort of organization called the “Society of St. John,” which was “troubled by financial difficulties and allegations that two of its members had sexually molested a minor.” Evidently Fr. Roberts drifted down to Florida to try again.
Click to expand...
The infamous Society of St. John raises its ugly head once again.
I thought they were all down in South America now.

Yes… Expelled from the ICRSS. Expelled from the FSSPX. Kicked out of Scranton by Bishop Martino. Ugly ugly ugly…
 
Big_Feet said:
I would prefer the information come from the organization with the authority.
Click to expand...
Okay, but at this point there’s a lot at stake here. If there is the slightest dishonesty on either side, the entire deal could fall apart IMO. The question was about a specific chapel and the response was blunt. I guess we shouldn’t read more into it than that. Otherwise the idea of FSSPX Mass not fulfilling the obligation will stick and the talks will be pointless. But I could be wrong.
 
Durrr. I thought we were talking about an SSPX chapel, not “Friends” of theirs. Such “Friends” are likely to be an eccentric bunch, to put it mildly. I wouldn’t go near such a group.
 
Big_Feet said:
I would prefer the information come from the organization with the authority. I think until there is something concrete from that source, I will continue to stay away for the “obligation” piece. I may attend from curiosity, just as I might another ecclesiastical community (church) or religion, but I will get my complete nourishment from a “proven” and identifiably approved source.
Click to expand...
:confused:

This isn’t an SSPX chapel. I figure the SSPX knows better than anyone else which chapels are theirs and which aren’t. Nothing seems to have changed with regard to the SSPX, and in effect, this dubium presented to the PCED has to do with another group which claims affiliation to the SSPX, but the SSPX does not endorse them.

Therefore this situation is essentially moot as regards the SSPX. Is that right?
 
FSSPX or not, I still would be curious to know why this Mass wouldn’t meet the obligation under Canon # 1248. A priest’s status has no effect on the validity of the Mass, or so I thought.
 
Lormar said:
Or, as someone other than myself wrote, you cannot fulfill a legal obligation in an illegal manner.
Click to expand...
What about fulfilling the obligation where there are tons of real abuses, like skipping over texts or adlibbing? I don’t think you want the Church to be policing and scoring every Mass being said. Canon Law is canon law; if they say you can meet the obligation wherever there is a (valid) Catholic Rite, that’s it.
 
ProVobis said:
What about fulfilling the obligation where there are tons of real abuses, like skipping over texts or adlibbing? I don’t think you want the Church to be policing and scoring every Mass being said. Canon Law is canon law; if they say you can meet the obligation wherever there is a (valid) Catholic Rite, that’s it.
Click to expand...
FSSP priests will dispense your obligation if all you have is an abusive Mass to attend. =p
 
Rant coming…

Why is there so much confusion in the Church?
1 Corinthians 14: 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Click to expand...
If this letter is not referring to the SSPX, but the “Friends” of the SSPX", why not say that in the letter? If it is referring to the SSPX, why not make clear that the earlier determination that it was lawful to attend an SSPX chapel has been rescinded?

By now, I’m sure the Vatican knows that with the Internet, every email and every document is passed around and pored over. Why not draft documents in as clear a way as possible, especially when it concerns a controversial group like the Society, and especially when everyone knows that reconciliation is in the works? Even if it is a personal letter, everyone knows by now, due to how the previous letters were circulated, that this one will be circulated too!

Why must there be so much confusion?

Rant over. :mad:
 
TrueLight said:
If this letter is not referring to the SSPX, but the “Friends” of the SSPX", why not say that in the letter? If it is referring to the SSPX, why not make clear that the earlier determination that it was lawful to attend an SSPX chapel has been rescinded?
Click to expand...
Oh, calm down. The letter from Msgr. Pozzo said precisely which chapel it was talking about. Whoever received it and uploaded it to the internet simply decided to blank out that information.
 
MarkThompson said:
Oh, calm down. The letter from Msgr. Pozzo said precisely which chapel it was talking about. Whoever received it and uploaded it to the internet simply decided to blank out that information.
Click to expand...
The rant was over almost 3 hours ago, so yes, I am calmed down by now.
 
I think you are perceiving a lot of confusion because of your view in the forums here. By their nature, Internet forums are chaotic and full of inaccuracy, rumors, speculation. These forums are a magnet for confusion because people come here when they need an answer!

I don’t create threads often, but I do it when I am confused about something. I would assume that this is the general way things work for other people.

These forums would breed a lot more confusion if we did not have such vigilant moderation. There are a lot of rules here to follow, and the mods do their work in a timely fashion. But lively discourse and debate can be seen as confusing if you can’t see it from another point of view.

With a billion members worldwide, the Church undeniably has a lot of variety. Different liturgies, different theologies, different religious communities, different cultures, different saints and devotions. We’re all trying to glorify God and achieve personal holiness in our own way. That’s the human condition. But we are united in one God and one faith. That’s the Truth that God has revealed to us.
 
Elizium23 said:
I think you are perceiving a lot of confusion because of your view in the forums here. By their nature, Internet forums are chaotic and full of inaccuracy, rumors, speculation. These forums are a magnet for confusion because people come here when they need an answer!

I don’t create threads often, but I do it when I am confused about something. I would assume that this is the general way things work for other people.

These forums would breed a lot more confusion if we did not have such vigilant moderation. There are a lot of rules here to follow, and the mods do their work in a timely fashion. But lively discourse and debate can be seen as confusing if you can’t see it from another point of view.

With a billion members worldwide, the Church undeniably has a lot of variety. Different liturgies, different theologies, different religious communities, different cultures, different saints and devotions. We’re all trying to glorify God and achieve personal holiness in our own way. That’s the human condition. But we are united in one God and one faith. That’s the Truth that God has revealed to us.
Click to expand...
Thank you. 🙂
 
Elizium23 said:
I think you are perceiving a lot of confusion because of your view in the forums here. By their nature, Internet forums are chaotic and full of inaccuracy, rumors, speculation. These forums are a magnet for confusion because people come here when they need an answer!

I don’t create threads often, but I do it when I am confused about something. I would assume that this is the general way things work for other people.

These forums would breed a lot more confusion if we did not have such vigilant moderation. There are a lot of rules here to follow, and the mods do their work in a timely fashion. But lively discourse and debate can be seen as confusing if you can’t see it from another point of view.

With a billion members worldwide, the Church undeniably has a lot of variety. Different liturgies, different theologies, different religious communities, different cultures, different saints and devotions. We’re all trying to glorify God and achieve personal holiness in our own way. That’s the human condition. But we are united in one God and one faith. That’s the Truth that God has revealed to us.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure our Holy Father would agree that we are all united and seeking to glorify God. Witness the LCWR. They are now actively fighting against the Vatican. I don’t want to discuss this issue on this thread, for that would be derailing it big time. But that is just one example that we in the church are not so united, and it goes a lot deeper than just " Different liturgies, different theologies, different religious communities, different cultures, different saints and devotions", unfortunately.
 
Brooklyn said:
I’m not sure our Holy Father would agree that we are all united and seeking to glorify God. Witness the LCWR. They are now actively fighting against the Vatican. I don’t want to discuss this issue on this thread, for that would be derailing it big time. But that is just one example that we in the church are not so united, and it goes a lot deeper than just " Different liturgies, different theologies, different religious communities, different cultures, different saints and devotions", unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Yes, unfortunately. Unity in diversification doesn’t always hold true, unless one agrees that 30,000 denominations are a good thing in Christianity.
 
ImmaculataFides said:
Springtime of Vatican II. Get with it. No need to think. Just dance and hug.

:tiphat:

I.F.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with the confusion caused by this letter? It has nothing to do with Vatican II, or spring (or dancing or hugging, for that matter).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top