Pushed to the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter DorianGregorian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JReducation said:
If they disobey the law, we can’t call it anything else, except disobedience.

Heck, we do that with our children. I hope we love our children more than we love the SSPX priests. But we call our children disobedient and yet we do not cease loving them.
Click to expand...
JR, true, but the word “disobey” is a transitive verb. It requires an object. Not always is the object understood clearly and we tend to be rather loose with the word here on the CA forum. In your example, the disobedience is against the parents. But disobedience can also be against civil law or church law (as you cited earlier) and we need to distinguish between the objects. The Archbishop had authorization to promote priests to bishops but he directly disobeyed the Pope or the Pope’s legitimate representatives, which happened to be Cardinal Ratzinger at the time, if I’m correct. Now that I’ve read some of the later posts, I see the SSPX priests have disobeyed Church laws but they are still obedient to their bishops. I can be obedient to my parents and disobedient to civil law at the same time, can’t I?
 
Yeah, but I understand the POV of the OP…if there are no viable choices…which some Diocese do not offer any…then if forced to choose, I will choose the SSPX over clowns and sugar cookies any day…at least the Host is Consecrated Validly
surritter said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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...
Find another church that is faithful to the magisterium.

Pope Benedict has made it clear that his wish is that we receive on the tongue.(He won’t administer the host any other way)

Don’t let one liberal priest steal your joy!
 
Yeah…I agree, and furthermore, why are the SSPX always labeled as disobedient, while a great number of Priest, Bishops, and even Cardinals do a wide array of things in blatant disobedience to the Church, however they are just progressives and Rome needs to see it there way! What a joke
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...
 
JReducation said:
As to supplied jurisdiction that was denied to the SSPX by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI has not reinstated it. The pope is the last judge of canon law. There is the law and there is the judge who interprets the law.
Click to expand...
Supplied jurisdiction is not something that is granted or revoked by the Pope - otherwise that would be ordinary jurisdiction. SJ is a spiritual contingency plan which comes from the Divine Law; the salvation of souls as well as the principle of epikia.

The Church supplies jurisdiction on a variety of different grounds - not just in danger of death. One of which is canon 1335:

*Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. ***If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.

I would not encourage confessing to SSPX except for out of necessity but there are many people who cannot confess to their local NO Priests for a ton of different reasons. We drive over an hour to be able to confess to a FSSP Priest. The local Priests (at all three parishes) have done everything under the sun from recommending birth control in the confessional to my wife, used questionable forms of absolution, or have given highly questionable advice. Not everyone is able to deal with this sort of thing by filtering it out and it does great harm to souls who feel they can trust their confessors only to be led astray. It would certainly be a just cause in light of the above to seek the sacrament of Confession from SSPX and it would be justified under canon law.

Our FSSP Priest has even told us we could confess to SSPX and it would be legit. When we asked him about jurisdiction he back pedaled a little (probably because he didn’t think we knew much about it) and said, “Well, I wouldn’t make a habit out of it but certainly out of necessity - if you’re in a state of mortal sin.” - There’s that for what it’s worth.
 
RosaryCrusader said:
I would not encourage confessing to SSPX except for out of necessity.
Click to expand...
RC – I think we’ve established that absolution from an SSPX priest is not absolution at all – not just illicit, but invalid. (See previous posts.)
 
It would be valid in the case of an extreme emergency and no other Priest were available to hear a confession
surritter said:
RC – I think we’ve established that absolution from an SSPX priest is not absolution at all – not just illicit, but invalid. (See previous posts.)
Click to expand...
 
OK, that’s right. So the “out of necessity” phrase clears it up: danger of death.
 
Ok, honest question here:

I know that we cannot attend an SSPX Mass with the intent of being schismatic, but what if someone attends because they simply enjoy being there more? The Mass is still valid (although illicit), right?
 
damooster said:
Ok, honest question here:

I know that we cannot attend an SSPX Mass with the intent of being schismatic, but what if someone attends because they simply enjoy being there more? The Mass is still valid (although illicit), right?
Click to expand...
I think it would be wrong in that you are supporting a schismatic movement. It might not be a personal sin, but it is what Catholic moral theologians might call scandal.
 
Yes, yes, I have heard all the arguments about how you can go to the SSPX for Mass, but
why not go to an Eastern Catholic Church? There is no doubt about their jurisdiction for confessions and their priests are not suspended. Every Catholic is free to go to Mass in any rite of the Church. Why would anyone even consider the SSPX if they can get to an Eastern Church?
 
surritter said:
RC – I think we’ve established that absolution from an SSPX priest is not absolution at all – not just illicit, but invalid. (See previous posts.)
Click to expand...
You didn’t read all of my post or the posts that link to Salza’s article which deal with supplied jurisdiction. If their confessions were invalid then they would’ve made the whole Campos Diocese, The island of Papa Stronsay, as well as GSI and their adherents perform general confessions but Rome has never requested it. Keep in mind that Rome cannot acknowledge supplied jurisdiction with the SSPX without incriminating themselves in the process so you can rest assured you’ll never see anything official on this until after the tribulation in the Church subsides. But you can certainly see an acknowledgment of SJ in the case of the groups mentioned above being regularized.
surritter said:
OK, that’s right. So the “out of necessity” phrase clears it up: danger of death.
Click to expand...
No, that’s one out of several when SJ kicks in. The other would be common error, for any “just cause” (see the canon I mentioned above) or in a state of necessity.
 
damooster said:
Ok, honest question here:

I know that we cannot attend an SSPX Mass with the intent of being schismatic, but what if someone attends because they simply enjoy being there more? The Mass is still valid (although illicit), right?
Click to expand...
The Ecclesia Dei commission has said you can attend out of love for the Mass and it fulfills your Sunday obligation, that you can give a modest amount in the collection basket etc and it’s fine.

As a side note: the Vatican has consistently said that the SSPX is not in a state of schism and this was said when the excommunications were still in place. Now that the excommunications are lifted it’s even less so.

(read the renewamerica links provided above written by Brian Mershon)
 
Tradycja said:
Every Catholic is free to go to Mass in any rite of the Church. Why would anyone even consider the SSPX if they can get to an Eastern Church?
Click to expand...
I think you just answered your own question: because " Every Catholic is free to go to Mass in any rite of the Church."
 
utah_rose said:
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.
Click to expand...
Rosey sweetheart,

Perhaps before you submit your 18th post to this board, you’ll do some research on the subject so that you don’t look like an absolute idiot in the future.

Next time God tells you what is not pleasing to Him, you might want to ask Him about Communion in the hand.
 
giuseppeTO said:
Rosey sweetheart,

Perhaps before you submit your 18th post to this board, you’ll do some research on the subject so that you don’t look like an absolute idiot in the future.

Next time God tells you what is not pleasing to Him, you might want to ask Him about Communion in the hand.
Click to expand...
Hey – easy on the name-calling Giuseppe.
:tsktsk:
 
All I am saying is that using the same principle as Pascal’s Wager I would rather go to the Eastern Catholic Church because there is no doubt about it at all by anyone. That is what I would do if I were in the situation of the original poster asking the question.

I don’t have this problem because I have access to Eastern Churches, Motarian TLMs, and High Church Novus Ordos.
 
surritter said:
Hey – easy on the name-calling Giuseppe.
:tsktsk:
Click to expand...
It was the kindest word I could think of to describe someone who would publish a bold-faced falsehood, hopefully out of ignorance. If one is going to accuse a group of folks of the very serious charge of believing the Holy Father to be an anti-pope, they are going to have to put up with being called much worse than ‘idiot’. These sort of “gossipy” declarations by folks as clueless as Rose are exactly what this board does not need.

In all charity, I suggested that she study up on the matter before gossiping so that in the future, no one would think that of her, again assuming she is just uninformed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top