P
phil19034
Guest
Very interesting…
- Status
S
sealabeag
Guest
Because of who they are, their history and the fact that I disagree with them on so many issues. Yep, free to receive or not, as one chooses!
P
phil19034
Guest
I disagree with them on many issues too, but I would still receive communion. Just like I would still receive communion in an Orthodox Church (if I knew the members of the parish would not be offended)
To each their own…
H
Hawkeye916
Guest
I feel uncomfortable with their irregular status. I’ve heard that they have no facilities to administer the sacraments, save for the ones that the pope extended to them. So I don’t know if they have the ability to consecrate bread and wine to the Holy Body and Blood. However I could be incorrect…I truly don’t know and my knowledge on the situation regarding their status is very basic, so I’d rather abstain when I visit and attend SSPX masses.
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
yes, you do.
Rome has been quite clear that not being licit doesn’t affect validity.
Whether or not they should be celebrating the Eucharist, there is no room to doubt the actual presence in their Masses without rejecting binding Roman teaching on the sacraments.
H
Hawkeye916
Guest
Oh! I do, do I??No, I do not know. How are you to say “oh yes, you actually know something that you’ve just stated you’re not knowledge about!” Ridiculous
As I’ve clearly stated, I am ignorant as to the details and the current situation regarding the SSPX and their authority granted to them by the church. Basically, all I know is that they are “irregular” and for that reason alone I choose to avoid them. I would much rather safely attend a mass and a parish and an order fully within communion with Rome. Why would I want to risk my soul at an “irregular” mass, when there are thousands of other masses fully within communion that are likewise traditional and reverent? I believe it’s a fine line to walk, and many people of the SSPX that I know I have so much negativity and vitriol towards Vatican II and the new mass. Some even saying that if they are unable to attend TLM, then they are automatically dispensed from attending the NO. No! Absolutely not! NO is valid and licit and some SSPX refuse to believe it! Until SSPX is within the fold of the church, I will avoid it unless absolutely necessary.
D
dochawk
Guest
well, if you accept what Rome teaches, then yes, you do. It’s not up for negotiation, nor questioning.
licit is up for debate; to question the validity is to deny Roman teaching on order–ironically putting the denier in the same position for which he criticizes the SSPS.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt . . .
H
Hawkeye916
Guest
Well then if that’s what Rome teaches, then fine! But I thought I was pretty clear that I did NOT know what the situation was, and the way you phrased your response rubbed me the wrong way. In my eyes, seemingly insinuating I was simply ignoring a fact that I already knew, which was incorrect. Perhaps you didn’t mean to. So I guess I now know.
That doesn’t change my stance however. I would never want to receive Our Lord illicitly.
Last edited:
M
Maximian
Guest
Doesn’t my quotation from the Pope himself answer your question? Why would the Pope grant any faculties of any kind to someone he did not regard as a Catholic Priest? Isn’t it a bit judgmental to form an opinion while not knowing the facts?
Administering the Sacraments without faculties is no more serious a form of disobedience than uncanonical practices which take place in churches where the priest does have faculties, something which happens frequently without anyone suffering agonies of conscience.
Administering the Sacraments without faculties is no more serious a form of disobedience than uncanonical practices which take place in churches where the priest does have faculties, something which happens frequently without anyone suffering agonies of conscience.
C
commenter
Guest
I think posters are focusing heavily on technical details. People are neglecting the virtue of Prudence in making personal decisions. Not every action that is permissable is automatically recommended as equal to other choices.
Pope Francis has tried to reach out to people who are already in certain situations for years, whether it be living arrangements, religious involvement, or other circumstances. The Church loves you, wherever you are. “Who am I to judge?”
That doesn’t mean all circumstances are equally prudent for you. If a person’s conscience or judgement is raising a caution, it’s not necessary to stifle it.
Pope Francis has tried to reach out to people who are already in certain situations for years, whether it be living arrangements, religious involvement, or other circumstances. The Church loves you, wherever you are. “Who am I to judge?”
That doesn’t mean all circumstances are equally prudent for you. If a person’s conscience or judgement is raising a caution, it’s not necessary to stifle it.
C
CradleRC58
Guest
Is just my opinion that going with that mindset = walking through the doors of that church for the wrong reasons.
Kind of like using the Most Blessed Sacrament to prove a point.
That, imo, is sacrilegious if not outright blasphemous.
Edit to add: same goes for the SSPX clergy and certain members of their flock in regards to their stance on diocesan Masses.
It’s evil, imo
Last edited:
H
Hank89
Guest
The SSPX position is that new mass is valid.
As for licit; if you mean by this that it was promulgated by the pope. The SSPX accepts this as well.
What is more is that in general one gets the impression here that the laity speak here as though they would be doing the SSPX a favour by going to their masses when it is very opposite. The laity who do understand the crisis are thankful for the work of Archbishop Lefebvre. It was they who called him for help not the other way round.
Thank God for such a group of faithful priests for being a solid support of the faithful in these times.
As for licit; if you mean by this that it was promulgated by the pope. The SSPX accepts this as well.
What is more is that in general one gets the impression here that the laity speak here as though they would be doing the SSPX a favour by going to their masses when it is very opposite. The laity who do understand the crisis are thankful for the work of Archbishop Lefebvre. It was they who called him for help not the other way round.
Thank God for such a group of faithful priests for being a solid support of the faithful in these times.
H
Hawkeye916
Guest
I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying. Are you saying I’m being sacrilegious and blasphemous because I don’t feel comfortable receiving in a SSPX chapel? We are only technically required to receive once a year, so I am under no obligation to receive. As mentioned, I don’t know the full situation regarding the SSPX, so I’d prefer just observe rather than take part. It was not to “prove a point”, rather, out of an abundance of caution. I had no desire to offend Our Lord in any way, and as said many times, my understanding of the status and situation regarding the SSPX, the priests faculties, and the canonical status is very limited, so I observed rather than take part. As noted before, at the time, I wasn’t even sure if the SSPX priests were able to consecrate. I learned in this thread that they do in-fact consecrate the bread and wine to the Precious Body and Blood, but do it “illicitly”. That alone detours me from receiving. I do not want to receive Our Lord under illicit circumstances.
Last edited:
A
AlNg
Guest
According to an official document published by Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz, if you attain membership in the SSPX by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) you are under interdict and are absolutely forbidden to receive Holy Communion. Contumacious persistence in such membership for one month following the interdict on part of any such Catholic will by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) cause him to be excommunicated and this excommunication can only be lifted by the bishop himself.
" All Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln are forbidden to be members of the organizations and groups listed below. Membership in these organizations or groups is always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith.
Any Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln who attain or retain membership in any of the above listed organizations or groups after April 15, 1996, are by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) under interdict and are absolutely forbidden to receive Holy Communion. Contumacious persistence in such membership for one month following the interdict on part of any such Catholics will by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) cause them to be excommunicated. Absolution from these ecclesial censures is “reserved to the Bishop.”
“This notice, when published in the Southern Nebraska Register, is a formal canonical warning.
By mandate of the Most Reverend Bishop of Lincoln.
Reverend Monsignor Timothy Thorburn, Chancellor March 19, 1996”
A
AlNg
Guest
But do they advise that it is better not to attend the New Mass?
T
TheMortenBay
Guest
First of all, I think he is absolutely wrong about this. Nothing perilous to the faith here. Also, what the Bishop may or may not grasp is that the only members of the SSPX are the priests and brothers (and arguably the seminarians). The latae setentiae would make sense if you believed the SSPX to be in schism, then receiving ordination from an excommunicated bishop would incur that penalty. But the SSPX are demonstrably not in schism, and lay people are not affected by the latae setentiae anyway.
C
commenter
Guest
In theory, laity who worship at SSPX Masses are visitors, who still actively belong to a parish and diocese. But by 2020, it’s likely some of the lay people grew up in and raise their children in SSPX, have no affiliation with a parish or diocese.AlNg:
…what the Bishop may or may not grasp is that the only members of the SSPX are the priests and brothers (and arguably the seminarians). The latae setentiae would make sense if you believed the SSPX to be in schism, then receiving ordination from an excommunicated bishop would incur that penalty. But the SSPX are demonstrably not in schism, and lay people are not affected by the latae setentiae anyway.
If they are registered with a chapel, participate only in the chapel, not anyplace else, then realistically that is their diocese. They defacto “belong” to SSPX. So the bishop seems not to be referring to the occasional visitor, who likes the TLM, but to members.
Last edited:
T
TheMortenBay
Guest
Regardless, any Bishop who sees the SSPX as a danger to the faith and who singles them out in spite of inviting ecumenical worship with protestants (not necessarily an issue in itself) is way off course.
Anyone who has gone to the SSPX for their entire life also can’t be excommunicated for adhering to a schism.
Anyone who has gone to the SSPX for their entire life also can’t be excommunicated for adhering to a schism.
B
Bill_B_NY
Guest
What Bishop Bruskewitz was asking in that matter was: “Why are you attending the SSPX and being disobedient to my directives in the diocese”?
Some answers to that might be:
“Your Novus Ordo Masses are liberalized and a danger to the Faith”.
or
“Vatican II taught false doctrine and I can’t be taught by a Vatican II priest”.
There are other similar views - including “The Novus Ordo is invalid”.
But how does the bishop react to that? Agree with them?
I think he said, by his action: “The Novus Ordo Masses here are good and the priests here are good.” He also supported a very strong center for traditional Latin Masses with the FSSP seminary in Lincoln.
The argument that “he invites Protestants to worship but opposes the SSPX” really doesn’t work as I see it. It is saying that his ecumenical gestures should be extended to the SSPX. But that’s just applying liberalism equally to the SSPX. In the old days, if priests disobeyed the bishop or the Pope they’d be excommunicated just for that alone.
So, for the SSPX to appeal to liberalism and fair-play seems weak. Accept the ruling and don’t complain. If you want to fight it, then take it to Canon Law. That’s fine.
We all like fair-play. “He allows Protestants privileges but not us.” But very often it doesn’t matter what everybody else is doing, it only matters what we do.
He who has been given much, much will be expected.
St. Athanasius was exiled from the Church by the heretics in charge at the time. But he accepted it.
T
TheMortenBay
Guest
Well, first of all this may all be outdated, who knows whether this is still the Diocese policy. I know there is a similar one in mine.
Second, I’m not saying this bishop doesn’t just have his diocese’s best interests at heart. But think about it: what if, instead of saying “you’ll be excommunicated if you go there for a month continuously”, essentially damning “unrepentant” SSPX adherents to Hell, he’d said “Go where your spiritual needs and desires are met”. What is the worst outcome you could imagine if a bishop welcomed the SSPX in his diocese? (aside from the liberal backlash) Because while I don’t agree with everything the SSPX does and says, I can’t rule them “uncatholic” either…
Second, I’m not saying this bishop doesn’t just have his diocese’s best interests at heart. But think about it: what if, instead of saying “you’ll be excommunicated if you go there for a month continuously”, essentially damning “unrepentant” SSPX adherents to Hell, he’d said “Go where your spiritual needs and desires are met”. What is the worst outcome you could imagine if a bishop welcomed the SSPX in his diocese? (aside from the liberal backlash) Because while I don’t agree with everything the SSPX does and says, I can’t rule them “uncatholic” either…
- Status