Is it okay to attend an SSPX Daily Mass and Receive Communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nsper7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EnchantedEve said:
I am sorry, but I fear I cannot agree with you, nor, in fairness, have you presented me with documentation to change my mind.

What you are basically saying is that the bishop can blaspheme, proclaim heresies, and spit on Our Lord both figuratively and literally, and we should just grin and bear it until the Holy See sees fit to act!?!

There appears to be confusion over private judgement and public judgement, i.e. “I think the bishop is wrong, and I cannot support him,” and “The bishop is wrong, and it is heretical and schismatic to follow him.” The first is binding on one’s own conscience, which we are at liberty to do. The second is binding on the conscience of others, which only the hierarchy can do.

I fail to see where you find this strange doctrine of “whatever the bishop says goes.” I will cite further examples of where this has clearly not occured:
  1. St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who resisted the teaching of Pope Honorius on monothelism, and was persecuted in his lifetime for having himself and his diocese resist, both by Pope and the Emperor, until Pope Severinus condemned Pope Honorius’ teachings. The Third Council of Constantinople also referred to Pope Honorius as a heretic, anathametizing him. Pope Leo II confirmed this. Of course, this did not affect his charism of infallibility, for he did not define anything.
  2. Pope Zosimus recognized a heresy as orthodox, pelagianism, writting this into Apostolic letters Postquam Nobis and Magnum Pondus. This was a heresy already condemned by Pope Innocent I. St. Augustine and St. Aurelius took an oath to God in protest against the Pope. When the African bishops assembled to condemn Pope Zosimus’ position and uphold Pope Innocent I, His Holiness recanted.
  3. Pope Vigilius, after years of persecution and resistance, condemned the Council of Chalcedon in his Constitum of 554, wrote a letter retracting orthodoxy to Patriach Eutychus, and then died without retracting these. St. Columbanus of Ireland wrote a letter to his successor, Pope Boniface IV, reprimanding him for his weakness and not to follow in Pope Vigilius’ footsteps. In Northern Italy the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke communion with the Rome, until orthodoxy was restored, for Aquileia this meant 140 years later. They are often today considered the champions of the Catholic position, which the Pope had not been.
Again, none of this affected the charism of infallibility, since nothing was defined.

Other examples can be cited, but must they be? Is it not clear our allegiance is to God, rather than men? Does not His doctrine, his will, triumph over all powers on earth.

So I ask in return then: If none of this is evidence the hierarchy can err, and we are not to follow if they do, what is? If these are not examples, then when can the hierarchy or Pope err? We believe the Pope can err, if he does not speak ex cathedra, and of course bishops are not infallible at all. Can this not be true of the hierarchy now? When is enough enough? When may we defend the Catholic Faith…?
Click to expand...
Are you making a correlation between heresy and the Pauline Mass? Are you saying the NO IS a heretical Mass? If so, why is it?
 
I genuinely believe the SSPX priests are in mortal error by their disobedience to their suspensions, and I have genuine doubts that they will return to proper submission to the hierarchy.
Click to expand...
Bishop Fellay’s recent statements lead me to believe that there will be a reconciliation in the not too distant future. Perhaps some SSPX priests will leave the fraternity because they disagree, but the majority will stay. And, once the fraternity is canonically recognized, I’m sure they will attract more than enough vocations to make up for the defections.
 
EnchantedEve said:
I am sorry, but I fear I cannot agree with you, nor, in fairness, have you presented me with documentation to change my mind.
Click to expand...
And yet, once again you make yourself the judge of orthodoxy.

BTW, the examples you cite are interesting, but we are guided by Canon law as to what is and what isn’t. Just because Paul “stood up” to Peter doesn’t mean that we have a right to challenge everything done by pope, bishop or priest. Do you really think that Popes Benedict XVI, John XXIII or Pius XII would agree with you on the issue of obedience? Even Pope John Paul II was very aware of the necessity of obedience. Aramis is correct when he said that the proper course of action is to obey your bishop but make any problems known to Rome.

Further more, even Jesus Himself said to St. Faustina that if her superior’s orders were contrary to His, He preferred that she follow her superiors, for He loves obedience.
 
Timothysis said:
Very good insight, JustaServant. I’ve often wondered how so called “traditionalists” can justify going to an illicit Mass, presided by a priest who was suspended of their faculties, who belong to a group who has had their founder and leading bishops excommunicated and yet, maintain there is nothing inherently wrong or disobedient about it.
Click to expand...
Why is their Mass illicit? Why were their priests suspended of their faculties? Why were their Bishops excommunicated?

I attend an SSPX Chapel and so I know the textbook answers many give to these questions. But I think we need to really ask why priests and Bishops who wanted nothing more than to stick to the Sacred Doctrinal and Liturgical Traditions of the Church were treated in this manner. This will point us in the right direction as to where the heart of the issue lies.

The heart of the issue is the faith, which is a higher virtue than obedience. We must keep the faith of the apostles or obedience is meaningless. Obedience is always to be in service of the faith, not the other way around. We must be able to read and think and follow our consciences as to how best to keep the Faith of Our Fathers and protect ourselves against novel doctrines and practices that help to destroy faith.

We can get into all sorts of legalistic arguments, but the bottom line is that all of these rules are meant to apply in ordinary times. Those with eyes to see, can see that these are not ordinary times. The Church is in an extreme unprecedented crisis. As Pope Benedict described it is like a boat taking water on all sides! In such a crisis the SSPX has chosen, as St. Vincent of Lerins advises, to stick to Tradition which cannot be deceived. The Church is in an unprecedented time of complete confusion and it is imperative that every Catholic, Priest, and Bishop take whatever means necessary to hold onto and practice the faith, whole and entire passed down from the apostles. Those who do so are obedient to the faith and their Catholic consciences.

If the Bishop bans us from saying our rosaries are we to listen to him? If he limits private prayer to once a day are we to listen to him? No. We are to listen to the legitimate authority in all things that do not contradict or endanger the faith. As such I do attend my local SSPX Chapel to keep and grow my Catholic faith in this time of crisis. To attend my local diocesan Church would be to publicly give support to practices which undermine and obscure the faith and that contribute to the falling away of many Catholics. It would also endanger my faith and my spiritual life to attend as experience has proven. Not only is my conscience clear in attending Mass daily at my local Chapel, but I have gained spiritual benefits I never thought possible while attending my local diocesan parish.

I do not attend my Chapel with any ill will towards the diocese, Bishop, or Pope. Far from it. I pray for them and for all Catholics to have the veil lifted from their eyes and see that attempting to marry the faith with the world and combine the religion of God with the religion of men has resulted in nothing but devastation for the Church. In God’s good time the Church will be restored, but until that time I must participate in that restoration and not in it’s destruction. I have a moral obligation not to assist in its destruction.

God bless,

Chris
 
JustaServant said:
Are you making a correlation between heresy and the Pauline Mass? Are you saying the NO IS a heretical Mass? If so, why is it?
Click to expand...
I am not making a correlation between anything.

All I am pointing out is that if the SSPX feels there is the possibility of error, and they feel they should resist, there are grounds for them to do this both in Catholic history and Church teaching. The Church is still a human institution, and I think we, at minimum, should hear them out.
 
EnchantedEve said:
I am not making a correlation between anything.

All I am pointing out is that if the SSPX feels there is the possibility of error, and they feel they should resist, there are grounds for them to do this both in Catholic history and Church teaching. The Church is still a human institution, and I think we, at minimum, should hear them out.
Click to expand...
Do you believe the NO IS a heretical Mass?
 
Timothysis said:
And yet, once again you make yourself the judge of orthodoxy.

BTW, the examples you cite are interesting, but we are guided by Canon law as to what is and what isn’t. Just because Paul “stood up” to Peter doesn’t mean that we have a right to challenge everything done by pope, bishop or priest. Do you really think that Popes Benedict XVI, John XXIII or Pius XII would agree with you on the issue of obedience? Even Pope John Paul II was very aware of the necessity of obedience. Aramis is correct when he said that the proper course of action is to obey your bishop but make any problems known to Rome.

Further more, even Jesus Himself said to St. Faustina that if her superior’s orders were contrary to His, He preferred that she follow her superiors, for He loves obedience.
Click to expand...
And, once again, I make the distinction between public and private judgement.

I think there seems to be an effort to have my opinion bear more weight in the public sphere than it has. I am not making myself the “judge” of anything, and to say otherwise is intellectual dishonesty. My opinion is not binding on you, nor am I implying it is. I am just saying that if I personally have concerns, I should be true to them. This is not challenging “everything” the Pope does.

Again, I agree, “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” Yes, tell Rome, but be not a party to his bad teachings.

Apparently the example of those saints who have gone before us is irrelevant, because I guess we “know better” now? St, Augustine and the others apparently were deluded in the spirit of resistance, because of their “primitive” Faith. I am sorry, but as St. Robert Bellarmine makes clear, the simple tenants of Faith are known and we need not be experts to know when the Faith is violated. Is this only a matter of acadamic interest now, not an example for us? If Catholics had not resisted, would error have not become more widespread? We the laity and simple priests also have a duty to uphold the Faith, not just the hierarchy. We are all called to proclaim the Gospel.

De Romano Ponitifice, St. Robert Bellarmine:

"…just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, it is also licit to resist a Pope who attacks the soul or …. above all, who attempts to destroy the Church. I say,”

St. Robert continues, “that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders, and by preventing his will from being executed”

I repeat, this is not an attempt to “correlate” anything, just making the case for those to desire to resist.

I cannot speculate as to what the various Holy Fathers would judge of anything, for each case is unique. However, the 1917 Code of Canon Law (I do not remember if its equivalent appears in the 1984) says the First Law is the salvation of souls, and that we must follow this law in our heart above all others. As St. Thomas states: “An unjust law, or one not grounded in the Divine Law, it would seem is no law at all…”

BTW, I do not fully accept the Divine Mercy message, or at least parts of it. If you want to know why you can message me or start another thread. This quote, however, is just one example, for it again contradicts what Christ said elsewhere.
 
EnchantedEve said:
BTW, I do not fully accept the Divine Mercy message, or at least parts of it. If you want to know why you can message me or start another thread. This quote, however, is just one example, for it again contradicts what Christ said elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I think it can be reasonably safe to say that there are many things of the Church that you do not fully accept. Does the term “cafeteria catholic” ring a bell?
 
Timothysis said:
I think it can be reasonably safe to say that there are many things of the Church that you do not fully accept. Does the term “cafeteria catholic” ring a bell?
Click to expand...
Forgive me, is Divine Mercy a dogma now? I did not realize that it was suddenly mandatory to accept all apparitions. Being a “cafeteria Catholic” seems to apply to those pick and choose* teachings*, not devotions. I could be mistaken.

And no, I do not feel the New Mass is heretical. I believe (not sure) it was earlier in this thread I gave my view of the New Mass.

BTW, I attend the New Mass, so it would seem kind of silly if I thought it was heretical. 😛
 
EnchantedEve said:
Forgive me, is Divine Mercy a dogma now? I did not realize that it was suddenly mandatory to accept all apparitions. Being a “cafeteria Catholic” seems to apply to those pick and choose* teachings*, not devotions. I could be mistaken.

And no, I do not feel the New Mass is heretical. I believe (not sure) it was earlier in this thread I gave my view of the New Mass.

BTW, I attend the New Mass, so it would seem kind of silly if I thought it was heretical. 😛
Click to expand...
Simmer down. Simple answer to a simple question is what I was asking for,:cool:
 
There are dioceses where bishops go off and sodomize seminarians, priests go off and molest little boys, all manner of liturgical abuses occur all the time, doctrine is twisted. Yet it’s OK to be in those churches?

I don’t know, I just find it so ironic the way the SSPX gets so hen pecked.
 
Jacafamala said:
There are dioceses where bishops go off and sodomize seminarians, priests go off and molest little boys, all manner of liturgical abuses occur all the time, doctrine is twisted. Yet it’s OK to be in those churches?

I don’t know, I just find it so ironic the way the SSPX gets so hen pecked.
Click to expand...
The answer is fear. Fear of a return to the Tridentine mindset. They don’t understand it because they don’t understand their Faith. Catholicism isn’t easy. It’s very demanding.

They like it how it is now. Their own little parish doing it their own little way.
 
I_Believe said:
So, I suppose your your thread on Incorruptibles was a baited thread ? Why did you ask it if your mind is made up ?
Click to expand...
NEVER said my mind was made up. I asked a question, that’s all. I do beleive, and said elsewhere, truth is on the side of traditional Catholics. At the same time traditional Catholics must make sure they are on the side of truth.
Let me ask you.
Do you believe the NO Mass is heretical?
 
Jacafamala said:
There are dioceses where bishops go off and sodomize seminarians, priests go off and molest little boys, all manner of liturgical abuses occur all the time, doctrine is twisted. Yet it’s OK to be in those churches?

I don’t know, I just find it so ironic the way the SSPX gets so hen pecked.
Click to expand...
Is it within the realm of possibility those same abuses could exist within the SSPX?
 
JustaServant said:
Is it within the realm of possibility those same abuses could exist within the SSPX?
Click to expand...
And IF they did, then what? What is your point? Is it that we should stay somewhere with bad teaching? Bad liturgy? False doctrine? What?
 
JustaServant said:
NEVER said my mind was made up. I asked a question, that’s all. I do beleive, and said elsewhere, truth is on the side of traditional Catholics. At the same time traditional Catholics must make sure they are on the side of truth.
Let me ask you.
Do you believe the NO Mass is heretical?
Click to expand...
Well, you didn’t ask me but if I may, let me answer: no. It’s just been mussed with too much.
 
I_Believe said:
The answer is fear. Fear of a return to the Tridentine mindset. They don’t understand it because they don’t understand their Faith. Catholicism isn’t easy. It’s very demanding.

They like it how it is now. Their own little parish doing it their own little way.
Click to expand...
Catholicism isn’t easy. But hell isn’t easy either: it’s very demanding. Better for it to be demanding here than for it to be demanding later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top