While they do consider the NO a valid sacrifice, and that the consecration does take place (Officially at least) - they also percieve the NO as inherently flawed and damaging to the Faith. Thus, they say people should not associate themselves with something like that - much like how Catholics shouldnt become involved actively, in Protestant services they may go to with friends and family.
.Because partaking in Holy Communion implies one is in comunion with it, as it were. This is why we as laymen, are permitted to attend SSPX Masses out of devotion to the Old Rite, however, we are strongly advised not to recieve Communion - as it implies that we support thier questionable status in Canon law and with Rome.
Simply put, they march to their own drums. You are following the teachings of the Church, The Holy Catholic Church, in receiving our Lord at the NO Mass.
Some do not consider it valid. I think “as a whole” the SSPX thinks it is valid, but there are many members who disagree.
~ My understanding from friends who now only generally attend SSPX liturgies (with an occasional indult if traveling) is that there was some considerable change of position by the Vatican on what would happen and when regarding several key issues around the agreement , changes and “clarifications” announced to Lefebvre just hours after he signed the agreeement, in a way that convinced him that the agreement he was persuaded to sign was essentially a bait and switch. Apparently he went thorugh with the ordinations in the timeframe that had been the consensus during the negotiations, where the Vatican was at that point still refusing to give a firm date on when ordinations would be allowed or who would be approved (if any) of the many dossiers the Vatican had already reviewd of candidates proposed by the SSPX. Though the SSPX was already acting in disobedience before the ordinations, it appears the Vatican was addressing their concerns in a manner inconsistent with “good faith” negotiations, in a way that ultimately leaves me dissatisfied with the behavior of all parties involved.
I personally would use more definitive references than an understanding from friends before thinking that the Vatican did not “act in good faith”. In these situations I always tend to trust the Church position before any comments from my friends. But this is just my take.
Their position will probably stay the same. The Society has been having some problems with some wanting to return to communion with Rome and others holding out. That actually led to a ruptute of the society in France,
Indeed. A whole different view.
It would be a great tragedy if an order or society accepted anyone who is contemptuous of the Mass promulgated for the whole of the Latin rite, the Mass celebrated by the successors of Saint Peter, as a candidate for the priesthood.If I could, I would never set foot into a Novus Ordo Mass again, unfortunately, there are hardly any TLMs where I live - and weekly Indults are in the middle of nowhere and rediculous distances apart. This will of course, change when I hopefully enter ICRSS formation next year
paramedicgirl, I know that a lot of the time, the SSPX uses the “intent” argument, and not only for the Holy Eucharistic but also other of the 7 sacraments. But I was under the impression that a priest had to make a positive act of will in order for the consecration to be invalid?
Fisheaters has a definite agenda that does not express the mind of the Church. And IF the SSPX thinks the NO is invalid (a validly promulgated Mass, proposed by papal quthority and offered by the Vicars of Christ on earth), then they’ve ceased to be Catholics. Fortunately
, the SSPX dance right up to the edge of that particular theological abyss, pirourette, and tap-dance back to a safe distance.No offense, JKirK, but Fisheaters is not a bad meeting place for Traditionalist take on many issues. Since, of course, they do have members of the SSPX among them also, you would be presented with certain views that may not be shared by other Traditionalists. And since the OP did want to sollicit the views of the SSPX, those views were expressed. I’m pretty sure that Vox has banned issues such as whether the Pope is a valid pope, etc., etc.that go on the more extreme side of traditionalism.Fisheaters has a definite agenda that does not express the mind of the Church. And IF the SSPX thinks the NO is invalid (a validly promulgated Mass, proposed by papal quthority and offered by the Vicars of Christ on earth), then they’ve ceased to be Catholics. Fortunately