Can one morally enter into a state of "irregular standing"

[maurin]

(my emphasis)

Please permit me to comment:

This explanation is what this thread is based on. The SSPX’s immediatly assert that it is not in schism (because schism is bad), but merely in an “irregular status” (the goodness or badness of which is not explained). Is irregularity good or bad? Can one morally enter into this position? If one cannot morally enter into such a position, then the distinction between schism and irregularity is effectively pointless.

(emphasis mine)

Sarpedon,

it is not the “SSPX’ers” who claim that they are not in schism. It is the Church Herself who says that. If the Church Herself is unwilling to so deem the Society, why are you and so many others bridling to do so?

I have given my reasons for my departure from the Diocesan Parishes in my area. If those reasons do not satisfy you, that is not my concern. If you do not agree with those reasons, that is not my concern.

What is my concern is that at the SSPX and not the Diocesan Parishes I am receiving instruction in the Faith. And unless you think that Archbishop Fulton Sheen is a schismatic, I have been counselled by my Pastor to seek further instruction from the Archbishop’s books.

 

[maurin]

What I said was:
All of the posts so far go along the lines of “Well, technically I’m not associated with them, so I’m not technically in an irregular standing”. Is this an admission that one cannot morally be in a state of irregularity? Why do you point out the fact that you are not in an irregular standing (a debatable point), if there is nothing wrong with being in an irregular standing in the first place?

You said:
it is an admission that I cannot morally attend Mass where the Teachings of the Apostles are flouted for new-age relativistic feel goody-isms.

It seems to me that you moved your response from the matter of irregularity to the matter of new-age masses.

This is impossibly vague. Using your phrase, I could turn anything into relativism. How do I know your use of this phrase is in accordance with the church’s position?

Sarpedon, you may want to read posts more carefully.

In response to your last paragraph and question, I believe a little catechesis from a Priest you trust is in order. Here is the scenario you can give him: you are a perfectly formed Christian and have a well-integrated personality. John is a drug addict as a result of years of childhood sexual abuse. John smokes a joint. You a smoke a joint. You both go to your Priest for Confession. Whose responsibility is greater in that particular case of joint smoking?

It is in a similar context I was speaking above.

I hold no high hopes that you will be able to get this.

 

[notsmart]

Only if the Church, read Rome in the person of the current Successor of Saint Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, tells us that the Society itself is **fully outside **of Communion with Her. Which, unfortunately for your desire to denigrate the Society, She has not done.

I do repeat though, notsmart, that I do understand your larger point, I certainly do not agree with you–because the Society is not in fact schismatic, only in Irregular Canonical Status.

You are trying to force a comparison of apples and oranges.

Have you ever heard the saying, when you’re in you’re in, and when you’re out you’re out, but when you are halfway in you’re neither in nor out.

Is this how you see it?

I think its far more serious than this.

 

[maurin]

Only if the Church, read Rome in the person of the current Successor of Saint Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, tells us that the Society itself is fully outside of Communion with Her. Which, unfortunately for your desire to denigrate the Society, She has not done.

(emphasis mine)

Sarpedon,

it is not the “SSPX’ers” who claim that they are not in schism. It is the Church Herself who says that. If the Church Herself is unwilling to so deem the Society, why are you and so many others bridling to do so?

.

notsmart,

Sounds like your beef is with Rome, and not me with me. Maybe you oughtta write a letter and send it to His Holiness, expressing your disappointment that he is not dealing harshly enough with the Society?

 

[maurin]

This is impossibly vague. Using your phrase, I could turn anything into relativism. How do I know your use of this phrase is in accordance with the church’s position?

This is only impossibly vague if you take my comment out of its context, which you did and continue to do.

My comment was made in the context of an individual’s responsibility and gravity of their action based on the disposition of that individual. newadvent.org/cathen/.htm

link doesn’t seem to be working…go to newadvent.org, and the Catholic ENcyclopedia’s entry on ‘sin.’ I’m hopeful that newadvent is orthodox enough for you.

 

[Sarpedon]

(emphasis mine)

Sarpedon,

it is not the “SSPX’ers” who claim that they are not in schism. It is the Church Herself who says that. If the Church Herself is unwilling to so deem the Society, why are you and so many others bridling to do so?

I am not maintaining that the society is in schism, and I have not maintained that throughout the thread. Rather, what I question is the morality of entering a state of irregular standing.

The SSPX says that they are not in schism (bad). They say they are in a state of “irregular standing” (____). Unless the the SSPX can fill in the blank, they have not answered the question of whether one can morally associate oneself with the SSPX.

That is the question I keep asking: Can one morally enter into a state of “irregular standing”. Unless the SSPX can formulate a legitimate answer, the morality of belonging to the organization is not clear.

Since it is the SSPX who are venturing out into unknown territory and encouraging others to follow them, the burden of proof falls on the SSPX to determine the morality of their position.

 

[maurin]

I am not maintaining that the society is in schism, and I have not maintained that throughout the thread. Rather, what I question is the morality of entering a state of irregular standing.

.

are you sure?

If one cannot morally enter into such a position, then the distinction between schism and irregularity is effectively pointless.

Once again, I remind you that it is not my concern whether or not you accept or reject the Society. Neither is it my concern whether or not you accept or reject my reasons for assisting at their Masses.

But I would ask you if you think it is morally acceptable to go to a Diocesan Mass in which the Priests consistently reject Catholic Moral Teachings and consistently give counsel to follow one’s conscience when it comes to issues such as contraception, abortion, homosexuality and masturbation? In which Deacons and Priests change the words to Prayers and to Greetings which are written in the GIRM by the Church? And do you believe that these Priests and Deacons who conduct Masses in such a way are not themselves in de facto “Irregular Status?”

 

[jmcrae]

But I would ask you if you think it is morally acceptable to go to a Diocesan Mass in which the Priests consistently reject Catholic Moral Teachings and consistently give counsel to follow one’s conscience when it comes to issues such as contraception, abortion, homosexuality and masturbation?

No. And if you have no licit Mass to go to, you have no obligation to go to Mass. You can stay home and read the Missal. We are never required to choose between two evils.

You might mention the abuses to your local Bishop, and if he does nothing, you can go up the chain of command. But you don’t have to fall into the ditch on the other side of the road, just because there is a ditch on this side of the road.

I am also thinking that if there is an SSPX in your area, there are probably lots of perfectly orthodox Catholic parishes in your area, too - I am guessing that this priest who rejects the Church’s moral teachings and changes the words of the Consecration is only in one parish, and that there are many others to choose from - so you could also look at that, as well. (He still needs to be brought to the attention of his Bishop, though, so do mention the situation to your Bishop, in any case.)

 

[maurin]

No. And if you have no licit Mass to go to, you have no obligation to go to Mass. You can stay home and read the Missal. We are never required to choose between two evils.

Sorry, jmcrae, and I do appreciate your rejection of the Society out of love for the Church, but Cardinal Hoyos has made it clear that one may assist at the SSPX Mass out of love for our Traditions. So I have chosen a viable option.

You might mention the abuses to your local Bishop, and if he does nothing, you can go up the chain of command. But you don’t have to fall into the ditch on the other side of the road, just because there is a ditch on this side of the road.

of course, you are speaking in terms much more harshly than Rome Herself does.

I am also thinking that if there is an SSPX in your area, there are probably lots of perfectly orthodox Catholic parishes in your area, too

It would be my fervent desire that you were correct. Unfortunately, you are not.

• I am guessing that this priest who rejects the Church’s moral teachings and changes the words of the Consecration is only in one parish,

again, my fervent prayer is that you were correct. You are not. And you are welcome to come to my area on your next vacation. I would happily put you up and give you a tour of the 12 Parishes in a ten mile radius of my home, and you may judge for yourself. My departure from the Diocesan Parishes was not made in haste. You may believe it or not, but I love the Church also, and Our Lord. THis decision was made in heartbreak…

(He still needs to be brought to the attention of his Bishop, though, so do mention the situation to your Bishop, in any case.)

(my letter was met with silence from the Bishop).

 

[jmcrae]

(my letter was met with silence from the Bishop).

Then take it up the chain of command. If things are as you say, you are not the only one complaining.

 

[jmcrae]

Sorry, jmcrae, and I do appreciate your rejection of the Society out of love for the Church, but Cardinal Hoyos has made it clear that one may assist at the SSPX Mass out of love for our Traditions. So I have chosen a viable option.

He has also made it clear that this is to be a rare occurence, and not to replace Sunday Mass, but as an additional Sunday devotion, on rare occasions.

 

[maurin]

He has also made it clear that this is to be a rare occurence, and not to replace Sunday Mass, but as an additional Sunday devotion, on rare occasions.

source? link?

 

[jmcrae]

source? link?

It’s in the same document you were citing earlier.

 

[maurin]

It’s in the same document you were citing earlier.

Actually, I wasn’t citing any specific document. Just gleaning info from this forum and The Catholic Community Forum.

However, would you please provide me with a source and link to a document from Rome which forbids me from fulfilling my Sunday obligation at the SSPX Chapel? Which calls my so assisting a schismatic act? Which says I am not in Communion with Her for assisting there?

 

[maurin]

jmcrae,

I would also like to thank you for your concern. It is really meaningful to me that someone I do not know is, I hope I may assume, praying for the safety of my soul. We clearly disagree about my and the Society’s status, but I wanted you to know that I appreciate you not using rhetoric or insults to make your points.

Thank you, quite sincerely,

maurin

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, I wasn’t citing any specific document. Just gleaning info from this forum and The Catholic Community Forum.

However, would you please provide me with a source and link to a document from Rome which forbids me from fulfilling my Sunday obligation at the SSPX Chapel? Which calls my so assisting a schismatic act? Which says I am not in Communion with Her for assisting there?

I thought I had it in my bookmarks, but apparently not - I will see whether I can find it on Google. But I do remember him indicating that attendance at SSPX Masses should never become a regular habit, and is not to be considered a possible replacement for Sunday Mass.

This was in response to the response to his original letter, which had been a private correspondence between himself and an elderly woman in special circumstances. (The special circumstances were not indicated.) He had given her (only her - nobody else!) permission to attend Sunday Mass at a specific SSPX chapel, but he had in no way intended for that to be understood as general permission for anybody who wants to, to attend any SSPX chapel, and he addresses this in the second letter.

 

[palmas85]

I thought I had it in my bookmarks, but apparently not - I will see whether I can find it on Google. But I do remember him indicating that attendance at SSPX Masses should never become a regular habit, and is not to be considered a possible replacement for Sunday Mass.

This was in response to the response to his original letter, which had been a private correspondence between himself and an elderly woman in special circumstances. (The special circumstances were not indicated.) He had given her (only her - nobody else!) permission to attend Sunday Mass at a specific SSPX chapel, but he had in no way intended for that to be understood as general permission for anybody who wants to, to attend any SSPX chapel, and he addresses this in the second letter.

The following is from an interview with the Cardinal in Le Osservatore Romano in March of this year

Interviewer
**How is return to “full communion” possible for people who are excommunicated?

Cardinal Hoyos
The excommunication regarded only the four bishops, because they were ordained without the mandate of the Pope and against his will, while the priests are only suspended. **The Mass they celebrate is without question valid, but not licit and, therefore, participation is not recommended, at least when on Sunday there are other possibilities. Certainly neither the priests nor the faithful are excommunicated. I would like to underscore the importance of a clear understanding of these things to be able to judge them correctly.

So as I see it you can go but they really don’t want you to but do not in any way forbid it… Neither the The Priests nor the congregations have been excommunicated, the Priests are validly ordained, their faculties are suspended but the sacraments are valid . Only the four Bishops were ever excommunicated.

It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

[Sarpedon]

are you sure?

Yes, 100%. It was stated in the title of this thread.

Once again, I remind you that it is not my concern whether or not you accept or reject the Society. Neither is it my concern whether or not you accept or reject my reasons for assisting at their Masses.

Then why are you participating in this thread? If you are trying to support the SSPX, then you should care about what I think.

But I would ask you if you think it is morally acceptable to go to a Diocesan Mass in which the Priests consistently reject Catholic Moral Teachings and consistently give counsel to follow one’s conscience when it comes to issues such as contraception, abortion, homosexuality and masturbation? In which Deacons and Priests change the words to Prayers and to Greetings which are written in the GIRM by the Church? And do you believe that these Priests and Deacons who conduct Masses in such a way are not themselves in de facto “Irregular Status?”

Of course not. This isn’t a direct answer to my question. In fact, here you seem to be arguing that those priests in a “de facto” irregular status are wrong. If this is the case, what makes the irregularity of the SSPX justified, in your opinion?

If you think the SSPX is a lesser of two evils, then state so and show some evidence to support your position.

 

[maurin]

Yes, 100%. It was stated in the title of this thread.

.

Sarpedon,

and shown to be false from your posts, as I quoted you above.

your game isn’t worth my time. Nor is the way you ignore questions about your dishonesty. If you were honest, or not just trying “to win”, then maybe this correspondance would be fruitful.

Good luck to you.

 

[Sarpedon]

Sarpedon,

and shown to be false from your posts, as I quoted you above.

your game isn’t worth my time. Nor is the way you ignore questions about your dishonesty. If you were honest, or not just trying “to win”, then maybe this correspondance would be fruitful.

Good luck to you.

(my final post to this poster)

Look, I created a thread to discuss whether one can morally enter into a state of irregularity. I have not discussed schism, operating with the premise that the SSPX are in an irregular standing as opposed to schism. If you want evidence, look at the title of this thread