Attending SSPX Chapels as of 2020

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yshua02
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yshua02 said:
I really want to attend Mass at their new head chapel in St. Mary’s Kansas when it’s finished. It is supposed to be beautiful.
Click to expand...
Careful… I expressed how beautiful the new cathedral in my dioceses was going to be, on these forums a few years ago. One person responded that we should be not “worship buildings” yes, he used the word “worship” lol.

I love the TLM, im not a sspx fan, so ill leave others to answer your question
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
because of unfortunate fact they do not obey Church authorities (Bishops),
Click to expand...
At first sight that seems a perfectly good rule to follow. But “church authorities “ do not only include living bishops but also dead Popes and ultimately Christ himself, and sometimes we fiind that living bishops are themselves not following the Magisterium.

So which is worse: to go to an SSPX mass which doesn’t have the correct documentation in place but is correct in every other way, or to go to a fully authorised Mass which is full of departures from the GIRM, where unsound teachings are preached, but the bishop turns a blind eye?
 
Last edited:
www.newwaysministry.org

German Bishops Affirm Homosexuality as "Normal," Acknowledge Queer Relationships as "Hot Topic" - New Ways Ministry

After sponsoring a consultation on human sexuality, Germany's bishops issued a statement in which they said church teaching against same-gender sexual activity was a "hot topic" and affirmed homosexuality as a "normal" part of human development.
www.newwaysministry.org www.newwaysministry.org

www.catholicculture.org

This week: Pachamama and other scandals

If the Pachamama statues are displayed at the closing Mass of the Amazon Synod, it will be a deliberate affront to thousands of concerned Catholics.
www.catholicculture.org www.catholicculture.org

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...paign-to-end-the-use-of-the-death-penalty.cfm

https://www.newwaysministry.org/issues/marriage-equality/church-leaders-support/

www.google.com

Italian bishops face blowback for opening to divorced/remarried Catholics

Two Italian bishops are currently making waves after issuing public statements allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the sacraments and apologizing for having “ignored” these couples in parish life, insisting that their decisions are in line with Pope Francis’s own view.
www.google.com www.google.com

There are plenty of examples out there. Heck the Entire USCCB signed on to the changes in settled church teaching on the death penalty.
 
ConcernedConvert said:
There are plenty of examples out there. Heck the Entire USCCB signed on to the changes in settled church teaching on the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the postings; I had not seen them.

As to the issue of the death penalty, there has been a gradual retret from the death penalty, and the great majority of what has driven the retreat has been a greater emphasis on the sanctity of life, meaning all life, coupled with a far greater ability to protect society from the aggressor through effective incarceration. I have watched the discussions on the most recent statements that have been made concerning the death penalty being unacceptable, and I would make a couple of observations.
  1. The moral law on the death penalty has gradually changed in part. Going back to what was held in the long past, the emphasis was on the protection of society, just punishment, and an inability to adequately protect society from the aggressor. while there may have been questioning of the use of the death penalty in the last 100+ years, it was far more articulated by Pope John Paul II to reflect a move away from just punishement, to a refelction on the Gospels of “Love your enemy” which Christ commanded, coupled with the fact that the ability to effectively incarcerate was certainly more effective in today’s prisons. And Pope Francis’s comments have moved that in the same direction, to say that incarceration is sufficient to protect the public; not executing provides the aggressor time to reconcile with God, and thus killing the aggressor is immoral.
Moral theology has expanded ever since the time of Christ - one can look to the first recording of that with issues such as circumcision. as reflected in the Epistles and in Acts. Moral theology does not turn something upside down on its head, in spite of the claims that this change supposedly does,.rather, it refines the underlying moral issues to come to a clear answer as to how we respond.

I have been against capital punishment long before Pope John Paul came out against it, as it is light years from any consistency as to what should or should not result in a state killing; there are differences not only from state to state as to what justifies execution, but it literally can vary from jury to jury within a state. I defended 2 murder cases at a time my state had no capital punishment, and refused to try any after it was reinstated; I didn’t want the responsibility that I might not adequately defend in such a case.

On the other hand, I have no problem whatsoever of self defense which may end in the death of the aggressor right there and then. Nor is the Church against self defense which can result in the death of the aggressor.
 
Maximian said:
So which is worse: to go to an SSPX mass which doesn’t have the correct documentation in place but is correct in every other way, or to go to a fully authorised Mass which is full of departures from the GIRM, where unsound teachings are preached, but the bishop turns a blind eye?
Click to expand...
Subjective, but in the end I am part of laity. There are many things I can judge wrong and that is why I have to obey Hierarchical Church.

I do suggest visiting perfectly legitimate and good OF or EF… it bypasses both problems- submitting to current and also past authority of the Church.
 
Maximian said:
“church authorities “ do not only include living bishops but also dead Popes and ultimately Christ himself, and sometimes we fiind that living bishops are themselves not following the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
Dead popes are all former living bishops. Some writings of dead popes, and - bishops (when united to pope and college of bishops), are part of Tradition.

Tradition, like Scripture, is best interpreted by the current Magisterium. Otherwise you’re at the mercy of the websites, which cherry pick quotes out of context.

An individual bishop has apostolic authority only in his diocese. The bishops united as a whole college to the pope are reliable, not necessarily the bishops conference of Germany, or the bishops conference of SSPX.

Thus the current Magisterium is more reliable than the current SSPX leadership, or the current websites.
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
I do suggest visiting perfectly legitimate and good OF or EF… it bypasses both problems- submitting to current and also past authority of the Church.
Click to expand...
The SSPX seems to locate chapels usually in locations close to a few Catholic parishes, often a concentration of them. They or their supporters complaine that bishops locate FSSP or diocesan TLM as close as possible to SSPX sites.
It’s odd there are so many posts with a hypothetical scenario: I have only two choices, the worst abusive parish, or else SSPX for Mass on Sunday.
 
Last edited:
This is more or less the very thing I’ve said, except you place more emphasis on the fact that it is not strictly prohibited, and I placed more emphasis on the fact that it’s not recommended, because you’re pro-SSPX and I, while sympathetic to some degree, am not. Thus why I said, “You can go, but that does not necessarily mean you should”.

I don’t care to address your other arguments - not because I have no answer for them (which is likely what you would say is the case - believe what you want to believe) but because they have been debated (and refuted) ad nauseam here and many other places.The question of this thread has been answered already.
 
This is one point I am in full agreement with. I’ve always been of the belief that if priests or bishops are going to discourage attendance at SSPX Masses, they should at least be consistent. It makes no sense to say that attendance at SSPX Masses are dangerous, but then turn around and say, “Oh, but Protestant services are fine to attend”. At least the SSPX offers a Catholic Mass and (some) valid Sacraments. You will get none of that at a Protestant service.
 
That’s the reason why I didn’t tag you in my reply directly, but used block quotes, since in yesterday’s discussion you demonstrated this same attitude with your conduct. And here you enter the thread just to announce your displeasure, so why show up to begin with?
Click to expand...
I was merely noting that you addressed several of my other posts, but I didn’t want it to look as if I was only responding to one of your retorts one but intentionally ignoring the others. No need to read so deeply into what I wrote.
 
That (very biased) article doesn’t say anything about the FSSP being kicked out?
 
No, you didn’t “hypothesize,” you said that it does happen, and that’s what I asked about (bold is mine, not yours):

So, from your latest response, I feel safe in concluding that you don’t know of any instances of this actually happening.
 
Well, “the FSSP is asked to leave as well” seems pretty clear, and seriously undermines your “point.”
 
As Pope Benedict XVI noted, they are in dispute over doctrine with the Church - which is why they are considered in de fact schism. Someone going to a Protestant service knows they are going to a non-Catholic service. Someone going to the SSPX are opening themselves, albeit often innocently, to doctrinal disputes which are far more subtle when propounded by a priest. No one is forbidden to attend Mass at an SSPX chapel; but the Church has ample reasons why they discourage it.

You are mistaken; they do not have ordinary jurisdiction; what has been granted to them can be withdrawn. The disputes have been going on since after the closure of Vatican 2. As there appears to be no reconciliation, and the bishops are getting older, at some point they will need more bishops. At that point I seriously doubt Rome is going to “okay” the matter given the past history, and it is more likely they will go from de facto schism to de jure schism. It is possible to have limited jurisdiction while in de facto schism, as the faculties granted are for the benefit of the laity, and nothing else.

You might want to research what Pope Benedict XVI had to say; he was crystal clear that they are in dispute over doctrinal matters, If that is not heretical, it is close enough that the differences are a matter of 'polite conversation", not fact.

And the Church says that is not the issue needed. The bishops certainly have had 40 years+*/- to work out the doctrinal matters they dispute, and have not done so. The SSPX - priests and bishops - are a minority of a minority in the Church; it is certainly not a matter that Rome has been too buy to sit down with them and lay out the Magisterial matters which the SSPX dispute.

Given the FSSP have something in the range of 35 to 39 states in which they operate, I don’t see that happening in the US - perhaps elsewhere, but they have been relatively stable here.
 
To me it seems that SSPX is hurt more by its fanatic, highly defensive supporters than by its enemies.

I think most attached laity are willing to “fight” for the Latin Mass, and true doctrine of they absolutely have to, but the organization is perhaps just a temporary means to an end, it is not Mother Church.

The problem is that the fanatics-for-the-organization tend to be perceived as the typical. This is why some don’t visit there, and why Dioceses don’t include SSPX in their “visit your neighbor’s church” efforts, or “listen to what they have to say”.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top