Is ABC ever permissable

[Xantippe]

From the Wikipedia article on SSPX:

“The canonical situation of the SSPX has been subject of much controversy since the 1988 Écône consecrations. In his letter of 10 March 2009 concerning his remission of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St Pius X, Pope Benedict XVI declared: “Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”[28] The Society claims to possess “extraordinary” jurisdiction.”

In other words, no. SSPX is not an official, recognized Roman Catholic organization in good standing.

 

[Tomdstone]

From the Wikipedia article on SSPX:

“The canonical situation of the SSPX has been subject of much controversy since the 1988 Écône consecrations. In his letter of 10 March 2009 concerning his remission of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St Pius X, Pope Benedict XVI declared: “Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers - even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty - do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”[28] The Society claims to possess “extraordinary” jurisdiction.”

In other words, no. SSPX is not an official, recognized Roman Catholic organization in good standing.

But are the people at the sspx Mass Catholics or not? If they are not Catholics, would they be Protestants according to you?

 

[Xantippe]

I’m sure they don’t like to think of themselves as Protestants.

“Schismatic” is the correct term, probably, although they wouldn’t like that description, either.

 

[Corki]

But are the people at the sspx Mass Catholics or not? If they are not Catholics, would they be Protestants according to you?

The laity that attend SSPX chapels are most definitely Catholic. The issue about canonical status applied to members of the society - the priests and a few Bishops.

 

[Steveabrous]

But are the people at the sspx Mass Catholics or not? If they are not Catholics, would they be Protestants according to you?

SSPX consider themselves Catholic, they even recognize the reigning Pope. However since they will not adhere to certain Infalible documents that came out of Vatican II they are in schism. Like the EO they have legit… Communion but they are a very conservative wing of “catholicism” As the other poster pointed out they have these large families BY THEIR OWN CHOICE not as a result of church teaching on contraception. THis illustrates that your fictitious scenario is not realistic

 

[Tomdstone]

I’m sure they don’t like to think of themselves as Protestants.

“Schismatic” is the correct term, probably, although they wouldn’t like that description, either.

If they are schismatic, does that mean that they are excommunicated. Aren’t all schismatics excommunicated?

 

[Tomdstone]

SSPX consider themselves Catholic, they even recognize the reigning Pope. However since they will not adhere to certain Infalible documents that came out of Vatican II they are in schism. Like the EO they have legit… Communion but they are a very conservative wing of “catholicism” As the other poster pointed out they have these large families BY THEIR OWN CHOICE not as a result of church teaching on contraception. THis illustrates that your fictitious scenario is not realistic

If they are in schism, does that mean that they are still Catholic or are they excommunicated?

 

[Steveabrous]

If they are in schism, does that mean that they are still Catholic or are they excommunicated?

Schism does not necessarily mean excommunication. Again EO is in schism but can recieve communion.

The SSPX situation is a very complicated one and the full extent of their statis in the church, including the laity, is one that someone with more knowledge then I should probably tackle.

 

[Tomdstone]

Schism does not necessarily mean excommunication. .

Oh really? Apparently you are dissenting from the 1983 Code of Canon Law, repeating the sanctions of the earlier 1917 Code, which states in part,
c. 1364

1. With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication…

 

[1ke]

Oh really? Apparently you are dissenting from the 1983 Code of Canon Law, repeating the sanctions of the earlier 1917 Code, which states in part,
c. 1364

1. With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication…

To be excommunicated, one must first be a Catholic. The EO are not Catholics and not under the Code of Canon Law. It is not possible for an EO member to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

As to the laity attending SSPX chapels, they are not in schism. So, that particular canon does not apply to them.

 

[Tomdstone]

As to the laity attending SSPX chapels, they are not in schism. So, that particular canon does not apply to them.

This is not what other Catholics here say. For example:

SSPX consider themselves Catholic, they even recognize the reigning Pope. However since they will not adhere to certain Infalible documents that came out of Vatican II they are in schism.

 

[LightBound]

You may be curious to know why she doesn’t use NFP and, I suspect she, like most traddys despises its use. Natural is the way to go.

Natural Family Planning (NFP) IS natural.

Since you have identified yourself as a young teenage boy in some of your other posts, I wasn’t sure if you were aware of what NFP actually is and that it’s approved by the Church as a natural and appropriate means of spacing children.

 

[Steveabrous]

This is not what other Catholics here say. For example:
Steveabrous;11076973:

SSPX consider themselves Catholic, they even recognize the reigning Pope. However since they will not adhere to certain Infalible documents that came out of Vatican II they are in schism.

Here is the rest of my statement on the matter to make things clear.

The SSPX situation is a very complicated one and the full extent of their statis in the church, including the laity, is one that someone with more knowledge then I should probably tackle.

If you are going to quote me then quote all of what I said on the matter. I do not appreciate you partially quoting me and taking my comments out of context in order to bash another poster. If that happens again I will report you.

 

[Steveabrous]

Oh really? Apparently you are dissenting from the 1983 Code of Canon Law, repeating the sanctions of the earlier 1917 Code, which states in part,
c. 1364

1. With due regard for can. 194, part 1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication…

Obviously there are acceptions. Otherwise the OE, who are in schism, would not be able to take communion

 

[maryjk]

Once again, I need to point out.

Your question has been answered.

But you keep diverting to other topics

No, ABC is not ever permissible.

The answer is the same regardless of asking about Eastern Orthodox, the SSPX or having a jerk for a husband.

 

[Steveabrous]

Once again, I need to point out.

Your question has been answered.

But you keep diverting to other topics

No, ABC is not ever permissible.

The answer is the same regardless of asking about Eastern Orthodox, the SSPX or having a jerk for a husband.

I agree, the question has been answered and the thread has gone way off topic. The OP is, obviouslly, only interested in arguing and play " Gotcha"

I think the Moderator should close the topic.

 

[GloriaMaria]

I agree, the question has been answered and the thread has gone way off topic. The OP is, obviouslly, only interested in arguing and play " Gotcha"

I think the Moderator should close the topic.

I agree. I also think that people should understand that within the SSPX, because I think this is what the OP really wanted to talk about, there is an extremely complicated situation. Inside the SSPX there is a very strict set of rules which are laid out for family life. This strict set of rules is said to be entirely Catholic, and the Catholic Church today is said to be entirely liberalized - according to the SSPX - with an entirely different (and bad) slippery set of morals. Be careful. What you see on the outside is only part of the picture. Don’t be tempted to glorify the SSPX. Read carefully the teachings of the church, pray, if you get into a tough situation in married life please find a good priest, preferably with legitimate Catholic standing.

 

[Debora123]

There is a family at the local SSPX Church with 15 children. The mother looks very tired and she is pregnant again. I know that artificial birth control is a mortal sin, but are there exceptions? I mean, suppose that the doctor advised her not to have any more children because of health reasons, and he prescribed a contraceptive pill. Further, suppose that the rhythym method or NFP does not work for her. Would it be a mortal sin for her to have this prescription filled and use ABC in order to preserve her health and be able to take care of her 15 children? It seems somewhat harsh to send such a person to eternal damnation in hell after she has raised 15 children and done her best for her family and her children. After all, how many Catholic families have only two children? Why condemn such a person as this saintly lady if she decides that 15 children is as much as she can handle and she follows the advice of her doctor.

You’re right. She’s not necessarily going to Hell. In fact, it is my personal opinion that she certainly would not.

It really all depends on culpability. And that is something none of us can judge. It’s between her, her husband and God only.

 

[Debora123]

My God. My God. My sweet and merciful God. Why do you give people over to such blatant ignorance and laziness?

Ever hear of Humanae Vitae???

**
That’s the same damned thing!**

There are three criteria for committing a mortal sin: 1) It must be grave matter (contraception is CLEARLY grave matter - in that respect you are correct), 2) the parties involved must know it is grave matter, and 3) the parties involved must have full consent of the will (i.e, they must not be forced to do it by a gunman or force of habit or the demonic or psychological illness or somesuchthing).

If any couple uses ABC knowing 2) and having 3), they have committed a mortal sin.

How rude!

 

[Corki]

You’re right. She’s not necessarily going to Hell. In fact, it is my personal opinion that she certainly would not.

It really all depends on culpability. And that is something none of us can judge. It’s between her, her husband and God only.

It’s between her and her confessor, actually.