Do the SSPX think the NO is invalid?

[paramedicgirl]

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?

Secondly, regarding the mixing of Hosts at a TLM Mass-, while it might be strange, unless one believes that the NO is invalid, I do not see why it should be a problem. It is either the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ-or it is not. It cannot be a matter of degrees.

Also, while the GIRM commends that people receive the Hosts consecrated at the same Mass, this is by no means obligatory -at my parish, regularly for weekday Masses the priest will only consecrate one, or max. 2 ciboriums of hosts, and all the others are taken from the tabernacle.

Well, that’s exactly it. I think most of them do believe the NO is invalid, and some of them think the NO confessions are invalid too. That’s kind of a paradox, because we are told the SSPX confessions are invalid!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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. I’m pretty sure that Vox has banned issues such as whether the Pope is a valid pope, etc., etc.

No, no, AJV, I’m not talking about the forums, I’m talking about the actual site (forums are anybody’s opinion). Read what the lady has to say about cremation. One more attempt to constrain the consciences of the faithful where the Church has chosen to apply her authority of “loosening.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Well, that’s exactly it. I think most of them do believe the NO is invalid, and some of them think the NO confessions are invalid too. That’s kind of a paradox, because we are told the SSPX confessions are invalid!

But that’s true, because the proper authority has said so. By what authority do they say it.

 

[paramedicgirl]

No, no, AJV, I’m not talking about the forums, I’m talking about the actual site (forums are anybody’s opinion). Read what the lady has to say about cremation. One more attempt to constrain the consciences of the faithful where the Church has chosen to apply her authority of “loosening.”

Yeah, but don’t you just love this quote on their home page?

“Think that Catholicism is the religion of spiritually dead statue-worshippers? Look into History and think again!”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yeah, but don’t you just love this quote on their home page?

“Think that Catholicism is the religion of spiritually dead statue-worshippers? Look into History and think again!”

One can get somethings right, and yet get some things wrong.

 

[Marilena]

this post isn’t about fisheaters. its about whether or
not the SSPX thinks the NO is invalid. from my understanding, they do not consider it invalid, just too modernistic. Catholic Nick answered my question well, he states:

"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.

In the same way - The SSPX see the NO as the summation and product of Modernism, and do not wish to imply that they support it in any way.

Thats my take on it anyway." he answered my entire question.

 

[paramedicgirl]

this post isn’t about fisheaters. its about whether or
not the SSPX thinks the NO is invalid. from my understanding, they do not consider it invalid, just too modernistic. Catholic Nick answered my question well, he states:

"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.

In the same way - The SSPX see the NO as the summation and product of Modernism, and do not wish to imply that they support it in any way.

Thats my take on it anyway." he answered my entire question.

Now you’re going to get your thread closed, since you have your answer!

 

[Marilena]

Now you’re going to get your thread closed, since you have your answer!

 

[Marian_Carroll]

As the OP has opened another thread on SSPX and validity of sacraments, this one is now closed. Thanks to those who contributed meangfully to the discussion.