New Stuff on SSPX or is this just old news?

  • Thread starter Thread starter demerzel85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Much of this was explored in threads lost before the crash…

Whether or not they are in schism or not really doesn’t matter. They are not in union. Their priests are suspended a divinis and their bishops are excommunicated. Since the priests are suspended, they commit a gravely immoral act everytime they confect the Eucharist. Why a Catholic would desire to witness such an act of profanation is beyond me. Sure maybe the latin words sound nice and the singing is pretty, but you are witnessing a Catholic priest defy the Body of Christ in the very action of confecting the Body of Christ. The priests of SSPX cannot validly absolve sins (unless the penitent is in danger of death) or witness valid marriages because as suspended priests they do not have the faculties to do so.

So, my point is that it doesn’t really matter whether their separation represents formal schism or perhaps a lesser form of schism (if such a thing exists). Just their persistence in celebrating the sacraments despite the fact that they are suspended, should make us stay far away from their organization.
 
Caesar said:
Both St. Pio and St. Josemaria were allowed to continue celebrating the Tridentine Mass after the Novus Ordo was created.
Click to expand...
And? They didn’t go running into schism. Not only that Msgr. Escriva, the head of the prelature had his priests say the Novus Ordo Mass. Padre Pio told his sister to obey her superiors even if they were wrong in their liberal tendencies. They showed how to deal with modernism and relativism. The SSPX showed people how to break with the Church.
 
Ham1 said:
…witness such an act of profanation…
Click to expand...
Harsh words…

According to your logic, the Eastern Orthodox priests all over the world are comitting the same act of profanation of Our Lord.
 
Ham1 said:
Much of this was explored in threads lost before the crash…

Whether or not they are in schism or not really doesn’t matter. They are not in union. Their priests are suspended a divinis and their bishops are excommunicated. Since the priests are suspended, they commit a gravely immoral act everytime they confect the Eucharist. Why a Catholic would desire to witness such an act of profanation is beyond me. Sure maybe the latin words sound nice and the singing is pretty, but you are witnessing a Catholic priest defy the Body of Christ in the very action of confecting the Body of Christ. The priests of SSPX cannot validly absolve sins (unless the penitent is in danger of death) or witness valid marriages because as suspended priests they do not have the faculties to do so.

So, my point is that it doesn’t really matter whether their separation represents formal schism or perhaps a lesser form of schism (if such a thing exists). Just their persistence in celebrating the sacraments despite the fact that they are suspended, should make us stay far away from their organization.
Click to expand...
Thank goodness ---- it is not up to you—and yes it is beyond you. The Church does allow people to attend the Mass in the SSPX as long as they do not break from the Church. The Church would not allow them to attend these Masses ---- If as you say---- they were immoral and profane.

The info that demerzel85 posted------throws your argument out the window. What is left is your extreme bias.

a) we are dealing with Catholic faithful who – provided they have performed no explicit actions – in no way wish to leave the Roman Catholic Church;
b) attending Masses celebrated by priests of the SSPX is not in itself a delict and does not bring about excommunication;
 
Thank goodness ---- it is not up to you—and yes it is beyond you. The Church does allow people to attend the Mass in the SSPX as long as they do not break from the Church. The Church would not allow them to attend these Masses ---- If as you say---- they were immoral and profane.
Click to expand...
Been to Mass in a diocese like, let’s say, Rochester or Los Angeles? The Church allowing and the priest not sinning are 2different things.
a) we are dealing with Catholic faithful who – provided they have performed no explicit actions – in no way wish to leave the Roman Catholic Church;
b) attending Masses celebrated by priests of the SSPX is not in itself a delict and does not bring about excommunication
Click to expand...
Sigh! Who’s definition of formal adherence was stated in that article? I find this part troubling:
c) only those of the faithful who see the SSPX as the only true church, and who make this visible externally, incur the penalty of excommunication;

The Church has never said this is what formal adherence means.

Try this:
catholic-forum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=22485&postcount=16
 
bear06 said:
Been to Mass in a diocese like, let’s say, Rochester or Los Angeles? The Church allowing and the priest not sinning are 2different things.

Sigh! Who’s definition of formal adherence was stated in that article? I find this part troubling:
c) only those of the faithful who see the SSPX as the only true church, and who make this visible externally, incur the penalty of excommunication;

The Church has never said this is what formal adherence means.

Try this:
catholic-forum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=22485&postcount=16
Click to expand...
Of course our priests are not exempt from sin. Can we say that any of our priests–even the most orthodox are exempt. Since all I know of the SSPX Mass----is that it is the TLM. Does the SSPX Mass compare to what happens in Rochester and Los Angeles.
 
Walking_Home said:
Of course our priests are not exempt from sin. Can we say that any of our priests–even the most orthodox are exempt. Since all I know of the SSPX Mass----is that it is the TLM. Does the SSPX Mass compare to what happens in Rochester and Los Angeles.
Click to expand...
I think you’re missing the point. To say that since the Church allows one to attend an SSPX chapel doesn’t mean that there isn’t something wrong with that Mass. The Church has said that SSPX Masses are illicit. Many Masses in many locations are illicit but for varying reasons.

I take issue with the statements by the diocese of Salzburg because they seem to paraphrase incorrectly some of their points. It would be really nice if people would quote from the Magisterium rather than to paraphrase. It also ticks me off that when there is not document or letter from the Magisterium on y or z that they don’t ask before they make up their own teachings.

I also like the fact that this whole article basis it’s ideas on an Eclessia Dei communique but never actually produces it. Alot of speculation going on all around.
 
demerzel85 said:
Back to the original post actually, is this a new development?

a) we are dealing with Catholic faithful who – provided they have performed no explicit actions – in no way wish to leave the Roman Catholic Church;
b) attending Masses celebrated by priests of the SSPX is not in itself a delict and does not bring about excommunication;
**c) only those of the faithful who see the SSPX as the only true church, and who make this visible externally, incur the penalty of excommunication; **
d) it is consequently not at all appropriate to regard as non-Catholic the children baptised in the chapels of the SSPX, and to treat their marriages to another Catholic as mixed marriages;
e) when baptism by a priest of the SSPX is attested in writing and the parents of the newly baptised do not see the SSPX as the only true church, then this attestation sufficews for registration of the baptism in the Liber Baptizatorum of the parish of baptism, under the running number 0. On the basis of this registration, a baptismal certificate can be issued.
Click to expand...
How fuzzy does the line get if one sends a child to an SSPX-run school (there are about 20 of them around the country) to be ‘educated’ in theology which in some critical cases runs contrary to teachings of the main-line Catholic Church?
 
Walking_Home said:
Thank goodness ---- it is not up to you—and yes it is beyond you. The Church does allow people to attend the Mass in the SSPX as long as they do not break from the Church. The Church would not allow them to attend these Masses ---- If as you say---- they were immoral and profane.

The info that demerzel85 posted------throws your argument out the window. What is left is your extreme bias.

a) we are dealing with Catholic faithful who – provided they have performed no explicit actions – in no way wish to leave the Roman Catholic Church;
b) attending Masses celebrated by priests of the SSPX is not in itself a delict and does not bring about excommunication;
Click to expand...
Since my point seems to have eluded you, let’s look at this step by step:

Fact#1: SSPX priests are suspended a divinis.

Fact#2: Suspended priests are forbidden by the Church to say Mass, etc. They are not to offer the sacraments.

Fact#3: Formal disobedience by a priest is serious matter.

Fact#4: When the priest disobeys, he is committing an immoral act of disobedience. Whether this is a mortal sin or not depends on his knowledge and intention. But it is most certainly serious matter.

Conclusion: Witnessing a priest commit an act of disobedience to the Body of Christ is not a healthy endeavor for one who claims to be a Catholic.

As Archbishop Burke has stated: “To knowingly and willingly celebrate the Holy Mass, when one is legitimately prohibited from doing so, is a most grave sin.”
 
Ham1 said:
Since my point seems to have eluded you, let’s look at this step by step:

Fact#1: SSPX priests are suspended a divinis.

Fact#2: Suspended priests are forbidden by the Church to say Mass, etc. They are not to offer the sacraments.

Fact#3: Formal disobedience by a priest is serious matter.

Fact#4: When the priest disobeys, he is committing an immoral act of disobedience. Whether this is a mortal sin or not depends on his knowledge and intention. But it is most certainly serious matter.

Conclusion: Witnessing a priest commit an act of disobedience to the Body of Christ is not a healthy endeavor for one who claims to be a Catholic.

As Archbishop Burke has stated: “To knowingly and willingly celebrate the Holy Mass, when one is legitimately prohibited from doing so, is a most grave sin.”
Click to expand...
You have to be really careful with this logic and I think Rome takes this into consideration. It’s been 23 years since the schismatic act. In that time there have been many children who were raised in the SSPX and were never under Roman Law so to speak. If those children become priests and they are indeed valid priests Rome has no say so in their actions and they cannot be suspended by Rome. As Rome drags her feet on this, her influence over the SSPX will diminish to the point where Rome will need to decide if she allows her members to attend or not
 
gelsbern said:
You have to be really careful with this logic and I think Rome takes this into consideration. It’s been 23 years since the schismatic act. In that time there have been many children who were raised in the SSPX and were never under Roman Law so to speak. If those children become priests and they are indeed valid priests Rome has no say so in their actions and they cannot be suspended by Rome. As Rome drags her feet on this, her influence over the SSPX will diminish to the point where Rome will need to decide if she allows her members to attend or not
Click to expand...
Rome isn’t dragging her feet. They’re dragging theirs. It’s a simple act of obedience: come home and submit to the legitimate authority of the Church. Obey.
 
There are those who joing the schismatic group to experience a traiditonal mass, particularly TLM. You don’t have to go schismatic to attend a TLM mass.

Try the FSSP
fssp.com/
 
SIGHPeople need to stop trying to be more Catholic than the Pope. He is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, his word is infallible in regards to faith and morals, if The Church tells we should not attend SSPX

THEN DON’T DO IT!!!

It is simple…SSPX is a schismatic rgroup, we are not permitted to join schismatics. Therefore stay away…it aint that hard!!

Roma locuta est, causa finita est (“Rome has spoken, case closed”)
 
Walking_Home said:
The info that demerzel85 posted------throws your argument out the window. What is left is your extreme bias.
Click to expand...
Actually, no Ham1 is accurate in what he has said and what I posted does not dispute it. Ham1 is speaking about the Clergy of SSPX, what I posted relates to the laity.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Rome isn’t dragging her feet. They’re dragging theirs. It’s a simple act of obedience: come home and submit to the legitimate authority of the Church. Obey.
Click to expand...
Perhaps dragging feet was a poor choice in words. But as more children are raised in the SSPX and they ordain valid priests, they become their own denomination and will no longer be under the authority of Rome and therfeore there will be no obedience to Rome necessary. Especially after the older priests and bishops pass away and no one from the original incident is left.

I wish I could find the one thing I have been looking for, but there is something about a certain number of generations when it comes to schisms etc… I’ll keep searching.

EDIT: I found what I was looking for.

UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Chapter I Article 3
Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.(22)
Click to expand...
If one reads this, and asks what are the real differences between the SSPX and The Catholic church, one would have to honestly answer that there really isn’t all that much difference and so, time is on the side of the SSPX, they can wait it out and once all ties to Rome are complete severed through attrition, they can then approach Rome in the way the Eastern Orthodox churches are and look for an ecclesiastical communion without having to submit to her authority.

Anyway I hope this makes it clearer as far as the angle I am viewing this as an outsider to both groups.

Oh and demerzel85, it applies to the clergy who were originally Roman Catholic, not those who were raised in the SSPX.
 
demerzel85 said:
Actually, no Ham1 is accurate in what he has said and what I posted does not dispute it. Ham1 is speaking about the Clergy of SSPX, what I posted relates to the laity.
Click to expand...
So then----the Church allows Catholics to attend Masses where grave immoral — progane acts are performed.
 
demerzel85 said:
Actually, no Ham1 is accurate in what he has said and what I posted does not dispute it. Ham1 is speaking about the Clergy of SSPX, what I posted relates to the laity.
Click to expand...
c) only those of the faithful who see the SSPX as the only true church, and who make this visible externally, incur the penalty of excommunication;
Click to expand...
In short, I think one would have trouble finding a Chuch document or letter from the Vatican that says this.
 
bear06 said:
In short, I think one would have trouble finding a Chuch document or letter from the Vatican that says this.
Click to expand...
That’s what I’m asking actually. If what I posted in the first post is not new, where did the original document come from?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top