Pushed to the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter DorianGregorian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DorianGregorian

Guest
I feel as though I have almost been pushed to at least trying to attend an SSPX Mass.

I have considered myself faithful to the Church, but at a recent (NO) Mass I attended, I was denied Communion on the tongue, forced to receive on the hand, and forced to receive multiple hosts (because the Church will be closed for awhile). Even though I explained I had a right to receive on the tongue, I was told “don’t argue, the Priest is the boss at the altar” No! Christ is the Head at the altar!

Why bother attending Indult masses when the Dioceses are just as rebellious?

Laus Deo
 
Why join the rebelliousness by going to a schismatic group? It may seem more reverent at SSPX, but it is just another form of abuse against our Mother the Church; albeit not a liturgical abuse, but rather one of disobedience in the areas of holy orders and the recognition of Vatican II.
 
DorianGregorian said:
I feel as though I have almost been pushed to at least trying to attend an SSPX Mass.

I have considered myself faithful to the Church, but at a recent (NO) Mass I attended, I was denied Communion on the tongue, forced to receive on the hand, and forced to receive multiple hosts (because the Church will be closed for awhile). Even though I explained I had a right to receive on the tongue, I was told “don’t argue, the Priest is the boss at the altar” No! Christ is the Head at the altar!

Why bother attending Indult masses when the Dioceses are just as rebellious?

Laus Deo
Click to expand...
Surely you can find another parish with this problem. I have never been to a liturgy where at least some did not receive on the tongue. This problem has other solutions without going off the deep end.
 
DorianGregorian said:
I feel as though I have almost been pushed to at least trying to attend an SSPX Mass.
Click to expand...
I hear you. I don’t have the statistics but I would bet that receiving in the hand is way up there as one of the reasons driving people to attend SSPX.

It appears that the SSPX Mass (or any other Mass, for that matter) is okay to attend if this is the case.
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.
Click to expand...
However, if you can find an FSSP or ICR or Cantian Mass, you might do a little better. There are also some OF Masses which are celebrated with people receiving only at the communion rail as well.
 
DorianGregorian said:
I feel as though I have almost been pushed to at least trying to attend an SSPX Mass.

I have considered myself faithful to the Church, but at a recent (NO) Mass I attended, I was denied Communion on the tongue, forced to receive on the hand, and forced to receive multiple hosts (because the Church will be closed for awhile). Even though I explained I had a right to receive on the tongue, I was told “don’t argue, the Priest is the boss at the altar” No! Christ is the Head at the altar!

Why bother attending Indult masses when the Dioceses are just as rebellious?

Laus Deo
Click to expand...
we are obedient to Christ when we obey His priests and the Church… the SSPX is disobedient and so is not pleasing to God, not matter how much more reverent they are than the NO Masses. If you want to attend an EF Mass, what about the FSSP? 🙂 they are fully accepted by the Church.

our job as Catholics is to follow the bishops. My bishop told everyone to receive in the hand for now… (because of swine flu)
and though I prefer receiving on the tongue, I’m obeying until he says otherwise.

This is what the Saints did.

God bless
 
DorianGregorian said:
I feel as though I have almost been pushed to at least trying to attend an SSPX Mass.

I have considered myself faithful to the Church, but at a recent (NO) Mass I attended, I was denied Communion on the tongue, forced to receive on the hand, and forced to receive multiple hosts (because the Church will be closed for awhile). Even though I explained I had a right to receive on the tongue, I was told “don’t argue, the Priest is the boss at the altar” No! Christ is the Head at the altar!

Why bother attending Indult masses when the Dioceses are just as rebellious?

Laus Deo
Click to expand...
Dorian, I would find another Parish to go to, but I would also speak to the priest or Eucharistic Minister that did this and ask him why, nicely. If I didn’t get a satisfactory answer, I would then contact your Bishop, and tell him the situation. This sounds totally weird, especially getting more than one Host!

Going to the SSPX is not the answer, as they are still not in communion with the Pope and don’t believe that he is a valid one. There were many misconceptions after Vatican !! but don’t blame the Church for that. That is the fault of many zealous bishops and priests that went “overboard”.

I was away from the Church for many years because of this but recently returned about 5 years ago. Don’t let this happen to you! I know that New York has many parishes, unless you live in the Rochester area where I understand there is a shortage of priests.
God Bless!
 
utah_rose said:
Dorian, I would find another Parish to go to, but I would also speak to the priest or Eucharistic Minister that did this and ask him why, nicely. If I didn’t get a satisfactory answer, I would then contact your Bishop, and tell him the situation. This sounds totally weird, especially getting more than one Host!

Going to the SSPX is not the answer, as they are still not in communion with the Pope and don’t believe that he is a valid one. There were many misconceptions after Vatican !! but don’t blame the Church for that. That is the fault of many zealous bishops and priests that went “overboard”.

I was away from the Church for many years because of this but recently returned about 5 years ago. Don’t let this happen to you! I know that New York has many parishes, unless you live in the Rochester area where I understand there is a shortage of priests.
God Bless!
Click to expand...
Just wanted to point out that whatever their faults, and, like all of us, they do have them, the SSPX does recognize Benedict XVI as a valid pope and current Vicar of Christ. Why would they be having the current talks with the Vatican if they thought he wasn’t the pope? One real question we might raise is what is true obedience and are the SSPX truly obedient to the man they recognize as Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church. Were the excommunications lifted? Yes. Are they in full communion with the Church? If you pay attention to Pope Benedict XVI, you have to say the answer is no.
 
preV2tradcath said:
Just wanted to point out that whatever their faults, and, like all of us, they do have them, the SSPX does recognize Benedict XVI as a valid pope and current Vicar of Christ. Why would they be having the current talks with the Vatican if they thought he wasn’t the pope? One real question we might raise is what is true obedience and are the SSPX truly obedient to the man they recognize as Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church. Were the excommunications lifted? Yes. Are they in full communion with the Church? If you pay attention to Pope Benedict XVI, you have to say the answer is no.
Click to expand...
Just a point of semantics maybe but is it fair to call all the priests “disobedient”? There is no doubt the four bishops are, but are the priests? They are definitely in suspension but any priest can be placed on suspension for any reason, not necessarily because he is disobedient.

Just asking. I’m not looking for an argument.
 
ProVobis said:
Just a point of semantics maybe but is it fair to call all the priests “disobedient”? There is no doubt the four bishops are, but are the priests? They are definitely in suspension but any priest can be placed on suspension for any reason, not necessarily because he is disobedient.

Just asking. I’m not looking for an argument.
Click to expand...
Good point. The poster before me seemed to think that they do not recognize Pope Benedict XVI as the current validly regining pontiff. To the best of my knowledge they actually do. I was just trying to point out a possible area where Catholics might have legitimate questions or concerns about the Society.
 
preV2tradcath said:
Good point. The poster before me seemed to think that they do not recognize Pope Benedict XVI as the current validly regining pontiff. To the best of my knowledge they actually do. I was just trying to point out a possible area where Catholics might have legitimate questions or concerns about the Society.
Click to expand...
The questions about the SSPX and your situation are very different.

Let’s stick to your situation. I have no idea why the person distributing communion would not give you communion on the tongue, unless he was ordered not to do so by his bishop… It’s the only thing that comes to mind. Normally, that is not denied to anyone.

As to several hosts, if the parish is closing, then it is legitimate to give several hosts to each communicant. The hosts must be consumed. They cannot be left in the tabernacle, because they should not be paraded down the street to the next parish, if there is no need to do so. It is OK for you to thelp by consuming several hosts at one time.

As to the other, I don’t know the answer. But you can go to another parish. By the way, is the closing permanent or for repairs or what?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
The questions about the SSPX and your situation are very different.

Let’s stick to your situation. I have no idea why the person distributing communion would not give you communion on the tongue, unless he was ordered not to do so by his bishop… It’s the only thing that comes to mind. Normally, that is not denied to anyone.

As to several hosts, if the parish is closing, then it is legitimate to give several hosts to each communicant. The hosts must be consumed. They cannot be left in the tabernacle, because they should not be paraded down the street to the next parish, if there is no need to do so. It is OK for you to thelp by consuming several hosts at one time.

As to the other, I don’t know the answer. But you can go to another parish. By the way, is the closing permanent or for repairs or what?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
The OP will have to answer that question. I was just responding to something utah rose said about the SSPX. Hopefully, I didn’t misunderstand her.
 
ProVobis said:
Just a point of semantics maybe but is it fair to call all the priests “disobedient”? There is no doubt the four bishops are, but are the priests? They are definitely in suspension but any priest can be placed on suspension for any reason, not necessarily because he is disobedient.

Just asking. I’m not looking for an argument.
Click to expand...
It could be argued that such priests are aware of the situation between the SSPX movement and the Church (and that it is not in full union with the Church) and that by supporting the SSPX movement they are cooperating in the disobedience.
 
thistle said:
It could be argued that such priests are aware of the situation between the SSPX movement and the Church (and that it is not in full union with the Church) and that by supporting the SSPX movement they are cooperating in the disobedience.
Click to expand...
Actually, this was exactly what the Vatican said. If one is aware of the situation and one has no need to attend an SSPX mass to fulfill their Sunday obligation, then one is simply supporting the movement. I’m paraphrasing a very long paragraph.

We have to be charitable here. This is not a statement of condemantion or judgment of any member of the SSPX. It is about the movement, not about individuals. I’ve met some very wonderful SSPX priests. We have agreed to agree (does that sound redundant?) that the movement and their faculties is what is in question, not their person.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Actually, this was exactly what the Vatican said. If one is aware of the situation and one has no need to attend an SSPX mass to fulfill their Sunday obligation, then one is simply supporting the movement. I’m paraphrasing a very long paragraph.

We have to be charitable here. This is not a statement of condemantion or judgment of any member of the SSPX. It is about the movement, not about individuals. I’ve met some very wonderful SSPX priests. We have agreed to agree (does that sound redundant?) that the movement and their faculties is what is in question, not their person.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
And what about the biggest movement of all. Those Roman Rite priests and Bishops who are trying for find all kinds of ways and excuses to stop the progress of the Extra-Ordinary Form and the Reform of the Reform. Do you think this new translation of the NO Mass is going to stop the priests and Bishops from communion in the hand and facing the people during Mass. And you talk about being charitable JR. When they become charitable many traditionalists will become charitable. Were not stupid, like they want us to think!.
 
bkovacs said:
And what about the biggest movement of all. Those Roman Rite priests and Bishops who are trying for find all kinds of ways and excuses to stop the progress of the Extra-Ordinary Form and the Reform of the Reform. Do you think this new translation of the NO Mass is going to stop the priests and Bishops from communion in the hand and facing the people during Mass. And you talk about being charitable JR. When they become charitable many traditionalists will become charitable. Were not stupid, like they want us to think!.
Click to expand...
The new translation is for the Ordinary Form. The form is not going to change, the wording of some of the prayers and prefaces are. Therefore, the priest will continue to face the people. That’s what the Holy Father wants. He does not want to do away with the Ordinary Form. He wants to fix the errors in translation and the nonsense that people added to it. But he does not want to change the form. Summorum Pontificum was very clear, both forms are the true forms of the Roman Rite. In the Holy Father’s mind we have to accept both the EF and the OF as having the same value, holiness and place in the Roman Rite. They are not in competition with each other.

As to communion in the hand, he has already indicated that the indult will remain in place for those conferences of bishops that want to use it.

There is not lack of charity here. These are just the way things are.

What is uncharitable is the attack on people’s motives and their person.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
\I have considered myself faithful to the Church, but at a recent (NO) Mass I attended, I was denied Communion on the tongue, forced to receive on the hand, and forced to receive multiple hosts (because the Church will be closed for awhile).\

**Why are you complaining about being “forced” to receive several hosts? Is this such a horrible thing: to assist the Priest in making sure that the Reserved Sacrament will not corrupt, or even worse, be treated to sacrilege?

Normally, I receive on the tongue at a Latin Church. But if the Priest needed my help in consuming the Holy Gifts, I would do so. Obviously, receiving on the hand would be the best way in this case.

I might add that occasionally, the local Melkite priest might give me or others two pieces of the Precious Body to make sure it all gets consumed. I don’t feel “forced” in this at all.

So why does the Priest needing your help in consuming the Gifts mean that you are being “pushed” to the SSPX? Sounds to me like you already had your mind made up and you were simply looking for an excuse to go to them.

I might add that, according to a priest I know in the SSPX, sedevacantist attitudes are too wide-spread among its clergy–to this priest’s sorrow.**
 
JReducation said:
The new translation is for the Ordinary Form. The form is not going to change, the wording of some of the prayers and prefaces are. Therefore, the priest will continue to face the people. That’s what the Holy Father wants. He does not want to do away with the Ordinary Form. He wants to fix the errors in translation and the nonsense that people added to it. But he does not want to change the form. Summorum Pontificum was very clear, both forms are the true forms of the Roman Rite. In the Holy Father’s mind we have to accept both the EF and the OF as having the same value, holiness and place in the Roman Rite. They are not in competition with each other.

As to communion in the hand, he has already indicated that the indult will remain in place for those conferences of bishops that want to use it.

There is not lack of charity here. These are just the way things are.

What is uncharitable is the attack on people’s motives and their person.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
I thought the Pope wanted his priests to face God (East). ad-Orientum. So not as to form a closed circle, like the pagans do.
 
bkovacs said:
I thought the Pope wanted his priests to face God (East). ad-Orientum. So not as to form a closed circle, like the pagans do.
Click to expand...
No, he wants both forms, facing the people and also facing ad orientum. He does not consider it paganism. He considers both forms equally holy. This was in SP. Facing the people is to remain the ordinary way of celebrating the mass. Facing ad orientem is to be extraordinary, meaning not the usual. These are his own words, not mine or those of any theologian. Both are valid and both are holy.

What he wants is to see the nonsense go away. Have you ever watched the mass on EWTN? That’s how he wants the OF of the mass celebrated, in either Latin or the vernacular.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
No, he wants both forms, facing the people and also facing ad orientum. He does not consider it paganism. He considers both forms equally holy. This was in SP. Facing the people is to remain the ordinary way of celebrating the mass. Facing ad orientem is to be extraordinary, meaning not the usual. These are his own words, not mine or those of any theologian. Both are valid and both are holy.

What he wants is to see the nonsense go away. Have you ever watched the mass on EWTN? That’s how he wants the OF of the mass celebrated, in either Latin or the vernacular.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
No JR Wrong!. The Ordinary Form can have both, with the ad-orientum preferred. The Extra-Ordinary Form only has ad-orientum. It is the liberal Bishops who only want ad-orientum in the Extra-Ordinary Form and not the Ordinary Form.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top