Attending SSPX Chapels as of 2020

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yshua02
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crusader13 said:
This was a good brief clip of Bp. Athanasius Schneider’s thoughts on the SSPX.
Click to expand...
It is not, however, a good brief clip of Pope Benedict XVI’s thoughts on the SSPX. Pope Benedict as well as Pope John Paul II both rejected the "emergency"claim, and Pope Benedict said in crystal clear terms that the difference between the SSPX and the Church is “doctrinal”.
 
The Church has been requesting discussions for well over 40 years. Cardinal Mueller publicly answered a question as to the SSPX status and said they are in de facto schism and that statement has never been withdrawn or walked back. And he spoke as head of the dicastery dealing with them directly. . . .

The Church politely puts it that they are in irregular status; that backs Cardinal Mueller’s comment.

He certainly does not seem to go out of his way to dispute the “emergency” matter. There was extensive negotiations between the Archbishop and the Pope, and it was made clear he had authority to ordain one bishop; he chose a different path, and he did it specifically against what he and the Pope negotiated; references to prior Canon law, or prior Church law before it was gathered into a Canon is irrelevant.

(continued)
 
Last edited:
(continued)

As to jurisdiction, that flows from the Pope to the bishops. The SSPX bishops have specifically been given no jurisdiction whatsoever; they have no territory and no jurisdiction. There has in the past been an ongoing dispute as to whether the SSPX in attempting to confect a sacrament did so invalidly or simply illicitly and I am not going to enter into that distinction as it is way above anyone’s pay grade in this forum. The fact that permission to be the official witness to marriage (subject to permission of the bishop of the diocese) and to hear confessions certainly implies those were invalidly confected - but that is not a granting of “jurisdiction”.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
I have not heard any bishop affirming divorce and remarriage.
Click to expand...
In the marriage annulment process, the couple is required to obtain a civil divorce before the application for the annulment goes forward. Then, after the civil divorce, when the annulment is granted, as it is in most cases, the couple is free to remarry someone else. Under the present system the annulments have shot up from about 10 or so per year in the USA in 1929 to more than 50,000 per year in some recent years.
 
Last edited:
Yshua02 said:
Is it ok to attend Mass at SSPX Chapels as of 2020?
Click to expand...
Prudence requires us to consider the likely effects of an act on us, and on others. You personally might be attending for the Latin Mass only. But the SSPX has other issues besides liturgy. The sermon tends to form you, not only in the gospel but also in SSPX specific positions.

There may be other Laity present who know you. A family who is considering switching back to their home parish and Diocese, because they need the ministries and support there. Seeing you at the chapel may encourage them to postpone a worthy decision.
Even though you may say I’m only here for Mass, I’m not buying all that other stuff, a younger person who is influenced to stay may well “buy all that other stuff”. You may not plan to disconnect from parish and Diocese, but they might.

So consider prudence.
 
Last edited:
Here’s my personal opinion. i believe that the comments of (name removed by moderator) are well thought out and deserve attention. Further, I have attended some SSPX Masses and have found them to be very respectful and the sermons to be excellent. I have also noticed that many of the families attending the SSPX Masses are quite large with several children. In one case a family had 12 children. Everyone is dressed in their respectful Sunday best clothing. I am unfortunately somewhat uncomfortable with some of the Masses at the local church, with this pop guitar music and impromptu ad lib activities, eating and drinking during Mass, etc. Anyway, there is a flip side to this and that is that i really do not like what i have read in the news about some SSPX members disrupting Catholic interfaith conferences. IMHO. the non-Catholic leaders, whether they be Protestant, Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist deserve a certain amount of respect as they have taken the time out to accept an invitation from a local Catholic priest or bishop to participate in ecumenical discussions or other activity. We know already that the SSPX does not like this, but there is no need for them to go to the meeting, grab the microphones and shout out against what they see as the terrible abominations taking place. This is disruptive and disrespectful conduct that shows a lack of courtesy and a lack respect for the people there who have taken the time in an sincere effort to promote peace and good will. If the SSPX wants to express their opinion, why don’t they do so on their own platform instead of barging into places where they were not invited, grabbing microphones, and shouting, filibustering and annoying decent people of different faiths who took out the time not to hear the SSPX disrupters, but to hear the invited speakers.
I don’t believe that angry, chaotic disruption of someone else’s events is the right thing to do.

novusordowatch.org

SSPXers Disrupt Interfaith Service in Buenos Aires Cathedral

novusordowatch.org novusordowatch.org


international.la-croix.com

Nationalist and traditionalist Catholic youths disrupt ecumenical celebration

The theme, “From conflict to communion, together in hope”, turned out to be ironic. Conflict almost destroyed the communion.
international.la-croix.com international.la-croix.com
 
Perhaps you and I are understanding the term “change” differently. I should have used a different term - nuanced. Refined could also be used.

See, for example, the fact that St. Paul makes it relatively clear he has no particular issue with slavery, and neither did the Church for centuries.

The history of moral theology is one of the Church reflecting on the Gospels and on Christ, and refining what is or is not morally acceptable. I did not intend for you to take my comment as if moral law has been turned upside down or inside out; the comments about prisoner execution is part of the emphasis on the dignity and worth of even what we might consider to be one of the most despicable individuals (such as, perhaps, Ted Bundy as an example of a serial rapist/murderer).
 
ConcernedConvert said:
However they have legitimate reasons for protesting (modern) ecumenism in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
There are courteous and civilized ways of expressing your views on certain issues. I don’t believe that going where you are not invited, grabbing microphones that do not belong to you, and angrily shouting out and taking over a conference is the correct or respectful way to share your views. The participants of the conference or ecumenical activities have taken time out of their busy schedule to participate in these meetings. If you have something to say, you should ask permission to participate in the conference or if it was denied, to hold your own conference and invite your own speakers. At most it is OK to picket the event from the outside and to hand out materials expressing your views. There is a way to do this respectfully, courteously and without disruption.
 
It is not nuanced. Death penalty ok before, now it’s not. Those are blatant (changes).
 
otjm said:
See, for example, the fact that St. Paul makes it relatively clear he has no particular issue with slavery, and neither did the Church for centuries.
Click to expand...
I believe that was wrong. IMHO, it is gravely wrong for a white European slavemaster or anyone else to enslave and buy and sell young women and others at auction to the highest bidder. I view slavery of young women and others as one of the most degrading immoral humiliating and shameful things possible.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
When 45% to 57% or more of Catholics are not attending Mass on a regular basis and have had poor catechesis, is one really supposed to believe that in 5 or 10 sessions with a young couple - who may have been fornicating up to the time they decide to “make it legal”, and one or both parties may also have been serial fornicators - that suddenly they are going to have a life-changing experience of Jesus and truly vow to be married to each other until death? Or are they just enduring the meetings prior to the wedding, and instead focusing on the “details” of the wedding ceremony and honeymoon? I seem to recall a comment “You’re talking to the hand, 'cuz the head ain’t listening” being a common description of actually paying attention to something being said.
Click to expand...
They made the preparations for the wedding ceremony and agreed to get married.Now, 15 years later after having three or four children they want to divorce. Why not honestly admit it is a divorce ? As Catholic Joseph Kennedy said to his nonCatholic wife the whole annulment process is “Catholic gobbledygook” and added “nobody actually believes it.”
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
I believe that was wrong. IMHO, it is gravely wrong for a white European slavemaster or anyone else to enslave and buy and sell young women and others at auction to the highest bidder. I view slavery of young women and others as one of the most degrading immoral humiliating and shameful things possible.
Click to expand...
well, I agree with you, and now so does the Church. The point I was making was that for a significant part of the history of the Church, slavery was accepted - not that it was considered the morally right thing to do with others, but not immoral. As the Church spent more time over the centuries contemplating the Gospels, the Church came to the conclusion that slavery was immoral, not based on it alone, but rather based on the respect each person must have for others, and that slavery did not exemplify that respect to which Christ calls us.

Another way of saying it is that our duty to our fellow men became nuanced, in that slavery failed that duty.

Likewise, according to JP2 and Francis, execution of prisoners fails in our duty to others. It is a further nuancing of how Christ calls us to treat one another - including our enemies.
 
AlNg said:
They made the preparations for the wedding ceremony and agreed to get married.Now, 15 years later after having three or four children they want to divorce. Why not honestly admit it is a divorce ? As Catholic Joseph Kennedy said to his nonCatholic wife the whole annulment process is “Catholic gobbledygook” and added “nobody actually believes it.”
Click to expand...
The Church looks to the day of the wedding to see if there was either an impediment, or if there was a failure of consent. thre are multiple grounds of failure to consent, which you can research if you are interested.

Having children is not a sign that as of the day of the wedding, there was proper consent; it may well be a sign of a subtle or not so subtle domestic violence issue.

it is not a divorce; it is an acknowledgement that there never was proper consent and there is no valid marriage. If there is no valid marriage, there is nothing to “divorce” as it does not exist.

And I would not take either Mr. Kennedy nor his Anglican wife to have even a scintilla of theological understanding, nor any visible expression of comprehension of what the Church is actually about - or for that matter, what marriage is about. His subsequent conduct appears to indicate he either has no comprehension of the sacrament of marriage, or simply does not care. Referencing him is hardly what I would consider a critique of the question.
 
ConcernedConvert said:
It is not nuanced. Death penalty ok before, now it’s not. Those are blatant (changes).
Click to expand...
So was slavery to no slavery. I have explained it as well as I can; you can choose to say the Church is wrong. Rather than simply reacting, you may wish to do some research as I am sure there are people more articulate than I who can assist; National Catholic Register and/or EWTN may have information which may be of help to you.
 
otjm said:
If there is no valid marriage,
Click to expand...
This is why some people say that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the true church and not the Roman Church. In the Orthodox Church it is the priest who marries the couple. Is this not what Jesus would want. Or would Jesus want a situation where you can find loopholes to His teaching that divorce is wrong by saying that it is the couple who is performing the marriage and then 15 years down the line, one of the partners can claim some defect of consent which occurred 15 years ago. Did Jesus want to establish a Sacrament which can easily be abused by loopholes and ambiguous technicalities enabling the couple to divorce, or did Jesus want to set up a situation where the couple, having been married by the priest, can then live together with peace of mind that the Church will not find any loopholes 15 years down the line according to which the Church now claims that there never really was a Sacramental marriage. The priest went through the ceremony, the wedding ceremony was witnessed by hundreds, an expensive wedding party was arranged, the couple was married for 15 years, and they had several children, and now after 15 years of the Church accepting the marriage as presumably valid, all of a sudden the Church changes her mind and says no, you really weren’t married,
otjm said:
Having children is not a sign that as of the day of the wedding, there was proper consent; it may well be a sign of a subtle or not so subtle domestic violence issue.
Click to expand...
I am sorry to hear that you think that having children may well be a sign of domestic abuse. I think that the Orthodox Church has a better teaching, namely that children are a blessing and a gift from God and a living sign of the love between husband and wife. Children show the love that God has showered on the marriage and the family.
Further, this is a thread about SSPX. The last time i checked, the SSPX did not accept the marriage annulments of the Catholic Church, but they had their own annulment process. This is where i think that they are on the right track, because as Cardinal Kasper has said, some of the annulments granted by the Church are really Catholic divorces in a dishonest way.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
Or would Jesus want a situation where you can find loopholes to His teaching that divorce is wrong by saying that it is the couple who is performing the marriage and then 15 years down the line, one of the partners can claim some defect of consent which occurred 15 years ago
Click to expand...
It is not a matter of “claiming”. It is a matter of “proving”. And it is not about a “loophole”. Ask enough people (those divorced who have not received a decree of nullity), priests, deacons, advocates, and tribunal members and you will find there is a filtering process that eliminates cases before a final decision is rendered, or after.

Christ spoke on the matter; so did St Paul; and the Church has a long history of decrees of nullity. and if you actually get involved in decrees (plural, meaning not one) you will find that matters are not “ambiguous”.
AlNg said:
The priest went through the ceremony, the wedding ceremony was witnessed by hundreds, an expensive wedding party was arranged, the couple was married for 15 years, and they had several children, and now after 15 years of the Church accepting the marriage as presumably valid, all of a sudden the Church changes her mind and says no, you really weren’t married,
Click to expand...
I am not going to list the grounds for a decree; the information is available in both a number of books on the matter. The Church doesn’t “suddenly change her mind”. Evidence is produced which substantiates and proves the matter.
AlNg said:
I am sorry to hear that you think that having children may well be a sign of domestic abuse. I think that the Orthodox Church has a better teaching, namely that children are a blessing and a gift from God and a living sign of the love between husband and wife. Children show the love that God has showered on the marriage and the family.
Click to expand...
I did divorce work as an attorney, and I had more than one case which indicated that the wife was raped (forcible sexual intercourse) by her husband. You don’t have to be sorry for me, but you can be sorry for the women who were in those violent marriages.

This has gone off topic of the OP’s post. I have absolutely no interest in debating the issue with you. The Church has far more wisdom and understanding of what does or does not constitute a sacrament. I can understand that you may have difficulty with the matter, but that does not change the fact that the Church spends a great deal of time (as well as do the parties involved in the preparation of the case, and as well the time the witnesses put in). It would appear you have never spoken with anyone who has received a decree of nullity; I have. and not one of them were blithe or flippant about the process; all have spoken of the pain and how hard the process was in terms of time, soul-searching, and all that was dragged up in the process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top