Attending sspx a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sarasrin4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Canvas said:
AT THIS TIME, IN THE YEAR 2014, AT LEAST IN THIS COUNTRY, WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY CHURCH A CATHOLIC SHOULD ATTEND ON SATURDAY OR SUNDAY IN ORDER TO RECEIVE COMMUNION. PEOPLE SHOULD STAY HOME ON SUNDAY AND PRAY 15 DECADES OF THE ROSARY. THAT’S BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY ALL THE PRIESTS ARE CLEAR HERETICS AND THEY GIVE SERMONS OR TALKS ON THOSE DAYS. WE DON’T BELIEVE PEOPLE SHOULD RECEIVE THE SACRAMENT FROM THEM DURING A MASS AT WHICH THEY GIVE A SERMON. HOWEVER, THERE ARE STILL SOME OPTIONS FOR RECEIVING CERTAIN SACRAMENTS (ESPECIALLY CONFESSION), AS EXPLAINED BELOW.
Click to expand...
Pure insanity.
 
You seem to have a view of the SSPX that is very rooted the mainstream thought of 30 years ago, you know… around the height of when the experimentation fach had its grip firm on the Church and the SSPX were the only ones just doing what the Church had always done? Do you realize that as a result of Pope Francis’ dealings with the SSPX over the past few years, many of the priests not agreeable to their dealing with him have actually left the group. Even still I wouldn’t discount the fact that there are some nuts involved with the SSPX while there are quite likely some very good priests as well. The same could very well have always been said of the Church at large. While I have never attended an SSPX Mass, I might attend for a wedding or funeral. I suspect in some parts of the world the SSPX Masses are the only reverent Masses available where some semblance of Catholicism can be heard from the pulpit, though still one that should be taken with a grain of salt. The Pope’s Year of Mercy allowance for SSPX priests to hear confessions of the faithful was extended indefinitely. I can’t think of many instances where old bad feelings perpetuated initially by questionable Churchmen (assumingly the very same ones who themselves collectively and knowingly went against the directives of the documents of Vatican II) onto a particular group of priests continue to be perpetuated all while the very Pope every mainstream Catholic loves has years ago already more or less given the sacramental green light to that very group; ie. if a local Bishop is giving the SSPX in his diocese a hard time, perhaps in some cases it may be against the wishes of the Pope. At any rate it is a irregular situation no doubt.
 
Last edited:
Canvas said:
The problem is that so many “Catholic” sites on the web are run by and for the more extreme elements, whether in Communion with the Church or not. Of course, there are the legit sites that are reliable, and the Official Church pages, but there are a lot of questionable sites that can misinform or even scare away potential converts or reverts.
Click to expand...
Always a good question, find out if the the website, publication, or ministry is in union with its local bishop. If not, this eliminates most of the questionable ones, on the Left,
Right, or some other unorthodox direction. The majority of the ones approved by their local diocese are reliable, though some got approved 100 or so years ago, and have gotten somewhat less reliable since then.

But if a ministry is unable to get local diocesan approval, something is definitely wrong.
 
Last edited:
OraLabora said:
Attending is, at best, imprudent. At worst, it is formal cooperation with division within the Church and that is most definitely sinful.
Click to expand...
If it is a sin, why did Pope Francis support the right of SSPX to hear confessions? If SSPX can validly absolve sin, then how can it be a sin to receive the Sacraments from them?
 
Last edited:
Canvas said:
Look at the website for The Most Holy Family Monastery. The SSPV are horrible modernist heretics!
Click to expand...
The Holy Family Monastery and the SSPV are different groups and are not relevant to the question here being asked about SSPX. Should not a discussion about the Holy Family Monastery or about the SSPV be in its own separate thread?
 
Fauken said:
Please. A true traditionalist group would never call themselves such a thing.
Click to expand...
I have trouble thinking of a group that finds SSPV to liberal and modern as merely “traditionalist” . . .
Fauken said:
Pilate is of such a low level of scum, he doesn’t deserve to die the same death as Our Lord. 😜
Click to expand...
I want to say that it’s the Ehtio[pian Orthodox who actually have Pilate on their calendar of saints–they believe he converted and was martyred for conversion.

hawk
 
dochawk said:
I want to say that it’s the Ehtio[pian Orthodox who actually have Pilate on their calendar of saints–they believe he converted and was martyred for conversion.
Click to expand...
This is interesting because in the case of a reunion between Roman Catholics and Ethiopian Orthodox, would not that involve each church accepting the saints of the other church?
 
I would say, if there is FSSP or ICKSP in your area, going to SSPX is not justifiable. What is it that your husband gets there that’s missing from an approved Latin Mass?
 
I’m not an expert here, but keep in mind we are Church militant and are supposed to be faithful to Mother Church and the pope (which is why we don’t receive communion at the few churches that do illicit consecrations aka, it *might be Jesus).

If it were me, I wouldn’t. Try asking your local Catholic priest maybe?
 
Last edited:
dochawk said:
I have trouble thinking of a group that finds SSPV to liberal and modern as merely “traditionalist” . . .
Click to expand...
I agree, it’s mind-boggling.
dochawk said:
I want to say that it’s the Ehtio[pian Orthodox who actually have Pilate on their calendar of saints–they believe he converted and was martyred for conversion.
Click to expand...
Correct!
brit_2911 said:
illicit consecrations aka, it *might be Jesus
Click to expand...
I think you mean invalid consecrations? Licety basically refers to the “legally” of it (is this allowed), not the effectiveness.
 
AlNg said:
This is interesting because in the case of a reunion between Roman Catholics and Ethiopian Orthodox, would not that involve each church accepting the saints of the other church?
Click to expand...
It might come down to not formally disputing one another’s . . . . this one would be easy compared to the Catholic and Orthodox saints revered primarily for their fights with the other side . . .

hawk
 
No, I meant illicit. I forgot which church it was that broke off, and the priests still had the power of consecration but were not aloud to consecrate. Yet, they do it anyway. So when we go to those churches, we can bow because it might be Jesus, but we don’t receive because they were not aloud to do so.
 
brit_2911 said:
No, I meant illicit. I forgot which church it was that broke off, and the priests still had the power of consecration but were not aloud to consecrate. Yet, they do it anyway. So when we go to those churches, we can bow because it might be Jesus, but we don’t receive because they were not aloud to do so.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand then. A Sacrament can be 100% illicit but 100% valid. It isn’t in that case “maybe Jesus”, it is Jesus. A Sacrament being illicit would not affect its validity, if I’m not mistaken.
 
It’s based on whether or not that particular priest doing the consecration at that church had the power passed down to him as well.
 
brit_2911 said:
No, I meant illicit. I forgot which church it was that broke off, and the priests still had the power of consecration but were not aloud to consecrate.
Click to expand...
  • The Anglicans for a generation or two
  • The Old Catholic Church until a few years ago
  • The Polish National Church
And probably several other smaller ones.

hawk
 
It’s not enough to ask if it’s a sin to go to an SSPX service. There are many actions that are highly imprudent, but might not exactly meet the criteria of a sin. Prudence requires we consider the potential effects of our actions on others.

Pope Francis calls on the Church to reach out to persons who have put themselves in questionable circumstances - such as the couple Already living together, not married. But he is not saying it doesn’t matter whether or not you put yourself into that circumstance now. Our imprudent acts don’t put us beyond the love of the Church. But that doesn’t mean we should facilitate imprudence, our own or others.
 
Some priests left the SSPX and started the SSPV which IS sedevacantist.

In sum:

SSPX is NOT sedevacantist.

Vs.

SSPV IS sedevacantist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top