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

[sparkielee]

Whether or not Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX did the right thing by disobeying the Pope, I feel that their intentions are good. I think they acted in good faith by choosing a traditional Catholicism that they feel shouldn’t change the way the Roman Catholic church has changed since Vatican II.

I think some of my friends from the parishes I belonged to (which are Roman Catholic) are more “Protestant” in their thinking than a group of people like the SSPX who want to keep our old traditions alive. In fact even the post-Vatican II church is very traditional compared to these friends of mine who want women priests and a lot of things that we’ll (probably) never have in the Roman Catholic Church. I even know (or at least know of) a lot of liberal priests and religious who stray away from the Church on issues like that.

In fact I was reading about a priest who was warned that he’d be excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church as well as defrocked if he didn’t recant his position on the ordination of women. In fact he was kind of an “activist” for this cause and even took part in a Mass where women were ordained.

But our Bishop even frowned on the practice of one of our local parishes having children pushing donations to their food pantry in grocery carts.

Also this same parish refused to replace some chairs which didn’t have kneelers. At the time I found out about this I belonged to another parish that went ahead and obeyed the Bishop’s order to replace the chairs with ones which had kneelers. Whenever I visit the one that didn’t replace the chairs I try to find a pew to sit in since they still have kneelers.

I’d say the with the shopping carts and the chairs without kneelers is more “Protestant” than the SSPX community or the parishes that are totally obedient to their bishop or the Pope. And that church is still under the Holy See!

I think we “traditional” Catholics who are still connected with the Pope, the SSPX, and the “liberal” Roman Catholics all need to pray our hearts, minds, and souls are in the right place rather than to point a finger at one of the groups we don’t fall into as “Protestant”. That’s what I’m trying to do is to take that log out of my eye before I take the speck out of my brother’s eye regardless of what kind of Mass they attend or what kind of disagreements they have with the Pope.

But we still need to speak the truth instead of “agreeing” someone else just to appease them.

 

[I_Believe]

Could you be a little more specific? What is it that is ambiguous? What specifically is open to heretical interpretation? What has the NO left out that was in the TLM?

When in doubt, ask the movers and shakers…

Fr Duggan’s contention that the liturgical change is revolutionary is corroborated by Father Joseph Gelineau SJ whose credentials for commenting on the New Mass could scarcely be more authoritative. Fr Gelineau was one of the most influential of Archbishop Bugnini’s Consilium which was charged with composing the New Mass after Vatican II. He was described by the Archbishop as one of “the great masters of the international liturgical world” (The Reform of the Liturgy, page 221). Archbishop Bugnini, it will be recalled, was the principal architect of the Novus Ordo.

In his book Demain la Liturgie (The Liturgy Tomorrow), Fr Gelineau observes:** “Let those, who, like myself have known and sung a Latin Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (Le Rite Romain tel que nous l’avons connu n’existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est détruit)”** ad2000.com.au/articles/2005/feb2005p15_1853.html

Thankfully it wasn’t destroyed. Only suppressed.

Deo gratias for H.H. BXI. And Archbishop LeFebvre of course.

 

[sparkielee]

I know this is a minor detail, but I looked at my post from last night and I noticed that I left out some words making something I said unclear. The kids were pushing the carts full of food pantry donations to the altar during Mass. That’s what the bishop objected to-not just pushing the food to the food pantry in carts. The only problem with pushing the food in carts to the pantry is that the pantry is on the lower level of the church. I’ve been to that church many times and was even a parishioner there for a while so I know how the building is set up. There should be no problem in pushing donations from the car to the food pantry if one is parked on the side where the bottom entrance is. The church is on a hill so there are a couple entrances to the church itself on one side and to the basement on the other.

Anyway, the point to be made is the pushing of grocery carts shouldn’t be part of the Mass! The parish I belonged to which replaced the chairs had people carry up the donations for “Food Sunday” to the altar once a month-without using the carts. And I consider that parish to be one of the more progressive parishes I belonged to.

-sparkie:thumbsup:

 

[Timothysis]

I thought you were talking about the Novus Ordo at first…

Fact is if I told you I was going to attend a mass full of disobedience, illicit practices, & sacrileges you would probably tell me not to attend and go somewhere else. Yet this is precisely what happens at the NO across the country and people like you, although probably well meaning, turn the other way and make excuses for it. In the meantime you have no qualms at all pointing the finger at the sspx and telling everyone how evil they are. Quit making excuses and be honest with yourself.

My experience does not match yours. The “Novus Ordo” Masses that I attend do not have the many exaggerated claims that so many posters here make claim to. I, simply, do not believe that those posters are being truly honest. Those who have a flagrant preference for the EF seem to be those who have witnessed the most “abuses,” which causes me to doubt the honesty of their statements.

Also, it is interesting that so many here will denounce a line of thinking that is based on moral relativism, and yet will justify their actions based on “yeah, but…” arguments.

 

[palmas85]

My experience does not match yours. The “Novus Ordo” Masses that I attend do not have the many exaggerated claims that so many posters here make claim to. I, simply, do not believe that those posters are being truly honest. Those who have a flagrant preference for the EF seem to be those who have witnessed the most “abuses,” which causes me to doubt the honesty of their statements.

Also, it is interesting that so many here will denounce a line of thinking that is based on moral relativism, and yet will justify their actions based on “yeah, but…” arguments.

I am happy that you have a reverent Mass to attend. So do I. In both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms down at St Patricks in New Orleans.

However, such was not always the case and sad to say is still not the case in many places. If you would like I would be more than happy to provide you with the names of a few such parishes where should you choose you can see exactly why some people are so vocal about these things. I somehow doubt that you would avail yourself of the opportunity to actually see these things, but you never know…

It should come as no small surprise that if people have indeed experienced a large number of abuses in one form or the other they will greatly prefer the form that offers the fewest abuses. I have seen posters here who vastly prefer the Ordinary Form as opposed to the Extraordinary Form due to abuses they claim to have experienced in the pre Vatican II years. Should I then doubt their honesty in reporting these things in the same way that you doubt the honesty of those who claim to have experienced abuses in the Ordinary Form?

That hardly seems the right way to do things. No. If someone comes to me and claims to prefer the Ordinary Form due to abuses they **actually saw **in the Extraordinary Form then I accept it because they did see them. I believe them because I know for a fact that I did see abuses, horrible abuses in the Ordinary Form which led me back to the Extraordinary Form primarily, although I would still attened the Ordinary Form and did teach both Catechism and RCIA.

To question the honesty of people you don’t know just because you don’t agree with their viewpoint seems like a bad road to be traveling on.

 

[EnchantedEve]

My experience does not match yours. The “Novus Ordo” Masses that I attend do not have the many exaggerated claims that so many posters here make claim to. I, simply, do not believe that those posters are being truly honest. Those who have a flagrant preference for the EF seem to be those who have witnessed the most “abuses,” which causes me to doubt the honesty of their statements.

Also, it is interesting that so many here will denounce a line of thinking that is based on moral relativism, and yet will justify their actions based on “yeah, but…” arguments.

I think any honest philosophical analysis will show that most people here do not have a sense of moral relativism (some do, but that is another matter).

I happen to know even from people that do not prefer the Old Mass (my grandparents, for example) that are still irked by egregious abuses in parishes. Perhaps they are more common in California than other places (would not suprise me), but I do know my grandmother’s worst experiences were in Oregon, so who can tell? There does seem to be a propensity towards abuse in New Mass (served it for 9 years, as well as being a sacristan) and so yes, I have seen it all. Some of the worst abuses I witnessed as a sacristan.

As in philosophy, criticizing an argument is not sufficient to refute it. A counter-argument must exist that omits the possibility of the first argument. To continiously state that a “yeah, but…” argument is constantly being used is not an argument, that is a statement of opinion. Unless you can show why use of such argument is unjustified in the face of Christian spirit and history, than all that is occuring is a projection of personal opinion on existing facts and making a conclusion. Any conclusion based on analysis must have facts to back it up. People who support SSPX have valid historical and spiritual arguments on their side for precedent. Pointing out what everyone already knows is ad hominem and not persuasive in the face of facts that address it to the contrary.

I know your heart is well placed and again I compliment your strong sense of loyalty to the Holy See, but to assume that people revere the Holy See less so, even to point of exaggerating and lying to be spiteful, because they feel they have a higher allegiance is to do them an injustice, and I think we are called to do better than that.

 

[603304529]

My experience does not match yours. The “Novus Ordo” Masses that I attend do not have the many exaggerated claims that so many posters here make claim to. I, simply, do not believe that those posters are being truly honest. Those who have a flagrant preference for the EF seem to be those who have witnessed the most “abuses,” which causes me to doubt the honesty of their statements.

Also, it is interesting that so many here will denounce a line of thinking that is based on moral relativism, and yet will justify their actions based on “yeah, but…” arguments.

Have you been anywhere out of Louisiana Tim? Outside the USA? I’m not suggesting that Baton Rouge, or the US is any bastion of Catholicism, but I have traveled to 8 countries, and attend Novus Ordo Masses in all of them, in different towns, and cities in those 8, and the only halfway decently offered one was a Sunday Mass in a tiny country town in Slovenia…

 

[EnchantedEve]

I am happy that you have a reverent Mass to attend. So do I. In both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms down at St Patricks in New Orleans.

However, such was not always the case and sad to say is still not the case in many places. If you would like I would be more than happy to provide you with the names of a few such parishes where should you choose you can see exactly why some people are so vocal about these things. I somehow doubt that you would avail yourself of the opportunity to actually see these things, but you never know…

It should come as no small surprise that if people have indeed experienced a large number of abuses in one form or the other they will greatly prefer the form that offers the fewest abuses. I have seen posters here who vastly prefer the Ordinary Form as opposed to the Extraordinary Form due to abuses they claim to have experienced in the pre Vatican II years. Should I then doubt their honesty in reporting these things in the same way that you doubt the honesty of those who claim to have experienced abuses in the Ordinary Form?

That hardly seems the right way to do things. No. If someone comes to me and claims to prefer the Ordinary Form due to abuses they **actually saw **in the Extraordinary Form then I accept it because they did see them. I believe them because I know for a fact that I did see abuses, horrible abuses in the Ordinary Form which led me back to the Extraordinary Form primarily, although I would still attened the Ordinary Form and did teach both Catechism and RCIA.

To question the honesty of people you don’t know just because you don’t agree with their viewpoint seems like a bad road to be traveling on.

LOL, that is true! My mother told me of an old monsignor before Vatican II who would start the prayers of the Mass while leaving the pulpit after the homily! But I must admit, most abuses at the time probably more rare, and my mother also said he changed his ways after the New Mass when he realized that the Old Rite, which he had loved, was not coming back. It seems he became sorry that he had not appreciated it while he had it.

Sometimes I think that is where all these changes were meant to teach us something, that if take it for granted we can lose it. I am also fairly confident that many Old Mass parishes now probably have more devotion and dedication than they did then. So this may have been God’s way of shaking us up to militancy, which would not have occured if things had not changed.

A little food for thought.

 

[JustaServant]

My experience does not match yours. The “Novus Ordo” Masses that I attend do not have the many exaggerated claims that so many posters here make claim to. I, simply, do not believe that those posters are being truly honest. Those who have a flagrant preference for the EF seem to be those who have witnessed the most “abuses,” which causes me to doubt the honesty of their statements.

Also, it is interesting that so many here will denounce a line of thinking that is based on moral relativism, and yet will justify their actions based on “yeah, but…” arguments.

For me it is simply a question of obediance to those in authority. If it was good enourgh for Francis of Assisi under the reign of some pretty bad Popes, it should be good for us. I have yet to see the issue of obedience properly addressed. I love the EF, but I cannot bring myself to attend a Mass done by a suspended priest because somewhere in Iowa there was a ‘clown mass’ once.
A lot of the rebuttals to this seems to echo a playground fight: “But Bobby did it too!!!”
It is disturbing to me how close it comes to the kind of attitudes I heard in fundamentalism.
I say it again, truth is on the side of tradition.
BUT how one handles that truth is imperative.
1 Samuel 15:22 Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice

 

[EnchantedEve]

For me it is simply a question of obediance to those in authority. If it was good enourgh for Francis of Assisi under the reign of some pretty bad Popes, it should be good for us. I have yet to see the issue of obedience properly addressed. I love the EF, but I cannot bring myself to attend a Mass done by a suspended priest because somewhere in Iowa there was a ‘clown mass’ once.
A lot of the rebuttals to this seems to echo a playground fight: “But Bobby did it too!!!”
It is disturbing to me how close it comes to the kind of attitudes I heard in fundamentalism.
I say it again, truth is on the side of tradition.
BUT how one handles that truth is imperative.
1 Samuel 15:22 Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice

But surely you must admit we are not talking about just any Bobby, but St. Bobby!
Why would the Church canonize those who had done egregious wrongs through disobedience?

 

[DavidJoseph]

What are these so-called teachings of Vatican II which are binding on the faithful?

I know the post in which you asked this question is several months old, but it doesn’t seem anyone responded to your question (either that, or I just didn’t look closely enough). Vatican II didn’t teach anything ex cathedra, true, but that’s because it chose to teach via the ordinary universal magisterium, which isn’t as solemn or definitive but no less infallible. Here are some of Vatican II’s teachings, which, although aren’t dogma, are still definitively settled:

1. The subdiaconate isn’t a sacrament but only a sacramental.
2. Consecration to the episcopate isn’t a new sacrament but rather the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders.
3. It cleared up the fact that the Council of Trent didn’t declare that Scripture and Tradition were 2 separate sources but rather 2 parts of the same source.
4. The details of religious liberty in relation to the state were defined solemnly and definitively.
5. The Blessed Virgin Mary is Mother of the Church and is properly understood as a member of the Church.
6. Lumen Gentium Chapter 25 provides the watershed understanding of the doctrine of infallibility and completes the work that Vatican I wasn’t able to deal with in 1870 and which Pius XII dealt with partially in Humani Generis. There is no more comprehensive explication and defense of the Magisterium in any other magisterial document.
7. The ecumenical movement — understood as the desire and work to bring about Christian unity under the headship of the Vicar of Christ and WITHOUT sacrificing doctrine (unlike abuses of ecumenism, which, sadly, have been way too common over the years … abuses of ecumenism involves watering down teachings so as not to offend others) — is initiated and fostered by the Holy Spirit. As such, it is our duty as Catholic Christians, to help bring about this unity of Christian persons, this unity of Christendom. This duty and dedication to bringing about unity is part of the Christian life and can manifest itself through prayer and/or action.

Just because Vatican II was primarily pastoral doesn’t mean a Catholic may disregard it. Pope Paul VI reprimanded Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre about dismissing Vatican II for being “pastoral”: “You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application” (Nov. 10, 1976).

 

[DavidJoseph]

Sorry, I just cannot agree with this.

My example of St. Athanasius has still not been addressed, as also my other examples. Disobedience can be done at the service of Faith, which is what the entire New Law is at the service of. Just as the Sabbath was made for man, so also obedience for faith. If SSPX feels that to obey the Pope in this matter would be a disservice to the Faith, then they would be obliged in conscience not to act. This is the same if a Catholic believes a rite is invalid. If a Catholic feels a rite is invalid, he must not attend even if he turns out to be wrong,This is Church teaching.

Sure, we can throw the book at SSPX, but if they are not guilty of any wrong then they have no culpability and commit no sin, An unjust sentence is unjust no matter who declares it, even a Holy Father.

Besides, unless they advocated their views publicly, how could they ever get the influence to get a Synod called? Surely, their views must be aired publicly if they are to get cardinals and bishops to their cause. Fr. Gruner calls for the collegial consecration of Russia all the time, but unless he can get support for his efforts all this would be is him entertaining himself.

Comparing St. Athanasius to Archbishop Lefebvre is like comparing apples and oranges. Most of St. Athanasius’ persecutors were heretics, and when Pope Liberius excommunicated him, it was under duress. But Pope John Paul II wasn’t under duress. Lefebvre disobeyed legitimate orders from him and also from Pope Paul VI, which eventually culminated in his ordaining 4 bishops without permission from John Paul II. John Paul II didn’t order him to commit sin, which, by the way, is the ONLY time one is allowed to disobey orders from a superior – if the command is to do something sinful. I know that he claimed he acted out of fear, which would provide a loophole, according to canon law. However, according to the current canon law, Canon 1321 (3) says that imputability must be presumed unless the contrary is made evident (the Latin verb “apparere” is used here, and it means “to be made evident,” not “to appear” or “to seem”). Yes, Lefebvre did what he thought was best, and maybe he did indeed act out of grave fear. But only God would know that for sure, and besides, it would only make him less culpable for his actions; it wouldn’t make his actions in and of themselves all right.

I might add that one of the ways we can be an accessory to others’ sins is defense of the wrong done. If we claim he did a good thing by disobeying (as opposed to merely speculating on WHY he did what he did), then we commit grave sin. I don’t know if you actually believe Lefebvre did a good thing or if you’re merely trying to play devil’s advocate by trying to present Lefebvre’s purported point of view.

By the way, a Catholic may not believe that any legitimate sacramental rite is intrinsically invalid. That’s heresy. The Church makes such judgments, not us. Jesus said the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church, and if the Church was promulgating invalid rites (even in regard to vernacular translations), then He would’ve been lying.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Comparing St. Athanasius to Archbishop Lefebvre is like comparing apples and oranges. Most of St. Athanasius’ persecutors were heretics, and when Pope Liberius excommunicated him, it was under duress. But Pope John Paul II wasn’t under duress. Lefebvre disobeyed legitimate orders from him and also from Pope Paul VI, which eventually culminated in his ordaining 4 bishops without permission from John Paul II. John Paul II didn’t order him to commit sin, which, by the way, is the ONLY time one is allowed to disobey orders from a superior – if the command is to do something sinful. I know that he claimed he acted out of fear, which would provide a loophole, according to canon law. However, according to the current canon law, Canon 1321 (3) says that imputability must be presumed unless the contrary is made evident (the Latin verb “apparere” is used here, and it means “to be made evident,” not “to appear” or “to seem”). Yes, Lefebvre did what he thought was best, and maybe he did indeed act out of grave fear. But only God would know that for sure, and besides, it would only make him less culpable for his actions; it wouldn’t make his actions in and of themselves all right.

I might add that one of the ways we can be an accessory to others’ sins is defense of the wrong done. If we claim he did a good thing by disobeying (as opposed to merely speculating on WHY he did what he did), then we commit grave sin. I don’t know if you actually believe Lefebvre did a good thing or if you’re merely trying to play devil’s advocate by trying to present Lefebvre’s purported point of view.

By the way, a Catholic may not believe that any legitimate sacramental rite is intrinsically invalid. That’s heresy. The Church makes such judgments, not us. Jesus said the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church, and if the Church was promulgating invalid rites (even in regard to vernacular translations), then He would’ve been lying.

I apologize, this is so far back I do not recall the details, but I shall do my utmost. Actually, the Lefebvre/Athanasius comparison is more like Red Delicious/Macintosh comparing, at least for my purposes.

First of all, whether or not the Holy Father was under duress is irrelevant to my point. The broader Church did not know at St. Athanasius’ time that the Holy Father was under duress, nor did it effect the rigour or his persecution. Only after the penalty was lifted was justice served.

Excommunication at that time would have hindered St. Athanasius greatly and harmed the orthodoxy of the broader Church. To behave as if it was some small symbolic gesture on Pope Liberius’ part is degrading the nature of the punishment at that time. St. Athanasius would have been an outcast, and certainly would have been greatly disabled in his apostolic work, and indeed, was exiled in part due to it. So certainly while Archbishop Lefebvre was not in the same situation, if he was wrongly excommunicated than the parallel would be just. His apostolic work would be hindered, and his actions put under suspicion. Only time will tell however, whether this action was just or not.

Also, Pope John Paul II never issued a decree of excommunication against Lefebvre. He was merely considered excommunicated “ipso facto” under canon law.

In theory, if the Archbishop felt (even wrongly) that he was endangering souls by not acting, given his state in life, had he not acted, it may be sinful. This could become a back and forth argument on this particular point, as it is speculative.

Either way, his excommunication, while it may not “make him right,” it does not mean he is necessarily wrong either. Rome only judged him based on its interpretation of Canon Law, not the rightness of his actions. That is something we again can only speculate on.

What did Archbishop Lefebvre do wrong? Disobey? Disagree? How can you pass judgement on other’s souls when Rome has not even judged Lefebvre in such a fashion? In order to be an accessory and incure grave sin a grave sin must be committed. One cannot generally incur grave sin when accessorizing a venial one. Until it has been judged, we cannot with definition say Archbishop Lefebvre incured grave sin. An ipso facto excommunication is not a judgement, merely a functioning of the law. We cannot judge more greatly than the Church on these matters.

St. Thomas, Summa Theologicae, on excommunication:

“Reply to Objection 1: All sins are connected together in aversion from God, which is incompatible with the forgiveness of sin: wherefore one sin cannot be forgiven without another. But excommunications have no such connection. Nor again is absolution from excommunication hindered by contrariety of the will, as stated above (A[2]). Hence the argument does not prove.”

In other words, excommunication is not connected necessarily to sin, nor excommuncations to each other. Lefebvre could have been a saint and still get excommunicated. So it does not hold that one is necessarily communing with grave sin, so as to incure it upon oneself.

Notice I said rite, not Rite. A Catholic indeed has the power to judge if a particular Mass, i.e. the one they are attending at that moment, is invalid. If a priest alters the consecration, for example, a layperson could rightly doubt the Mass’ validity. They cannot judge if a Rite is invalid, and henceforth could not claim the New Mass as a whole is invalid, unless it were merely speculative observation. It certainly could not be claimed with authority.

Interesting you should bring all this back up!

 

[hae]

†JMJ†

Blessed Sunday after Ascension Thursday greetings. An FSSP priest told me that attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered by SSPX priests fulfills the Sunday obligation.

 

[thistle]

This thread is 7 years dormant. We are not to resurrect old threads. Even if you want to discuss the same topic a new thread should be opened.

 

[commenter]

†JMJ†

Blessed Sunday after Ascension Thursday greetings. An FSSP priest told me that attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered by SSPX priests fulfills the Sunday obligation.

Not everything that can be done, should be done. Sometimes empty seats at a chapel might encourage a priest currently on the fence, to make a decision to enter full communion with his diocese and his bishop. Perhaps you are spiritually mature, and are only going because you appreciate the liturgy. But what about your younger neighbor, who sees you there, and is perhaps confirmed in rejecting his pastor and bishop. (I am not saying you intend that, but the neighbor might be tempted that way).

We are called to be saints, not only to meet minimum obligations. The road to sainthood includes practice of virtues, including prudence. Going to Mass on Sunday or weekday, includes besides having a valid priest, also a unity with the local bishop and local Catholic community.

Sometimes I would go to a Pentecostal church after Catholic Mass, because I liked that service. I never doubted the fullness of Catholicism, but some Catholic people who knew me, saw me there. They did not have the doctrinal foundation I had, and they were drifting. Since they respected me, I unwittingly confirmed them in their drifting - the famous slogan, “I gotta go where I’m going to be fed!” Decades later, they apparently are still drifting, and not to any Catholic church. I never go there now.

Prudence means considering the larger, and longer term ramifications of what you do.

 

[giuseppeTO]

As a father and grandfather attached to an SSPX chapel, the only additional caveat I would add to the posts so far is that Cardinal Muller has recently issued a directive to Diocesan Bishops to delegate ordinary faculties to an SSPX priest to receive the marriage vows of a couple and then offer the Nuptial Mass afterward making both events valid and licit. The Bishop may also delegate a Diocesan priest to witness the exchange of vows followed by the licit offering of the Nuptial Mass by the SSPX priest. Of course, an SSPX priest has been able to validly and licitly absolve penitents in Confession since December of 2015.

Since Cardinal Muller published his guidance on marriage faculties, at least two Bishops I know of, one in France and one in Italy, have granted universal faculties to the SSPX priests in their Diocese to licitly marry and offer the Nuptial Mass.

Here is a recent statement by the Holy Father give a couple of weeks ago

Here is the reference to the Bishops granting Ordinary Jurisdiction

I am not condoning that anyone leave wherever they are and head for the nearest SSPX Chapel. Just offering some recent developments that are related to the issue.

 

[commenter]

As a father and grandfather attached to an SSPX chapel, the only additional caveat I would add to the posts so far is that Cardinal Muller has recently issued a directive to Diocesan Bishops to delegate ordinary faculties to an SSPX priest to receive the marriage vows of a couple and then offer the Nuptial Mass afterward making both events valid and licit. The Bishop may also delegate a Diocesan priest to witness the exchange of vows followed by the licit offering of the Nuptial Mass by the SSPX priest. Of course, an SSPX priest has been able to validly and licitly absolve penitents in Confession since December of 2015.

Since Cardinal Muller published his guidance on marriage faculties, at least two Bishops I know of, one in France and one in Italy, have granted universal faculties to the SSPX priests in their Diocese to licitly marry and offer the Nuptial Mass.

Here is a recent statement by the Holy Father give a couple of weeks ago

Here is the reference to the Bishops granting Ordinary Jurisdiction

I am not condoning that anyone leave wherever they are and head for the nearest SSPX Chapel. Just offering some recent developments that are related to the issue.

no substitute for accurate documentation, regardless of one’s position

 

[Don_Ruggero]

This thread is more than 7 1/2 years in dormancy.

We are not supposed to revive such old threads, per the forum rules.

 

[giuseppeTO]

This thread is more than 7 1/2 years in dormancy.

We are not supposed to revive such old threads, per the forum rules.

I didn’t realize that until you mentioned it. I had to do a quick scan to see if I took part in this discussion 8 years ago. Reading through these responses is like looking through an old yearbook. Some of these names I haven’t seen in ages.

A couple of observations:

• Both sides were more passionate at that time. Of course, we still have protagonists on both sides of the “my way or the highway” ilk.
• Although the discourse can still get agitated today, the soothing factors that have moderated the rhetoric since 2009 have been the Popes. Many laymen, priests, and Bishops still hold some absolute positions on the whole question of the Society of St. Pius X and its relationship to the Mystical Body, but it has been the Popes, especially the last two, who have brought the intensity level down a couple of notches and have called for patience from all quarters.