Okay to attend an SSPX Mass if

[Cecilianus]

Thank you for acknowledging that. Many would disagree with you as the common perception is that it’s an irreversible ‘doctrine’ defined by V2.

However, you make ecumenism sound as if it’s just a tool in the apologist’s bag of tricks to get non-Catholics into the Catholic Church. Does the ecumenically minded protestant have the same understanding of ecumenism as you do?

I’m not so sure your view of ecumenism is in line with, not only the current practice, but with Vatican guidelines such as the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism? which states, among many other things, "At times, local Ordinaries, Synods of Eastern Catholic Churches and Episcopal Conferences **may find it necessary to take special measures to overcome the dangers of **indifferentism or proselytism."

Your wanting to ‘evangelize’ could very well be a danger to the ecumenical process. You might want to review the above mentioned document to make sure you’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing.

Yes, and the attempts of reconcilation with the Easter Churches (ie. at Florence Lyons II etc.) can hardly be compared with the modern notion of ‘ecumenism’. Never before have the laity been given the license currently allowed to participate in non-Catholic common prayer and other ecumenical “activities”- it was always something unheard of and forbidden. You didn’t see Bishops and Popes holding hands with the eastern Patriarchs, reciting common prayers and holding common prayer meetings as a result of the attempts at reunification unless that reunification was well within the walls of the Catholic Church. The former attempts at such unity were clearly and undeniably an ‘ecumenism of return’ and not of convergence.

Modern-day ecumenism IS supposed to be an “ecumenism of return”. Cardinal Kaspar is notoriously unorthodox in many respects, and whoever wrote the document you quoted clearly didn’t know what he was talking about. Yes, proselytism can **** off some schismatics - but what we’re trying to do with ecumenical dialogue is proselytize them by the millions instead of just by individual converts. And part of the way that we are going to “proselytize them by the millions” is by encouraging them to love us. (Wasn’t it Chesterton who said that all a non-Catholic has to do is look at the Church fairly and he’s already 95% converted? In his book Heretics, I think.) That includes praying with them, and even saying Divine Liturgy side by side. (There is only one Mass and one Eucharist, and since the Orthodox Churches have retained apostolic succession and valid Masses, they partake of the same communion - and offer the same sacrifice - that we do.)

And you’re underestimating the work we’ve done in getting Protestants to accept Catholic truth - like when the Anglicans acknowledged the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Lutheran World Federation formally admitted to salvation by works and prayer to the saints. They’re not converted yet, but they’re a lot closer. If we can at least cool the flames of “no popery”, then their hearts will have a major roadblock to accepting the Faith knocked down.

 

[Cecilianus]

How can anyone find fault with those who see a ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ and why do so many see V2 this way? Obviously, at face value, it certainly appears that there has been a rupture, and the Pope ackowledges that.

Because the Ecumenical Councils of the Church are authoritative expressions of the Magisterium. The indefectibility of the Church prevents any council ratified by the Holy Father from going astray - indeed, Tradition teaches that all councils are guided by the Holy Spirit. I see no difference between heretics who accept all the Councils of the Church up to Chalcedon, the heretics (Eastern Orthodox) who accept all of the Councils of the Church up to 1054 A.D., the heretics (Old Catholics) who accept all of the Councils of the Church up to Vatican I, and the heretics (the Lefebvrites) who accept all of the Councils of the Church up to Vatican II. Catholicism is an all-or-nothing deal; “cafeteria Catholicism” is not an option, and this is what the “hermaneutic of rupture” teaches (by trying to separate and deny Vatican II from the Tradition of the Church).

The “appearance” is on the part of heretics and liberals. The “spirit of Vatican II” got out of control due to modern media reports of what was going on. The “hermeneutic of rupture” was something they came up with - if you take the time to read the documents you’d almost think you were reading something Lefebvre wrote. How can you, as a traditional Catholic, grant such a major concession to dissenting liberals?

 

[Cecilianus]

The text I quoted above, found in The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, was promulgated with the understanding that the teaching on ‘religious liberty’ was to be further studied and interpreted but yet the opposite has happened, apart from the efforts of the SSPX, and the majority accept it word for word as ‘superdogma’.

I have never seen the SSPX study or interpret Dignitatis Humanae in a way compatible with the Catholic Faith. They do not try to show how it is compatible with and enlightens us regarding previous Papal pronouncements on religious freedom. They simply reject it as heresy.

Meanwhile, the orthodox Church has studied and interpreted the document as you asked. Read John Paul II’s encyclical Redemptor Hominis, for example.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

… and whoever wrote the document you quoted clearly didn’t know what he was talking about.

The document I quoted was the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism which is an official Vatican document on how to implement ecumenism according to the directives of V2.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html

You might be a material schismatic

Yes, proselytism can **** off some schismatics - but what we’re trying to do with ecumenical dialogue is proselytize them by the millions instead of just by individual converts. And part of the way that we are going to “proselytize them by the millions” is by encouraging them to love us. (Wasn’t it Chesterton who said that all a non-Catholic has to do is look at the Church fairly and he’s already 95% converted? In his book Heretics, I think.) That includes praying with them, and even saying Divine Liturgy side by side. (There is only one Mass and one Eucharist, and since the Orthodox Churches have retained apostolic succession and valid Masses, they partake of the same communion - and offer the same sacrifice - that we do.)

Your notion is truly praiseworthy but I think while you were off with halo overhead and sword in hand you failed to notice the Vatican exit stage left.

And you’re underestimating the work we’ve done in getting Protestants to accept Catholic truth - like when the Anglicans acknowledged the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Lutheran World Federation formally admitted to salvation by works and prayer to the saints. They’re not converted yet, but they’re a lot closer. If we can at least cool the flames of “no popery”, then their hearts will have a major roadblock to accepting the Faith knocked down.

You cite lofty examples of ecumenism at work (some of which are questionable as to who agreed to what such as the joint declaration on justification) but this was the work of higher-ups and not the fruit of your local neighboorhood ecumenical prayer gathering. At a smaller local level there is a very real occassion of sin and tendency towards syncretism and/or indifferentism.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

I have never seen the SSPX study or interpret Dignitatis Humanae in a way compatible with the Catholic Faith. They do not try to show how it is compatible with and enlightens us regarding previous Papal pronouncements on religious freedom. They simply reject it as heresy.

On the contrary Cecilianus, their opposition to such ambiguity or apparent contradiction has opened the way to doctrinal discussion on the very topic, among others. There is a genuine need for clarification.

 

[Norminha]

What is SSPX?
If it was an acronym, please spell it out to avoid confusions, if not, is it a new division within the Church of Jesus Christ?
Thank you
Norminha.

 

[iluvburpees]

What is SSPX?
If it was an acronym, please spell it out to avoid confusions, if not, is it a new division within the Church of Jesus Christ?
Thank you
Norminha.

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q1_sspx.htm

 

[ProVobis]

Look at their web page where they explain why they think it’s not okay to attend FSSP Masses.

I’ve visited a few non-SSPX websites that don’t think much of the FSSP and ICR Masses either; I ignore those too. In fact, I might go out of my way just to attend FSSP or ICR Masses because of it. It’s called negative advertising and it usually backfires.

 

[Norminha]

I’ve visited a few non-SSPX websites that don’t think much of the FSSP and ICR Masses either; I ignore those too. In fact, I might go out of my way just to attend FSSP or ICR Masses because of it. It’s called negative advertising and it usually backfires.

What do you mean by the above statement, specially FSSP and ICR . I apologize for still question about this matter but now that I know it refers to the sad reality of Fr. Lafevre, I need to know as where is the Holy Father with respect to the re-union of these brothers who once separated themselves from the successor of Peter.
As a responsible Catholic I need to be well informed regarding the progress of the work our beloved JPII started in 1988.
We need to continue to pray for all our priest to be protected from the snares of the devil.
Thank you for the information, I just didn’t associate the society to its acronym. I was a Catholic school student and very young when it happened.
God bless!

 

[Cecilianus]

What do you mean by the above statement, specially FSSP and ICR . I apologize for still question about this matter but now that I know it refers to the sad reality of Fr. Lafevre, I need to know as where is the Holy Father with respect to the re-union of these brothers who once separated themselves from the successor of Peter.
As a responsible Catholic I need to be well informed regarding the progress of the work our beloved JPII started in 1988.
We need to continue to pray for all our priest to be protected from the snares of the devil.
Thank you for the information, I just didn’t associate the society to its acronym. I was a Catholic school student and very young when it happened.
God bless!

The Holy Father’s stance on the SSPX:

1. While “Cardinal Ratzinger”, he gave his theological opinion to John Paul II that Vatican II had never forbidden the Tridentine Mass and that it should be unnecessary to ask priests to get indults from their bishop. (The indults were instituted after the SSPX’s excommunication, in order to ensure that there was proper oversight over the priests saying the Tridentine Mass - but the SSPX was excommunicated not for saying the Latin Mass, but for performing illicit episcopal consecrations.)
2. As soon as he became Pope Benedict XVI, he abolished the indults and liberalized access to the Tridentine Mass for everyone, even establishing Ecclesia Dei in charge of enforcing it.
3. And then he lifted their excommunications.

However,

1. The SSPX priests are still suspended, and do not have jurisdictions. The Holy Father warned Bishop Fellay that any consecrations to the priesthood they would perform would be illicit, and that they must stop.
2. They still need to conform to the conditions Rome set for their rehabilitation, mainly involving accepting Vatican II. Their website as of today still has quite questionable material, defending Archbishop Lefebvre’s indefensible disobedience to the Holy Father and warnings that Catholics should avoid the Masses given by the FSSP (a group of SSPX priests who left the SSPX - but who still say the TLM - when they were excommunicated in order to retain their standing as good Catholics) in order not to “compromise”. One sentence sums it up: “They [the FSSP] are Conciliar Catholics and not traditional Catholics”. So long as the SSPX regards any acceptance of the Council whatsoever as being apostasy, they themselves are heretics.

Furthermore, there are many other questionable claims on the SSPX’s FAQ pages, such as where they warn their flock to avoid any contact with “apostate family members” (including “Conciliar Catholics”) except for the purpose of converting them.

1. Pope Benedict XVI was a Father of the Second Vatican Council, and his pontificate is quite openly grounded in the principles and theology of the Council. He is a theologian - and the main purpose of Vatican II, according to Ratzinger’s Memoirs (entitled Milestones), was to enable the theological expression of the Faith through a medium other than the old Aristotelianism which is simply incapable of engaging with or being understood by the modern world - and he helped found the journal Communio. He gave back our access to the TLM because he thought that that was the genuine expression of conciliar theology, and not the “Novus Ordo”. (In his memoirs, he states quite clearly his dismay at the introduction of the Novus Ordo four years after the close of the council, and the degree to which he did not believe that it expressed perfect continuity with the Council’s work.)

 

[Geremia]

I struggle with Dignitatis Humanæ so much, so I encourage you to help me with it. Thanks

“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).

So why the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral? I know the deposit of the faith cannot change, but can the Magisterium?

Have you ever read the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2108 and 2109? Or do you consider it “modernist” and to be avoided? Something tells me you’d view it as the latter. So here it is: 2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,* (37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799)*** but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right (Pius XII, 6 December 1953).

“The right to religious liberty is …] a natural right of the human person to civil liberty.” What is “civil liberty” here? It seems true civil liberty would only exist in a Catholic theocracy; how could it exist, then, if one has the freedom to choose something else besides Catholicism?

2109 * The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner (Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura* 3). The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good,Only a mediocre “common good” could exist outside of a Catholic theocracy.
DavidJoseph;5582131:

and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order.” (cf Pío IX, enc. “Quanta cura”).

So now you can see. The “modernist” Catechism of the Catholic Church goes to Quanta Cura and keep its teaching alive. There’s no moral freedom to choose a religion. All is about a political freedom so Communist states don’t impose anti-God teaching. “In order to be faithful to the divine command, “teach all nations” (Matt. 28:19-20), the Catholic Church must work with all urgency and concern “that the word of God be spread abroad and glorified” (2 Thess. 3:1). Hence the Church earnestly begs of its children that, “first of all, supplications, prayers, petitions, acts of thanksgiving be made for all men… For this is good and agreeable in the sight of God our Savior, who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1-4). In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. (35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself.

Christ the King is the origin of the moral law, not humans. This seems to contain the Modernist idea of immanence.

Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, “in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth” (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood” (Dignitatis Humanae).