S
SanRafael1102
Guest
Check out the FSSP, and see if they have any masses near you. They’re basically SSPX that are in good standing with Rome.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Again – thank you. It’s perfectly clear – why the SSPX is still in imperfect/irregular communion --with the Catholic Church. And from the looks of it–with that kind of thinking in its current/future priests – the “imperfection” will widen and grow.
Think – the Old Catholics.
Think – the Old Catholics.
J
jas84173
Guest
So if I go to a OF Mass on Sunday morning at my parish but then go to an SSPX Mass in the afternoon I’m in a state of mortal sin? I think that’s a bit extreme . The group aren’t conclavists. They have some issues with the Pope but they do recognize he’s the Pope. No one says we have to agree with everything the Pope says. Of course he’s infallible but that doesn’t mean in the future he won’t be corrected by a future pope.
D
Duesenberg
Guest
Why would you do that if you could attend a licit Mass?If I go to an SSPX EF Mass
C
CuriousConvert1
Guest
I can say as a convert of two years that at the local parish I heard that the Church now teaches that we are to “give up non-essentials,” as the priest put it, and that we are supposed to “worship more simply, following the example of our shepherd.”
The SSPX church a mile away frankly sounds more Catholic when I’ve visited there.
The SSPX church a mile away frankly sounds more Catholic when I’ve visited there.
Last edited:
F
Fuerza
Guest
I didn’t say that at all. Reread my post.
J
jas84173
Guest
I do. I go to OF Mass at my Parish in the morning and go to an EF Mass that just happens to be a chapel run by the SSPX in the afternoon Sundays.
G
Genesis315
Guest
They are members of the Church, but their priests do not have full faculties–Pope Francis recently gave them the faculties to absolve sins and encouraged local bishops to work with them on making sure their marriages are properly witnessed.
And this is why they SSPX exists, for better or worse. If most Catholic parishes did a better job of living up to their obligations and actually worshipping with Catholic piety and preaching and teaching authentic Catholic doctrine, there would be no reason for people to be attracted to the SSPX–they would have no need to exist. Whenever a bishop or priest tells Catholics to give up salutory Catholic beliefs and traditions or to conform more to secular or Protestant norms, an SSPX priest gets his wings (or at least gets a few more chapel goers)…I can say as a convert of two years that at the local parish I heard that the Church now teaches that we are to “give up non-essentials,” as the priest put it, and that we are supposed to “worship more simply, following the example of our shepherd.”
The SSPX church a mile away frankly sounds more Catholic when I’ve visited there.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
No.Technically yes, because the Mass is valid. …
See canon 1248 which explains the Sunday Mass obligation.
The obligation is fulfilled by attending a Catholic Mass, a Mass of the Catholic Church of any rite (meaning West or East).
It is NOT enough that the Mass be valid. That is not the only criteria.
The Mass must be celebrated by a Catholic priest who is a minister of the Catholic Church. SSPX priests, while validly ordained, are not ministers of the Catholic Church.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Very simple: absolutely not.I keep getting different answers. If I go to an SSPX EF Mass is my Sunday obligation fulfilled?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Very very close, but not quite. Yes, they are members of the Catholic Church. However, it is not that they lack “full faculties.” Instead, they lack what we call the “clerical state.” Meaning that they lack the status of ministers of the Church.They are members of the Church, but their priests do not have full faculties–…
A priest (or for that matter a bishop or deacon) must FIRST have the “clerical state” in the Church. Then, and only then, can he have faculties to exercise that clerical state.
As a matter of special law, Pope Francis has granted the SSPX priest special limited faculties to absolve. These are special, extraordinary. He did not grant them the clerical state. It’s important to understand the difference.
C
commenter
Guest
Look beyond the technical question about SSPX “in communion”. Consider that in 1980, most SSPX priests had previously served much more time in the Church itself, in union with a bishop ordinary, in Catholic institutions, in a diocesan community, worked and studied alongside religious orders, than they had served in the SSPX. They were still very much “men of the Church” first, who also happen to affiliate with SSPX.
In 2017, very few SSPX priests have ever worked in a parish, in a diocese, under a bishop ordinary, or ministered or studied alongside any Catholic religious orders. The great majority have had seminary teachers and superiors who had little or no Catholic training and experience outside SSPX. They are men of the SSPX only.
So, from a practical POV one could argue that the 1980 SSPX was, in its members, mostly in communion. But not the 2017 SSPX. And in 5 years with retirements, the SSPX will be even more distant from “experience communion” than it is in 2017.
I am not saying the technical, theological question is unimportant, just looking at the topic from another POV.
In 2017, very few SSPX priests have ever worked in a parish, in a diocese, under a bishop ordinary, or ministered or studied alongside any Catholic religious orders. The great majority have had seminary teachers and superiors who had little or no Catholic training and experience outside SSPX. They are men of the SSPX only.
So, from a practical POV one could argue that the 1980 SSPX was, in its members, mostly in communion. But not the 2017 SSPX. And in 5 years with retirements, the SSPX will be even more distant from “experience communion” than it is in 2017.
I am not saying the technical, theological question is unimportant, just looking at the topic from another POV.
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
This is true, especially as to why the SSPX was founded. But in the US, SSPX chapels often linger on after more conservative bishops come in, and the TLM is equally close to the SSPX chapel. In 2017, there is also an Anti-Religious-Authority movement in the wind. It impacts mostly liberals but conservatives too.And this is why they SSPX exists, for better or worse. If most Catholic parishes did a better job of living up to their obligations and actually worshipping with Catholic piety and preaching and teaching authentic Catholic doctrine, there would be no reason for people to be attracted to the SSPX–they would have no need to exist. Whenever a bishop or priest tells Catholics to give up salutory Catholic beliefs and traditions or to conform more to secular or Protestant norms, an SSPX priest gets his wings (or at least gets a few more chapel goers)…
F
FrDavid96
Guest
First I would ask that you please refrain from that particular style of rhetoric. There are several problems.
I also find it extremely annoying and undignified.
Like the Pharisees of old, you mistakenly think that the response to your question is a simple “yes” or a simple “no.”
Unfortunately, for you, there is a third option. One which you have obviously not considered.
I must split my answer to 2 different posts…
- You put words into my mouth.
- It evokes the same style the Pharisees used against Christ. That of asking a trick question in order to evoke one of 2 possible answers, as if there could not be a third answer.
- Again, just like the Pharisees, you imply a trap. You imply (even though I rather doubt you intend it, you still imply it) that some priest is arrogant enough to say that he speaks with more authority than one who holds a special office, and that you are prepared to “report” that priest for his disobedience. You even go so far as to imply that I am accusing the good Monsignor of error.
I also find it extremely annoying and undignified.
Like the Pharisees of old, you mistakenly think that the response to your question is a simple “yes” or a simple “no.”
Unfortunately, for you, there is a third option. One which you have obviously not considered.
I must split my answer to 2 different posts…
Last edited:
F
FrDavid96
Guest
The good Monsignor wrote that communication in the year 2002. That is significant.
He wrote it approximately 7 years before HH Benedict XVI wrote his letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church in which His Holiness wrote the following:
I do not in any way accuse the good Monsignor P. of being in error. I simply point out the fact that after he wrote his letter, circumstances changed so that the answer he gave in 2002 is no longer the same answer to the question in 2017.
The status of the SSPX has changed over the decades. At first, when it was founded, it was a perfectly legitimate Society recognized by the Holy See and in complete conformity to the laws of the Church. That status has undergone several changes over the past 50 years, until we arrive at the present day. If someone were to ask the same question of Bl. Paul VI in the year 1971, His Holiness would have answered “of course the SSPX priests are ministers of the Church, they enjoy perfectly legitimate canonical status.”
Need I tell you that it is no longer 1971?
Need I tell you that it is no longer 2002?
He wrote it approximately 7 years before HH Benedict XVI wrote his letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church in which His Holiness wrote the following:
At the time the good Monsignor wrote his letter, I would have accepted his decision on the matter. After he wrote his decision, the fact that the Supreme Pontiff himself clarified the situation so as to make it “clear once again [that the SSPX] do not exercise any ministry in the Church” that statement by the Vicar of Christ now changes the answer to the same question as it is asked in the present day.As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: 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. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre (March 10, 2009) | BENEDICT XVI
I do not in any way accuse the good Monsignor P. of being in error. I simply point out the fact that after he wrote his letter, circumstances changed so that the answer he gave in 2002 is no longer the same answer to the question in 2017.
The status of the SSPX has changed over the decades. At first, when it was founded, it was a perfectly legitimate Society recognized by the Holy See and in complete conformity to the laws of the Church. That status has undergone several changes over the past 50 years, until we arrive at the present day. If someone were to ask the same question of Bl. Paul VI in the year 1971, His Holiness would have answered “of course the SSPX priests are ministers of the Church, they enjoy perfectly legitimate canonical status.”
Need I tell you that it is no longer 1971?
Need I tell you that it is no longer 2002?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.