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

[Sarpedon]

SSPX’s always insist that they are not in schism, but rather in an “irregular standing” with Rome. If their position is accurate, can one morally enter into such a state without sin?

 

[bpbasilphx]

“Irregular standing” is pretty much what I’ve understood about the SSPX heretofore. I can imagine how one could be in such a state through no fault of one’s own.

However, I recently learned on CAF that they have a “St. Charles Borromeo Canonical Commission” which presumes to give dispensations that are canonically reserved to the Pope.

Therefore, it would seem to me (and I don’t mean this as bashing them) that they are beyond “irregular” but rather in schism.

I still pray they reconcile.

 

[Sarpedon]

I’m sure many are in this state without realizing it, but can one willfully and with full knowledge enter into such a state without sinning?

 

[CassiusLonginus]

It is the Society itself, (bishops, priests, brothers etc.) which is ‘irregular’. The faithful, as long as they remain Catholic, are simply Catholics.

 

[Sarpedon]

It is the Society itself, (bishops, priests, brothers etc.) which is ‘irregular’. The faithful, as long as they remain Catholic, are simply Catholics.

Can you reference this?

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Basically, the SSPX is a religious society/fraternity. The SSPX is a priestly fraternity, therefore, its members are priests/brothers etc. The faithful who attend their Masses are not ‘members’ of the SSPX any more than faithful who attend Masses offered by the Franciscans are themselves members of the Franciscan order.

As to the other part of my post, I myself assist at Mass offered by the SSPX, and although I consider myself a ‘traditional’ Catholic, I’m just a Catholic, same as any other.

If that’s not what you’re ‘getting at’ I’d be happy to try to answer any other questions you have.

 

[maurin]

Basically, the SSPX is a religious society/fraternity. The SSPX is a priestly fraternity, therefore, its members are priests/brothers etc. The faithful who attend their Masses are not ‘members’ of the SSPX any more than faithful who attend Masses offered by the Franciscans are themselves members of the Franciscan order.

As to the other part of my post, I myself assist at Mass offered by the SSPX, and although I consider myself a ‘traditional’ Catholic, I’m just a Catholic, same as any other.

If that’s not what you’re ‘getting at’ I’d be happy to try to answer any other questions you have.

I too assist at my area’s SSPX Chapel, but to address the op, I’d say that many of us would say the same about many of the Priests and Parishes in our area: irregular status de facto.

I know that in my area many of the Parishes have done away with any image at all of the Crucifix in the Sanctuary. The Mass IS Calvary, after all.

Many of the Priests in my area ad lib and even outright change the words and some prayers of the GIRM.

Many of the Priests in my area openly give counsel in their homilies which are uncategorically contrary to the Faith and to the Morals.

And we are led to believe that this is our Faith.

I don’t buy it anylonger. I would rather assist at Mass which is valid but illicit, rather than to a Mass which borders on the heretical and the recalcitrant that whose Priest’s status is “regular.”

 

[Sarpedon]

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? **

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Maurin, I wasn’t going to say all that, but…You’ve got a point:thumbsup:

 

[Sarpedon]

I don’t buy it anylonger. I would rather assist at Mass which is valid but illicit, rather than to a Mass which borders on the heretical and the recalcitrant that whose Priest’s status is “regular.”

You simply cannot equate the OF with heresy or abuse. More priests abuse it, but this fact is independant of the goodness of the mass itself.

 

[Rawb]

You simply cannot equate the OF with heresy or abuse. More priests abuse it, but this fact is independant of the goodness of the mass itself

He’s not. He’s saying that, in his area, the OF Masses are abused.

Some find it very difficult to remain in the faith when everyone around them does not support them or is sometimes even directly opposed to that faith. Then they find an SSPX church where they are supported. Where sin is still taken seriously, where everyone respects the Sacraments, where the religious still demands something of you and doesn’t encourage protestantism or encourage Catholics to dabble in non-Catholic practices.

Maybe you’re lucky enough to be in an OF parish that is not like that. Not everyone is. Sometimes it’s a matter of saving your faith.

You can bet, in a minute, I’d join an SSPX parish if I had to put up with some of the things I hear about, or if some of the things in my parish got any worse.

 

[CassiusLonginus]

Whoa, sarpedon, I guess I was replying to Maurin at the same time as you were. Ok.

You simply cannot equate the OF with heresy or abuse. More priests abuse it, but this fact is independant of the goodness of the mass itself.

Nobody is ‘simply’ doing it. The fact remains, however, that heresy and abuse is rather pandemic. Is that a condemnation of the OF in and of itself? Of course not.

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”.

Which is correct. Some simply attend Mass in the form they prefer for the sake off their faith and that of their family. Doing so at the SSPX has been allowed. It is ‘adhering to the schism’ which Rome speaks against. I’m against schism myself, but I am simultaneously very PRO-MY-FAMILY, which thus far includes two little boys who I’d like to see grow up and keep their faith in the exact same manner as several of my siblings did not (growing up OF with a lax parish/lax parents etc). See what I mean???

Is this an admission that one cannot morally be in a state of irregularity?

No. But I don’t exactly know the answer to your question. I would think that this is a discussion for the SSPX and Rome to handle. In the meantime, the SSPX is ‘irregular’ but still an internal matter for the Church.

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?

Because I think you just want SSPX folks to just admit that they’re doing something wrong, when, in our eyes we’re not. Do you believe that the Church is in a crisis?

 

[notsmart]

SSPX’s always insist that they are not in schism, but rather in an “irregular standing” with Rome. If their position is accurate, can one morally enter into such a state without sin?

How would you define an “irregular marriage”?

 

[maurin]

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”.

well then, please, allow me to clarify: I am associated with the SSPX, I only assist at the Mass offered at my local SSPX Chapel, and yes, I do realize that my status is as irregular as the Priests about whom I spoke about above. I prefer the SSPX’s irregular status to that of the Priests who are supposedly ‘in good standing.’

Is this an admission that one cannot morally be in a state of irregularity?

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.

**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? **

I have not done that. You have.

You simply cannot equate the OF with heresy or abuse. More priests abuse it, but this fact is independant of the goodness of the mass itself.

I have not done that.

However, I do have a big issue with the watering-down of the Mass as Calvary, which the new Mass has absolutely done. Jesus never came down from the Sanctuary of the Cross. How many Priests do you know of who leave the Sanctuary as a regular part of their homily?

 

[CassiusLonginus]

How would you define an “irregular marriage”?

A marriage is either valid or invalid. Once again (since you seem to have missed it the first few times) it is the SSPX itself which has an ‘irregular’ canonical standing. That doesn’t include the lay people. Irregular marriage indeed. notsmart = notfunny. The only irregular marriages I see come from churches that are ‘regular’ with rome. That is, it is regular that they fail to properly form couples and regular that they witness invalid marriages, hence the all too regular 1 out of every 2 failed marriages and the 50% ‘annulment’ rate. The annulment machine has been taking its metamucil…regularly.

 

[Sarpedon]

He’s not. He’s saying that, in his area, the OF Masses are abused.

That’s right, I should have read it better.

Some find it very difficult to remain in the faith when everyone around them does not support them or is sometimes even directly opposed to that faith. Then they find an SSPX church where they are supported. Where sin is still taken seriously, where everyone respects the Sacraments, where the religious still demands something of you and doesn’t encourage protestantism or encourage Catholics to dabble in non-Catholic practices.

Hmm… so in an attempt to oppose doctrinal and liturgical abuse, they indirectly support clerical disobedience? Can you validate that this is morally acceptable? It may well be, perhaps doctrine takes greater precedence than obedience, but I would like to see some support for this.

 

[Sarpedon]

Doing so at the SSPX has been allowed.

Reference?

Because I think you just want SSPX folks to just admit that they’re doing something wrong, when, in our eyes we’re not. Do you believe that the Church is in a crisis?

I want the SSPX folks to provide some support for their assertions, in the form of a church document of something like that. Mere statements from the SSPX that the SSPX is not in an immoral state or its members are doing nothing wrong is not enough.

 

[Sarpedon]

How would you define an “irregular marriage”?

A marriage that is not entirely in line with what it is supposed to be, per the Church.

I would think it would be a sin to purposefully enter into an irregular marriage, and that one would be morally obligated to seek regularization if one found himself or herself in such a situation.

SSPX’s, do you agree?

 

[Sarpedon]

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.
I have not done that.

That is not what I asked at all. Can one morally enter into a state of irregularity?

I would also like to add: Can one morally give indirect support to those in a state of irregularity?

 

[Sarpedon]

CassiusLonginus,

Do you believe the SSPX priests are commiting an objectively immoral action by their membership in the organization? The reason I aks is so seem very quick to disassociate yourself from them.