I wouldn’t because even if they happen to be right about it they have no power to issue a decree of nullity so people who get them from the SSPX and then remarry are committing a mortal sin.
If JPII had a “problem” with “traditional Catholicism”, then why did he urge the Bishops to allow more indult Masses?
It is the sad truth until the bishops of the SSPX reunite themselves to the Holy See.
http://fssp.org/objet/Audience.jpg
…to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre… Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.
Can you define formal adherence and apply it to the laity of SSPX?
Not only is definition of terms an excellent point, paramedicgirl, but it’s also interesting to note that by canon law, in matters of discipline and penalty, the benefit of the doubt is always given to the accused. Given that Vatican II is the “enshrinement of ambiguity,” it’s virtually impossible to actually prove that anyone is acting contrary to it’s spirit.
Should this be the attitude, generally, of Catholics, ie, “show me the exact letter of the law?” Isn’t it enough that we’re WARNED, by the competent authority?
No, it’s not enough. Sometimes spelling out the exact letter of the law is required to live in the spirit of it.
Seriously. If you can profess the fullness of the faith and receive the sacraments in a regular church, why would you mess around with a group who’s situation is at best “irregular?”
I’d disagree. This leads to a “toe to the line mentality” and usually that lead to a person finding themselves on the other side of the line after losing their balance. I seem to be on a foot kick as of late!
Yes, we don’t really need to know the answer. We just need to stay far away from the line.This reminds me of the classic chastity question: “How far can me and my girlfriend go before we cross the line?” It’s the wrong question. “How can we be most faithful?” is the right one
I’m not suggesting scupulosity of the letter of the law in all things – Christ Himself condemned this! But when He was asked “Who is my neighbor” the answer wasn’t a discourse on the dangers of toeing the line and the dangers of vertigo: it was a clear definition of who a neighbor is.I’d disagree. This leads to a “toe to the line mentality” and usually that lead to a person finding themselves on the other side of the line after losing their balance. I seem to be on a foot kick as of late!
Because, it appears to our lower appetite to be a greater cross to offer reparations and suffer through a less reverent liturgy than it is to be awed by a beautiful one. The former is difficult, the latter pleasing.
From Father John A. HardonThis reminds me of the classic chastity question: “How far can me and my girlfriend go before we cross the line?” It’s the wrong question. “How can we be most faithful?” is the right one
I’d be all to happy to be given a clearer definition but we’ve been warned and it’s been recommended that we not attend the chapels. It’s really not that hard to understand that the SSPX should be avoided. Not sure there’s anything to quibble over here. Again, what we are seeing is not avoidance of the chapels but a “how far can we go before we cross the line”. If the Vatican set a neon line aglow, people would be more than likely to say that it was the wrong color.:whacky: