Attending SSPX Chapels as of 2020

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yshua02
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PrayForMe said:
However, they also seem to have forgotten about the primacy of the Papacy. . . .
Click to expand...
That isn’t quite fair. Every SSPX vestry has a portrait of Pope Francis and he is prayed for as Pope at every Mass. They do, correctly, hold the view that a Catholic should not subscribe to uncatholic principles, even if the Pope says so. But after all, that was the situation when St Paul opposed St Peter; it didn’t mean St Paul had “forgotten about the primacy of the papacy”
 
ConcernedConvert said:
what about masses where heresy is blatantly preached? (
Click to expand...
Too true. Is there not a double standard at work, when Bishops discourage attendance at SSPX mass but turn a blind eye to abusiive or even heretical NO Masses? If it is said that this is because the SSPX is not “canonically regular” is this really more important than the proper conduct of the liturgy and sound teaching? And anyway, surely an abusive Mass is not (or should not be) canonically regular either?
 
Well, actually, no, you are wrong. On the one hand we have the Pope and almost all of the bishops of the world, the Magisterium (which abides within the Popes and almost all the bishops of the world), and they line up far, far more perfectly than do the SSPX, which are in de facto schism according the Cardinal Mueller’s last statement as he was head of the dicastery responsible for such matters.

The fact that Pope Francis has given the SSPX the possibility of administering sacraments to those who attend SSPX chapels is not an endorsement of the SSPX; it is for the souls of those who persist in attending SSPX instead of parishes in unity with the bishop of the area, who in turn is in unity with Rome.

The Church (as in, the last 4 Popes who have had to deal with the SSPX) has chosen to not declare the SSPX in schism de jure, most likely because of the desire for the SSPX to reconcile with the Catholic Church.

The SSPX, founded in 1970 were on difficult terms (to put it politely) with Pope Paul VI, and matters proceeded downhill from there. And folks, that was 50 years ago, and all we have seen is a cycle, about 3 to 5 years long, where “we are close to reconciling” and then the fade-away back to “normal”.

People who attend SSPX chapels in general range from arch conservative to bat guano crazy (and I have personally met and listened to some - my comment is based on evidence) and that is why the Church is reluctant to forbid people to attend their Masses - what is forbidden becomes more attractive, as anyone who has raised children well knows - but while the Church does not forbid, it strongly suggests that the faithful who might occasion one of the Masses do not do so. . . .
 
Last edited:
The Catholic Herald article is not what I call particularly indicative of anything. There are some 5,000 bishops in the world; if 30 have given permission to the SSPX to officiate at weddings, that is something in the range of 0.6% of the biushops of the world, or to put it another way, 99.4% are not on record for doing so.

And if it is done, it is done for the salvation of the souls of the laity, not as an indicator that the SSPX are growing closer to unity with Rome.
 
ConcernedConvert said:
aybe not… what about masses where heresy is blatantly preached? (I know this is an extreme) but we have evidence of this occurring throughout several dioceses throughout the world. That’s not taking into account (minor) abuses that occur at many other NO parishes.
Click to expand...
There are approximately 17,000 parishes in the US, alone. “several dioceses in the world” is about as loose a statement, and eminently unprovable as they come. You seem to speak as though you hav;e special inside information concerning such heretical speech; I would suggest that instead of making comments in this forum, you present evidence to the proper Church officials of time, place, and verified statements.

Otherwise please stop making vague allegations with no substance whatsoever; it is the equivalent in speech of hand waving.

None of that has an iota of proof that going to an SSPX chapel would not also introduce the one attending to schismatic statements.
 
Yshua02 said:
He will end up on the right side of history I believe but even still, when I go to Latin Mass I usually go to my local FSSP church. I am in no way a schismatic in my beliefs.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but you cannot be “kind of pregnant”. If you are “in no way a schismatic” then stay away from SSPX anything…full stop. Nothing has changed in 2020…the group is still very much in . . . error . . . for their claim of “state of necessity” to exist outside the full communion of the One True Church while the FSSP and other orders as well as diocesan priests continue to say the Tridentine liturgy. Just because a specific chapel they are building “is supposed to be beautiful” does not make their
group any less . . . erroneous. . .

In sum, check out the pictures on their website, but attend liturgy at a Catholic church/chapel . . . in full communion with the Church . . . for the good of your soul.
 
Last edited:
I shouldn’t need to site sources for every claim I make. I am not writing a research paper here. You and anyone else can do the research and find out for yourselves.

Hot topics to look up:

Bishops affirming homosexuality
Bishops affirming Divorce\remarriage
Bishops affirming change to the teachings on the death penalty
Bishops Idolazing Pachamama

There are just a few. Substitute Pope or priest for bishop and you can find many more examples.
 
Last edited:
Interesting article. My only personal issue with it is in that the Teachings of the SSPX seem to align much closer with that of the (pre 1962 church). In many ways they appear much more consistent and orthodox.
 
ConcernedConvert said:
Hot topics to look up:

Bishops affirming homosexuality
Bishops affirming Divorce\remarriage
Bishops affirming change to the teachings on the death penalty
Bishops Idolazing Pachamama
Click to expand...
I don’t know of any bishops affirming homosexual activity; there have been a couple who have engaged in it, but if you are surprised/shocked/upset, then I would suggest you may have been naive about how adept humans are at sinning. I don’t consider it a hot topic any more than the fact that my pastor from about age 4 on to about age 20 had a horrendous problem with alcohol. On the other hand, if you mean that bishops actually acknowledge that all people, straight, gay or otherwise are children of God, no I don’t find that a hot topic either.

I have not heard any bishop affirming divorce and remarriage. Perhaps you might enlighten me. Considering how the news tends to paint anyone and everyone with the reporter’s/editor’s pet view, I find much of the news less than factually correct. But do tell.

. . . . And given that I have experience with the justice system that you do not, perhaps my view might be somewhat different than yours. . . .

Bishops idolizing Pachamama: I don’t choose to libel or slander people when information is coming in third or fourth handed. I seriously doubt that any bishop idolized that figure. . . .
 
Last edited:
ConcernedConvert said:
Is there a reason someone shouldnt? They fulfill the obligation, follow a traditional and approved mass, and are very orthodox.
Click to expand...
Their Ecclesiology isn’t orthodox. You may or may not agree that Archbishop L’s determination that the “emergency” action was justified in the 1970s.

in 2020 it is not, the organization is running on momentum. Read Pope St Pius X for a better understanding of the necessity of actual (not symbolic) unity with the bishop Ordinary.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
The fact that Pope Francis has given the SSPX the possibility of administering sacraments to those who attend SSPX chapels is not an endorsement of the SSPX; it is for the souls of those who persist in attending SSPX instead of parishes in unity with the bishop of the area, who in turn is in unity with Rome.
Click to expand...
Pope Francis is very much into “outreach”. He wants pastors to do family visits to couples who are already in all kinds of irregular situations. Let’s meet people where they’re at.

We should love the person, not judge them. But that refusal to judge the person in that situation doesn’t mean we don’t judge the situations, some are worse than others. We don’t want the younger sister to move in now with her boyfriend or whatever. Pope Francis has not abolished Prudence.

So don’t criticize those who grew up in that chapel, but don’t mistake loving outreach for endorsement of the situation for you to join.
 
Last edited:
Yshua02 said:
Is it ok to attend Mass at SSPX Chapels as of 2020?
Click to expand...
From my understanding you can attend an SSPX chapel. In short, it seems dependent on your intentions for choosing to attend. If you are doing so as a way to separate yourself from Rome and the Pope, then you are in sin. However, if your intention is to merely attend the TLM and to help the growth of your faith, both spiritually and intellectually, then you’re in good standing.
 
I don’t think you’ve thoroughly read my posts on this topic. If you had, you’d know I mentioned that very same thing about the SSPX being approved to offer nuptial Masses.

Your reply is also a non sequitur. I didn’t say anything in the post you quoted about the validity of marriages at SSPX churches, or about what light Pope Francis views them in. We’re talking about whether Catholics should attend their Masses.
 
Deo gratias the current and previous pope doesn’t share your view of them.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m aware that Pope Benedict XVI lifted their excommunications in 2009 and that Pope Francis has granted their priests the right to hear Confessions and witness marriages (which, again, I had mentioned in my previous posts if you go back thru my post history).

You, however, act as if those actions serve as endorsements of the SSPX by these two Popes. They don’t. As someone else said, it’s more of an acknowledgment that there’s always going to be laity who associate with the SSPX, and these actions will at least ensure they are receiving valid Sacraments.

The Church also does not ever like to see division. They would welcome the SSPX back, provided they agreed to the conditions outlined to them whenever they were in negotiations with Rome in 2012.

My point was that the mentality of ignoring the Pope and telling people to avoid valid Sacraments is not a Catholic one. I did not necessarily say the SSPX is not Catholic, just that what they’re promoting when they make statements like that is not Catholic.

Deo gratias that there are people who can see that (including, you know, Pope Benedict XVI, who explicitly stated in 2009 that though the SSPX was no longer excommunicated, they were still in an irregular status).
 
Last edited:
The PNCC originally began as a temporary measure to meet pastoral needs in what they called an emergency situation, “We are NOT leaving the Catholic Church!”

They are still around, even though the original reasons for starting are mostly gone. The organization, as such, now has momentum. It perpetuates itself rather than their original purpose. They encourage Catholics to “stop in for Mass, Yes we are a Catholic Church!”

On the one hand, I never criticize those who grew up there. I go to their fish fries, encourage cooperation on things like prolife. But I discourage RCs from worshipping there, even if the services might be more pleasing.

Same with SSPX. Same organizational momentum.
 
Last edited:
@Maximian That isn’t quite fair. Every SSPX vestry has a portrait of Pope Francis and he is prayed for as Pope at every Mass. They do, correctly, hold the view that a Catholic should not subscribe to uncatholic principles, even if the Pope says so. But after all, that was the situation when St Paul opposed St Peter; it didn’t mean St Paul had “forgotten about the primacy of the papacy”
Click to expand...
What “uncatholic principles” has the Pope required the SSPX to accept, though? Last time I checked, the FSSP is in full union with the Pope, yet they are also allowed to offer the Latin Mass exclusively and even use the pre-1969 General Roman Calendar. I don’t see them being forced to accept anything “uncatholic” by the Pope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top