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

[Aramis]

Well, we’ve made some progress. The SSPX Bishops are not excommunicated, and the fact they were means nothing whatsoever.

Just wanted to clear that up for any lurkers who may read the thread.

Wrong. Actions taken while they were excommunicated retaining them in power over the SSPX are technically Laetae sentencae actions.

 

[I_Believe]

Wrong. Actions taken while they were excommunicated retaining them in power over the SSPX are technically Laetae sentencae actions.

So the decree lifting the excommunications means nothing to you ? Fine, pound your gavel until you knock a hole in your desk.

You can cherry pick canon laws to suit your needs all you want, while ignoring the canon laws that give weight to Archbishop Lefevbre’s decision to consecrate 4 Bishops instead of 1.

The fate of the SSPX will be decided in Rome, not Eagles River Alaska. Get over it.:hey_bud:

 

[Aramis]

So the decree lifting the excommunications means nothing to you ? Fine, pound your gavel until you knock a hole in your desk.

You can cherry pick canon laws to suit your needs all you want, while ignoring the canon laws that give weight to Archbishop Lefevbre’s decision to consecrate 4 Bishops instead of 1.
:

TO be blunt: if you chose to believe they are fit, go for it; it’s your soul you’re risking.

But, per the psalms, better to warn the others to be careful, then to let them wander blindly.

The SSPX are neither fully in union, nor fully outside the church, and the suspensions were not lifted, and they have no valid jurisdiction; thus only deathbed confessions are valid, and marriages and annullments they grant are not. They know this.

They are not supposed to say the mass publicly, and do. Whether that’s a mortal sin or not is something we can’t know, but disobedience is grave matter (per canon law); that makes it likely (but not provable) that it also is mortal sin. They also know this.

Support their goals? Fine. Support their disobedience? Not fine.

Personally, I’m all for rolling the SSPX, ICRS, and FSSP into a Church Sui Iuris separate from the OF favoring crowd, and let them have the same status and rights as the various Eastern Churches. I know a couple priest-theologians who support that, too. (One has, sadly, passed away.)

 

[JustaServant]

I have been following this thread and trying to educate myself on the various issues involved. As a revert after spending 20 years across the Tiber, I would like to humbly add my opinion as a lay person.
When I came back to the Catholic Church, I returned to the “Church of all ages”. A Church rich in meaning and tradition. I am coming to tradtion from the back door of 20 years in fundamentalism. When I speak of these things many times to other Catholics, they appear to look at it as mere nostalgia. I look at the Latin Mass as the standard, not the “old Mass”. I take seriously the Gospel message. I am excited about the rich tradition and meaning of the Church
It is difficult for me however to see my fellow Catholics deal with children who are going to the local fundamentalist preacher in search of ‘spirituality’ because they cannot find it within thier parish. For example:
May is month of our Blessed Mother. At our parish their was no May Crowning, no statue of Mary prominate in front, no hymns to Mary. On Mother’s Day.
The folk group sang the 60s song “Get Together” by The Youngbloods.
(words cannot describe how tired I am of hearing about that blasted decade, and I was born in '61).
No hymns to Mary (which are rare in this parish anyway), but a counter-culture song from the 60s sung during communion.

I am no expert and I do not wish to act like one concerning the SSPX. I accept Vatican 2 and have nothing against the Novus Ordo Mass.
However, I will say at this point, having read all the points and evidence on both sides, and nailed down by my experience at Mass yesterday, truth appears to be on the side of the SSPX.

 

[JustaServant]

When we accept all these changes without question, we make the Pope out to be like the Morman president, who can have his mind changed by the Holy Ghost every few years. If the Pope says things which appear to conradict past teaching, people act as if we should shrug it off and act like the previous teaching was yesterday’s news. These assertions make the Pope the divine dictator that the protestants caricture him as. At will he can assert anything he wants regarding matters of faith.

As any convert or revert will tell you, one of the obstacles in becoming a Catholic is the acceptance of authority. That does not mean that authiority is always going to be right (just like our employers are never correct, but we obey anyway). A simple read through Church history reveals many flawed men who have occupied Peter’s Chair. The Popes who lived in the time of St Francis of Assisi were not, shall we say, the cream of the spiritual crop.
As I said in my previous post, truth appears to be on the side of the SSPX. But it is a fine line they walk. Being right does not justify actions taken. As a flaming fundamentalist once said: “its never right to do wrong so that right may triumph.”

 

[I_Believe]

I am no expert and I do not wish to act like one concerning the SSPX. I accept Vatican 2 and have nothing against the Novus Ordo Mass.
However, I will say at this point, having read all the points and evidence on both sides, and nailed down by my experience at Mass yesterday, truth appears to be on the side of the SSPX.

It does indeed appear to be on their side. Not just the SSPX, but Tradition itself.

Chesterton said it best

“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.”

• G.K. Chesterton "

 

[EnchantedEve]

As any convert or revert will tell you, one of the obstacles in becoming a Catholic is the acceptance of authority. That does not mean that authiority is always going to be right (just like our employers are never correct, but we obey anyway). A simple read through Church history reveals many flawed men who have occupied Peter’s Chair. The Popes who lived in the time of St Francis of Assisi were not, shall we say, the cream of the spiritual crop.
As I said in my previous post, truth appears to be on the side of the SSPX. But it is a fine line they walk. Being right does not justify actions taken. As a flaming fundamentalist once said: “its never right to do wrong so that right may triumph.”

Absolutely true. They do indeed walk a very fine line, and I must say that if I had been in a position to do some of what they have done I do think I would not have the courage.

While true that the Popes at the time of St. Francis were no one’s idea of a saint, they also never taught anything that gave the appearance of contradicting previous Church teaching. This is what makes it such a touch situation. It is easy to denounce immorality. It is difficult to challenge teaching, since this is the Pope’s main authority, to teach.

But the one question that concerns me, and which I believe should concern others, is if the Pope can change any Church teaching whenever he feels, how realiable is infallibilty? If Church teaching can be changed by the Pope at will, can it any longer bear relation to the Truth? Does it mean anything at all? It should seem the Pope posseses teaching authority only so long as he teaches Truth, otherwise he has lost the capacity to teach. This at least appears to be what St. Robert Bellarmine says. Anyone’s thoughts?

 

[Aramis]

Absolutely true. They do indeed walk a very fine line, and I must say that if I had been in a position to do some of what they have done I do think I would not have the courage.

While true that the Popes at the time of St. Francis were no one’s idea of a saint, they also never taught anything that gave the appearance of contradicting previous Church teaching. This is what makes it such a touch situation. It is easy to denounce immorality. It is difficult to challenge teaching, since this is the Pope’s main authority, to teach.

But the one question that concerns me, and which I believe should concern others, is if the Pope can change any Church teaching whenever he feels, how realiable is infallibilty? If Church teaching can be changed by the Pope at will, can it any longer bear relation to the Truth? Does it mean anything at all? It should seem the Pope posseses teaching authority only so long as he teaches Truth, otherwise he has lost the capacity to teach. This at least appears to be what St. Robert Bellarmine says. Anyone’s thoughts?

No pope may declare heresy truth; the few popes who held to heresies did not teach them whilst popes, and several were deposed anyway, by request of a general council, to which they acceded.

 

[EnchantedEve]

TO be blunt: if you chose to believe they are fit, go for it; it’s your soul you’re risking.

But, per the psalms, better to warn the others to be careful, then to let them wander blindly.

The SSPX are neither fully in union, nor fully outside the church, and the suspensions were not lifted, and they have no valid jurisdiction; thus only deathbed confessions are valid, and marriages and annullments they grant are not. They know this.

They are not supposed to say the mass publicly, and do. Whether that’s a mortal sin or not is something we can’t know, but disobedience is grave matter (per canon law); that makes it likely (but not provable) that it also is mortal sin. They also know this.

Support their goals? Fine. Support their disobedience? Not fine.
)

I have to say I believe this to be an unfortunate attitude, and possibly the reason why heresy and schism remains so obstinate in the Church.

If we gave troubled faithful the benefit of the doubt and counseled their concerns, perhaps problems in the Church would not reach this level. As it is, we denounce those who show concern as wicked and obstinate while never addressing their concerns. This leads to spiritual alienation and eventually seperation. Where in the Church’s history has this approach worked? We permit condemnation to reach a feavered pitch and than walk away.
I think we should address the issues the SSPX are concerned about, before we condemn them to hellfire, as some seem to wish to see occur. Disobedenience is only wrong if the order you obeyed was right, and virtuous if the order is wrong. We shall see what direction this goes in, and what the Church will ultimately decide regarding SSPX.

 

[EnchantedEve]

No pope may declare heresy truth; the few popes who held to heresies did not teach them whilst popes, and several were deposed anyway, by request of a general council, to which they acceded.

Popes deposed? Who was this? I did not think a general council had the power to depose a validly elected pope. This seems to contradict St. Robert Bellarmine:

“Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior. (De Romano Pontifice. II.29.)”

You are correct to say no Pope may declare heresy truth, nor have the post-Vatican II Popes declared definitively any heresy true. They have often times favored heresy in some teaching, but not taught heresy outright. Some of the more egregious teachings occured in papal writing as private theologians, and not as Pope. When John XXII taught heresy in the 1300’s, this was as a private theologian when he was pope, and not as Pope.

 

[Aramis]

Resignation at the request of the Synod is a form of being deposed.

One crisis of multiple simultaneous popes was solved by the Roman Synod askign them all to resign, and then electing a new pope.

Historically, the Roman Synod has called for the resignation of several popes. In those cases, the Popes acceded to the will of the council.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Resignation at the request of the Synod is a form of being deposed.

One crisis of multiple simultaneous popes was solved by the Roman Synod askign them all to resign, and then electing a new pope.

Historically, the Roman Synod has called for the resignation of several popes. In those cases, the Popes acceded to the will of the council.

This may be true, but can cite these Popes? It would help to know the reason they were asked to abdicate.

This being said, being requested to abdicate by a synod is not the same as deposition. To be deposed means having a superior over you who removed you from your legitimate office. A matter of process, perhaps, but the results definitely seperate “Please leave” from “Get out!”

In the case of the 1409 council of Pisa, they deposed to illigitimate popes and elected Pope Martin V. Again, a matter of process perhaps, but they were attempting to validly elect a real pope, not depose a valid pope for actions they disliked. The substance is still different.

The only example I know of a Pope being deposed was the corrupt John XII in 963. However, his deposition is not recognized by the Church and his reign is considered legitimate until his death, when the pope the council had elected to replace him at deposition, Leo VIII, actally took office.

 

[Cat]

Maybe someone has already posted this. If so, I apologize for duplicating.

Here is the CAF answer to the OPs question: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=335968

You’ll have to click on a few links to get to the answer.

The answer, BTW, is no. According to the apologists at CAF, SSPX is in schism, and the faithful should not attend their Masses.

I realize that the link is from 2007, but the letter above to the apologists was dated 2009, and the docent apparently felt that the 2007 answer was still the correct answer. Perhaps you can contact CAF if you feel that the answer needs to be updated in view of the restoration of four of the bishops.

 

[C_Jackson_35]

Here is a good resource page to answer these questions.

crisisinthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/05/resource-page-for-sspx-issues.html

 

[C_Jackson_35]

According to the apologists at CAF, SSPX is in schism, and the faithful should not attend their Masses.

The Society is most definitely not in schism.

To begin with, it can no longer be said by anyone in good faith that the four surviving bishops of the Society are “in schism.”

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2009-0131-ferrara-triumph_and_tribulation.htm

 

[EnchantedEve]

Maybe someone has already posted this. If so, I apologize for duplicating.

Here is the CAF answer to the OPs question: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=335968

You’ll have to click on a few links to get to the answer.

The answer, BTW, is no. According to the apologists at CAF, SSPX is in schism, and the faithful should not attend their Masses.

I realize that the link is from 2007, but the letter above to the apologists was dated 2009, and the docent apparently felt that the 2007 answer was still the correct answer. Perhaps you can contact CAF if you feel that the answer needs to be updated in view of the restoration of four of the bishops.

While CAF may certainly give its own recommendations (which I respectfully disagree with), it cannot make this binding on the consciences of the faithful, just as Most Holy Family Monastery cannot make their belief you should never attend the New Mass binding on the faithful. I am not saying they are trying to, just pointing this out. Until the Church rules on this definitively, we must follow our own conscience, in my opinion.

 

[C_Jackson_35]

Well said, Eve.

 

[meridith]

What does SSPX, FSSP, NO, and TLM mean, what are they?
Thanks

 

[Aramis]

What does SSPX, FSSP, NO, and TLM mean, what are they?
Thanks

SSPX: Society of St Pius X. In irregular status according to HH Benedict XVI.

FSSP: Fraternal Society of St. Peter. TLM society in full union and regular status.

FSSJ: Fraternal Society of St. Josephat. Ukrainian equivalent to the SSPX, except that tradition is actually against them.

ICRS: Institute of Christ the King (I don’t recall the latin from which the abbreviation is drawn). Another fully regular and in union TLM group.

NO: Novus Ordo. Term discouraged by HH Benedict XVI; replaced with OF or Ordinary Form
TLM: Traditional Latin Mass, Tridentine Latin Mass (most consider them synonyms). Also dubbed the EF or Extraordinary Form by HH Benedict XVI

 

[I_Believe]

For anyone confused by all of this, here is what our Holy Father says.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html

Some of the key points

Regarding the unprecedented public verbal attack of a Pope by numerous Bishops (concerning Bishop Williamson)…

“Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment.”

“I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility.”

I’m saddened too as we all should be. Some clergy went as far as calling for H.H. BXVI to step down. What’s so sad is he did nothing wrong. The cries of outrage were from the hearts of men who discarded the Cardinal Virtue of Prudence and hastily exhibited the very traits/attitudes/tendencies that they condemn the Traditional Movement for. :ehh:

The bottom line…

“The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.”

So there H.H. makes a point that needs to be made. Both sides must accept what H.H says there. This is crucial to ensure fruitful discussions on doctrinal matters. It’s reported these discussions will take place via letters. Perhaps to take the emotion and drama out of the equation ?