Not schismatic, not in union

[CatholicNick]

Unfortunately, they are. You may not like it, but that is the way it is.

So a Mass where a Priest changes the words in the Missal is licit?

A Mass where a Priest dresses as a clown?

A Mass where he says “Mother-God”?

I don’t think so.

Abuses in any Mass make it illicit.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

So a Mass where a Priest changes the words in the Missal is licit?

A Mass where a Priest dresses as a clown?

A Mass where he says “Mother-God”?

I don’t think so.

Abuses in any Mass make it illicit.

I modified my post while you were doing this. If it is major, yes it may make the Mass illicit.

If, I read what you are implying, any abuse, no matter how small, makes the Mass illicit?

However, SSPX Masses, how matter what, are illicit from the beginning to end.

 

[paramedicgirl]

You are not going to like my answer, but it is going to an SSPX Mass which is valid but illicit (plus the priests are suspended). Even with the abuses, the current Mass is both valid and licit.

But that doesn’t answer my question. What is worse for your soul? Being exposed to irreverence and abuses that can cause you to sin, and change the way you practice your Catholic faith, or going to a reverent, sacred and holy Mass that is illicit?

 

[ReConverted]

Yes, but still, are we not entitled, as Catholics, to a properly said, valid and licit Mass that is free of abuses?

Yes, we ARE entitled to a properly said, valid and licit Mass that is free of abuses.

The hierarchical offices exist by Christ’s command…to serve and protect US. Thank God the Holy Father takes this VERY seriously!

 

[paramedicgirl]

In my opinion we are not entitled to that! That is a right that we have been gifted with. Whomever withholds this right from us is in a state of sin.

Again, this is just my understanding.

Isn’t it one and the same thing? If you have a right to something, are you not entitled to it?

 

[TNT]

…
And another thing, as long as we’re going back to past events, let’s go back and focus on all those who have tried to undermine Trent in the past 40 years. Wasn’t that council just as important as Vatican II?

NO.
Once the last participant of an Ecumenical Council bites the dust, it is no longer part of the LIVING Tradition. It becomes “True at that time” only.
In about 13 more years VATII will no longer be part of the LIVING Tradition either.
So, IS becomes SUBSISTS, then in the future it will become “PARTICIPATES”. Then to become “is also a part of”.

 

[Cristiano]

Isn’t it one and the same thing? If you have a right to something, are you not entitled to it?

You are partially correct and I was wrong. They are not one and the same thing. A right includes entitlement but not vice versa. I should have said " we are not just entitled" I wanted to put the emphasis on the fact that a valid and licit Mass is due to us.

 

[laudamus_te]

The SSPX church is not in schism. However that does not mean that it is fine to attend an SSPX Mass. It has been forbidden by Rome and is a sin (barring emergency situations).

Not true. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos of ED has stated on several occasions, and as recently as this past February, that the faithful MAY ATTEND mass at SSPX chapels, and moreover they may contribute financially. The Cardinal is speaking for the Pope. And you must be careful in your wording. It is not the “SSPX Church.” The SSPX has not attempted to establish their own church, and their own pope. The SSPX is a Catholic priestly society established in 1970 with the approval of Rome, and it’s members are priests and religious.

TraditionalCath:

Well, it sounds to me like there were serious issues with the SSPX and Rome that were probably being negotiated and the efforts were just being frustrated on the side of the SSPX.

That’s what it sounds like when you only read one side of the story.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Not true. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos of ED has stated on several occasions, and as recently as this past February, that the faithful MAY ATTEND mass at SSPX chapels, and moreover they may contribute financially. The Cardinal is speaking for the Pope. And you must be careful in your wording. It is not the “SSPX Church.” The SSPX has not attempted to establish their own church, and their own pope. The SSPX is a Catholic priestly society established in 1970 with the approval of Rome, and it’s members are priests and religious.

That’s what it sounds like when you only read one side of the story.

Here’s three paragraphs of the article about Cardinal Hoyas and his statement that the SSPX are not in schism.

Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has repeatedly affirmed that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is not a case of formal schism on at least five separate occasions in public interviews, as recently as March 17 and over the past 2-1/2 years. Msgr. Camille Perl, long-time secretary for the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), has repeatedly affirmed in personal letters that such Catholics incur no penalty and no sin for merely fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation at a church or chapel served by the SSPX.

The primary question this article will attempt to answer, through a reading of “the signs of the times” as the Second Vatican Council encouraged us to do, is what the present attitude and position of the Church is, as viewed through many recent articles and correspondence from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), and particularly, Cardinal Castrillón.

Cardinal Castrillón’s most recent interview with an Italian journalist published on March 17, 2007, repeats this affirmation that while there may be a danger of schism and/or heresy for some priests and bishops within the SSPX, theirs is not a formal schism…

 

[BobP123]

Even with the abuses, the current Mass is both valid and licit.

Same thing the Anglicans said before Pope Leo XIII put his foot down.

 

[BobP123]

NO.
Once the last participant of an Ecumenical Council bites the dust, it is no longer part of the LIVING Tradition. It becomes “True at that time” only.
In about 13 more years VATII will no longer be part of the LIVING Tradition either.
So, IS becomes SUBSISTS, then in the future it will become “PARTICIPATES”. Then to become “is also a part of”.

How come living schisms don’t work the same way?

 

[BobP123]

It is a schismatic group. It put itself into schism by blatant disobedience to the the Pope.

I hope you didn’t hear this from the French bishops. They should watch where they point fingers.

 

[bear06]

But that doesn’t answer my question. What is worse for your soul? Being exposed to irreverence and abuses that can cause you to sin, and change the way you practice your Catholic faith, or going to a reverent, sacred and holy Mass that is illicit?

That really depends on the person. I would pick the one that’s least attractive to you. Sin is still sin no matter how pretty it is and the devil uses what is pretty to us.

 

[Cat]

Is there no “authority” who is part of this Forum who can answer with certainty questions about SSPX, schism, valid/illicit masses, abuses, etc.?

[Edited by Moderator] There are several different opinions on this thread so far, and some of you have posted links to prove your opinion and others have posted no links.

Who am I to believe? Who’s in charge here anyway?

As for what we have a “right” to, from what I read in the Bible and the Catechism, we don’t have a right to anything except death for our sins. We certainly don’t have a “right” to enjoy ourselves here on this earth, although for many of us, the Lord graciously provides us undeserving sinners with many occasions of great joy in our lifetimes, and of course the greatest joy of all, forgiveness for our sins and grace to become saints.

 

[bear06]

Here’s three paragraphs of the article about Cardinal Hoyas and his statement that the SSPX are not in schism.

Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos has repeatedly affirmed that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is not a case of formal schism on at least five separate occasions in public interviews, as recently as March 17 and over the past 2-1/2 years. Msgr. Camille Perl, long-time secretary for the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), has repeatedly affirmed in personal letters that such Catholics incur no penalty and no sin for merely fulfilling one’s Sunday obligation at a church or chapel served by the SSPX.

The primary question this article will attempt to answer, through a reading of “the signs of the times” as the Second Vatican Council encouraged us to do, is what the present attitude and position of the Church is, as viewed through many recent articles and correspondence from the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), and particularly, Cardinal Castrillón.

Cardinal Castrillón’s most recent interview with an Italian journalist published on March 17, 2007, repeats this affirmation that while there may be a danger of schism and/or heresy for some priests and bishops within the SSPX, theirs is not a formal schism…

You will notice that he doesn’t actually give sources for Msgr. Perl or Castillon-Hoyos on Sunday obligation. You will from only find from Msgr. Perl ONE letter to a SPECIFIC person in a SPECIFIC circumstance which he clarified later because everyone was saying it was just peachy to attend the SSPX chapels. It can hardly be said that he said that all could fulfill their Sunday obligation. I don’t think Hoyos has addressed this issue either.

Please just give me one letter or document from the Vatican saying otherwise. It’s quite unbelievable that people are using and interview to back up their cases. If I tried it, I’d never hear the end of it. I also have to laugh because we’re now up to 5 interviews that say that. Really? Where are they? Nobody ever seems to quote the other four.

We do have the schism of Lefebvre. This is found in actual Church documents and letters. sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html We know that people who support this schism are excommunicated. That’s actually found in Church documents and letters too. sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html We also know that we can assume that there are at the minimum some priests who have adhered to the schism. Again, found in Church documents and letters. latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm We know that two of their Sacraments are invalid. This also found in documents and letters.
latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm

So, if one wants to suggest attending a chapel to be a good idea (don’t mean you paramedicgirl) then one would be crazy.:whacky:

 

[BobP123]

You will notice that he doesn’t actually give sources for Msgr. Perl or Castillon-Hoyos on Sunday obligation.

Not necessary. Here are some Canon Laws that may apply:

Can. 844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.

§2 If it is impossible to assist at a eucharistic celebration, either because no sacred minister is available or for some other grave reason, the faithful are strongly recommended to take part in a liturgy of the Word, if there be such in the parish church or some other sacred place, which is celebrated in accordance with the provisions laid down by the diocesan Bishop; or to spend an appropriate time in prayer, whether personally or as a family or, as occasion presents, in a group of families.

 

[bear06]

Not necessary. Here are some Canon Laws that may apply:

Are you saying they aren’t Catholic?! I don’t think you are.

The only time the Vatican has quoted canon 844.2 in regards to the SSPX (at least that I know of) is here ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX.HTM with the clarification that

The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called “Tridentine” Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

Have they ever quoted the other one? They might have, it’s just not coming to mind.

 

[paramedicgirl]

That really depends on the person. I would pick the one that’s least attractive to you. Sin is still sin no matter how pretty it is and the devil uses what is pretty to us.

But if one leads you to becoming a heretic, and the other leads you to greater reverence and love of God, which one is more damning to your soul?

 

[bear06]

But if one leads you to becoming a heretic, and the other leads you to greater reverence and love of God, which one is more damning to your soul?

It would seem that either one would lead some to reject Pastor Aeternus. Again, pick the one less likely to get sucked into. I’m not attracted to the liberal in the least. I can attend there and have no trouble rejecting the foolishness. It’s not attractive to me in anyway. Once again, all that glitters is not gold. People have to stop and ask themselves “How’s the devil going to try and get me?” For most here, the devil isn’t going to get them via liturgical dancing.

 

[TNT]

How come living schisms don’t work the same way?

Of course they do!
The Lutherans are no longer under the DEAD Trent Tradition of anathema.
The EO are no longer under the DEAD Florence Tradition of anathema of schism.
Both proclaimed by the LIVING Traditions of the post VATII church.
SSPX is the Only LIVING Tradition of 1984 anathema of schism.
And as many have posted, when all that’s left of the SSPX are people born into it, that will be removed as well.
Time makes any non-catholic religion holier, and in fact becomes a working of the Holy Spirit unto salvation. That’s the real LIVING Tradition of EENS. No salvation outside the Church. BUT, eventually EVERYONE is part of the church.