Should I be Catholic or Orthodox?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nonzi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ll try to phrase it this way. Imagine Church as a country. Now there are many people in this country with varying opinions and some elect those candidates for presidency, others elect others. Is that country disunited because people hold elections and they don’t end with 100% votes for one side? I wouldn’t say so. Are those people disunited because they have varying opinions? I wouldn’t say so.

Now imagine that country basically lacks central government and is ruled by council of local politicians. Cool enough. Now one of those local politicians basically says “well I do not respect this dude from capital as a member of council and while he sits there I won’t attend nor pay heed to any decisions you guys make” and goes out. He won’t attend this council, he even claims capital is not in the country anymore! He establishes embassy in the capital because he views them as foreign country now. Capital responds same way and views the local guy’s territory as being foreign. Other local politicians don’t mind and there is no attempt to resolve it other than them taking sides in newspapers and sending letters. Council won’t meet to discuss anything and country is torn apart between who is right, who is wrong and who is in the country and who is not. Yes, majority of country views this as internal dispute but those two sides are acting like each other is outside the country. (allegory for Russia sending Bishops and Priests to territory of Constantinople and being repaid in the same way)

Now which country is more divided?
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
I don’t quite think that is the case.
Click to expand...
SSPX has its own system of granting marriage annulments and they do not just accept the decisions of the Roman Catholic tribunal. You are still married as before the RC annulment according to the SSPX, until of course, their SSPX tribunal decides in your favor and the SSPX tribunals are more strict that the RC tribunals. So if you are divorced and remarried, and they do not accept your annulment, then what?
Check out how they treat annulments with the local SSPX chapter. I don’t think they publicize it too much. although i have seen it discussed in some of their literature.
According to the rules of the Church if you are living in an adulterous relationship, you are not allowed to receive Holy Communion. Not everyone observes this of course.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
their laws do not bind any laity at all.
Click to expand...
They have their own rules which they request that people respect. For example, they have rules posted regarding proper dress in Church for both men and women. Of course, it is possible to find disrespectful people. Although you object that these rules are not binding on “laity”, it has happened, although rarely, that I have seen priests take a woman aside and quietly ask her to dress more modestly in the future.
 
The SSPX chapel & retreat house I’ve occasionally attended in the past both had modesty guidelines posted for men and women.

At the retreat house this was posted on the wall going down the stairs to the chapel:

NOTICE

ALL WOMEN AND GIRLS MUST HAVE THEIR HEADS COVERED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE MOST BLESSED SACRAMENT.

Immediately underneath the sign was a basket with mantillas in it just in case you forgot your mantilla. Oh how I miss retreat (notwithstanding the fact that Fr. Loya said that the whole world is on Lent 😬).
 
Technically, @OrbisNonSufficit is right. Only Catholic clergy can be members of the SSPX. The Brothers and Sisters of the SSPX have their own rules.

However, most of the laity who go to the SSPX follow their rules even if they don’t bind.

Sad to say, at one SSPX church and at retreat I saw women who were not dressed modestly. That’s one of the reasons I stopped going on retreat.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Communion is mark of unity and everyone in Catholic Church is in full communion with all other members (even SSPX actually).
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that?
I’m aware Pope Francis recently made it acceptable to go to SSPX for the Sacrament of Reconciliation, but I was under the impression that one should refrain from receiving the Eucharist from the SSPX, although I’ll admit I’m not 100% on this (more like 95%) so I could be wrong.

Although if the above is true, it would seem we would find ourselves in a very irregular, yet similar (to the EO) situation of not being in (100%) full communion with members of our very own church.

🤔
 
CathBoy1 said:
I’m aware Pope Francis recently made it acceptable to go to SSPX for the Sacrament of Reconciliation, but I was under the impression that one should refrain from receiving the Eucharist from the SSPX, although I’ll admit I’m not 100% on this (more like 95%) so I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Thing is, Sacrament of Reconciliation requires jurisdiction for it’s validity. SSPX lacked jurisdiction and couldn’t administer it validly. Pope Francis granted them this jurisdiction. That’s all, no schism involved neither break of communion. Under normal circumstances Priest can’t administer this Sacrament without having jurisdiction through his Bishop or local Bishop. Pope made it a bit easier for SSPX. They received exception making their Confessions possible … that’s hardly division.

We shouldn’t mistake jurisdiction for communion. No one is claiming that EO lack unity because their Bishops don’t have jurisdiction outside their boundaries and neither do their Churches- that is common canonical practice codified as early as during Council of Nicea for Bishops. Same way fact one Priest could be banned from one diocese and serve in another is practice of jurisdiction. It is literally same (except that Catholic Priests start with being able to hold Confessions everywhere until someone takes that from them afaik, not sure how Orthodoxy works with that). It is a matter of canon law put into exercise and hardly speaks about unity- it simply speaks about local aspect of particular Churches united on universal level and solves how is that exercised.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
For example, they have rules posted regarding proper dress in Church for both men and women.
Click to expand...
We have that at our parish too. It is more of a guideline here though. SSPX have right to formulate their rules like that and people visiting must respect them while at their chapels. Those rules must be purely disciplinary and are binding only for the time people are at their chapels. Though I don’t imagine they deny people communion for dressing inappropriately. It is akin to women needing to cover their heads in Orthodox Churches in Georgia, but in Czech Republic that seems to not be the practice. Not proving disunity in any way in either Church.
AlNg said:
SSPX has its own system of granting marriage annulments and they do not just accept the decisions of the Roman Catholic tribunal.
Click to expand...
Which puts them in irregular status for denying authoritative decisions. At the same time, we ought to obey hierarchy in everything except sin. If indeed annulments are abused, they should try to do something with it. Im not sure if this is exactly the way but in the end this comes from their pastoral duties exercised in their own jurisdiction (chapels). That’s it basically. They are worst example of unity Church has inside it, but yet not comparable to Orthodox breaking communion. Perhaps on level of re-chrismation… perhaps.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Thing is, Sacrament of Reconciliation requires jurisdiction for it’s validity. SSPX lacked jurisdiction and couldn’t administer it validly. Pope Francis granted them this jurisdiction. That’s all, no schism involved neither break of communion. Under normal circumstances Priest can’t administer this Sacrament without having jurisdiction through his Bishop or local Bishop. Pope made it a bit easier for SSPX. They received exception making their Confessions possible … that’s hardly division.

We shouldn’t mistake jurisdiction for communion. No one is claiming that EO lack unity because their Bishops don’t have jurisdiction outside their boundaries and neither do their Churches- that is common canonical practice codified as early as during Council of Nicea for Bishops. Same way fact one Priest could be banned from one diocese and serve in another is practice of jurisdiction. It is literally same (except that Catholic Priests start with being able to hold Confessions everywhere until someone takes that from them afaik, not sure how Orthodoxy works with that). It is a matter of canon law put into exercise and hardly speaks about unity- it simply speaks about local aspect of particular Churches united on universal level and solves how is that exercised
Click to expand...
Ok I think you missed my point, I’m not arguing against going to confession at an SSPX church.

My point is that you claimed we are in full communion with the SSPX and I don’t see how we (the RCC) can make such a claim and yet the faithful cannot licitly receive the Eucharist at an SSPX church.
 
Licitly?? Can you provide a source please, because everything I have came across on the matter has said that while their Eucharist is valid, it would be illicit if received by the faithful (although if one was ignorant on the subject I’m sure they wouldn’t be as culpable).
 
CathBoy1 said:
it would be illicit if received by the faithful (although if one was ignorant on the subject I’m sure they wouldn’t be as culpable)
Click to expand...
It is somewhat complicated, but from this forum I am quite sure that one can even fulfill their Sunday obligation as SSPX parish. Would make no sense if one couldn’t commune there. Reason is that we are indeed One Church. If we were not there is no way one could licitly receive Eucharist licitly for no grave reason. I don’t think there is anything forbidding us from doing so. Since we do not view SSPX to be in Schism, this is logical conclusion.

Every article that claims SSPX Eucharist is illicit also claims that they are in Schism. It is much older position to regard them as in Schism (and was shown to be incorrect). Per Congregation for Doctrine of Faith, SSPX are NOT in Schism currently.

For purpose of this conversation, either SSPX are outside Church and hence impact no unity with Church, or SSPX are inside it and again no one can say their Eucharist is illicit. In reality, second is the case currently as it is endorsed by Vatican.

At the same time, Priest who is in communion with the Church does not necessarily celebrate Eucharist licitly. For example Priests who are laicized can be in full communion with the Church, but their Eucharist would not be licit unless grave circumstances apply. Hence same concept applies in similar situations.
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
For purpose of this conversation, either SSPX are outside Church and hence impact no unity with Church, or SSPX are inside it and again no one can say their Eucharist is illicit. In reality, second is the case currently as it is endorsed by Vatican.
Click to expand...
Now I’m not arguing against the validity of their Eucharist but I don’t think that it is necessarily true to say that no one cannot say their Eucharist is illicit, take a look:


From page 3 section c:

“c. Holy Eucharist: again, priests of the SSPX are considered to have been validly ordained; however, the question of legitimacy is particularly pointed when it comes to Roman Catholics receiving Holy Communion at their hands. In the Catholic Church, reception of Holy Communion implies communion in the larger sense mentioned above. To receive Communion in any other church or
Ecclesial body implies a unity which doesn’t exist. It is not to be done. As to “fulfilling a Sunday obligation”, if one is unable to attend Catholic Mass whether for reasons of ill health, travel or some other grave reason, the obligation doesn’t hold. In short, one may attend Mass at an SSPX church or chapel; but one is NOT to receive Communion.”

Again if the faithful should not ordinarily receive communion at an SSPX church how then can we (the RCC) claim (100%) full communion?

As far as being able to receive at an SSPX church in grave circumstances goes, then sure yeah that’s allowed.

But that (in grave circumstances) is also allowed by the RCC at EOC and OOC and I think you would be hard pressed suggesting that the RCC views itself in full communion with the EOC and OOC, here take a look for yourself:

CIC Can. 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are **permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick **from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Basically to me it seems that the RCC finds herself in a similar situation to the EOC (admittedly on a much smaller scale, but nonetheless) in not being in full communion with one of her own members (SSPX).
 
Congregation for Doctrine of Faith has higher authority than Diocese of Richmond. I think that they are misinterpreting things. Everything they said and implied is true and would apply if SSPX were in Schism. Though according to Vatican, they are not. Hence above does not apply to SSPX but applies to Orthodox Churches.

SSPX are not in Schism and their Eucharist is fully licit provided that they have contacted local Bishop and formed relations with him. Those Bishops can then extend faculties for marriage in case-by-case basis to SSPX. Of course that does not mean they recognize SSPX marriage by itself, they only recognize Catholic Marriage that Catholic Priests from SSPX officiated by Catholic Jurisdiction which Bishops have provided them with. This means SSPX for sure are not in Schism. However, some Priests in SSPX are disobedient towards their order’s rules and do not contact local Bishops. They are also more inclined towards sedevacantism and so on- which goes against SSPX teaches. Those Priests who do not respect local authority and do not pray for those Bishops in Mass also make their Eucharist illicit. That is however not the norm with SSPX.
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Congregation for Doctrine of Faith has higher authority than Diocese of Richmond. I think that they are misinterpreting things. Everything they said and implied is true and would apply if SSPX were in Schism. Though according to Vatican, they are not. Hence above does not apply to SSPX but applies to Orthodox Churches.

SSPX are not in Schism and their Eucharist is fully licit provided that they have contacted local Bishop and formed relations with him. Those Bishops can then extend faculties for marriage in case-by-case basis to SSPX. Of course that does not mean they recognize SSPX marriage by itself, they only recognize Catholic Marriage that Catholic Priests from SSPX officiated by Catholic Jurisdiction which Bishops have provided them with. This means SSPX for sure are not in Schism. However, some Priests in SSPX are disobedient towards their order’s rules and do not contact local Bishops. They are also more inclined towards sedevacantism and so on- which goes against SSPX teaches. Those Priests who do not respect local authority and do not pray for those Bishops in Mass also make their Eucharist illicit. That is however not the norm with SSPX.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that is entirely true either, I’m not arguing that they are in schism, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are licitly ministering to the faithful.



Here is a quote from both the above linked article and the website canonlawmadeeasy:

“When he remitted the excommunications, Benedict noted that “doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.”

Now Pope Francis has gone on to allow for the SSPX to licitly hear confession and to marry, but for the time being the above stays true, the SSPX has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry (accept those previously noted as allowed by Pope Francis).
 
It is true that if Bishop wishes them not to stay in his diocese, then their Eucharist is indeed illicit. But that applies to any and every Priest. That is not matter with SSPX solely. If indeed there are doctrinal differences, SSPX is out of Church. Period. They do not impact unity with Church because they are not part of it. If however there are just doctrinal questions, not necessarily differences, they are permitted to exercise their ministry if indeed Bishops allow them to. If local Bishop does that, there is no way for them to have illicit Eucharist as they are validly ordained and pray for the Pope during their Mass too (which shows sort of communion, at least desired one from their side).
 
Idk brother it is certainly a confusing situation.
I honestly haven’t once read anything suggesting that it’s up to the local bishop weather or not the status on their ministry of the Eucharist is licit or illicit.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
If indeed there are doctrinal differences, SSPX is out of Church. Period. They do not impact unity with Church because they are not part of it.
Click to expand...
But this is not what the church has said, it has said that there are doctrinal questions regarding SSPX and that the SSPX has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry (accept those previously noted as allowed by Pope Francis).

So we cannot honestly say that the SSPX is outside of the church, yet IMHO we cannot say that they are in 100% full communion.
 
CathBoy1 said:
SSPX has no canonical status in the Church
Click to expand...
CathBoy1 said:
So we cannot honestly say that the SSPX is outside of the church
Click to expand...
If indeed that position is still true, then having no canonical status in the Church means they are out.
CathBoy1 said:
I honestly haven’t once read anything suggesting that it’s up to the local bishop weather or not the status on their ministry of the Eucharist is licit or illicit.
Click to expand...
Bishop can forbid anyone to celebrate, teach or commune in his diocese afaik. Well, of course except those higher ranked than him. It is mentioned in the article you linked. Liceity is thing of law, and communion with Bishop is requirement for licit sacraments when there are no grave circumstances.
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
If indeed that position is still true, then having no canonical status in the Church means they are out.
Click to expand...
Well Pope Benedict XVI said this himself:
There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
Source:
http://www.vatican.va/content/bened...en-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

As far as I know, there has been no other proclamation in reference to their canonical status, yet he (Pope Benedict XVI) stopped short of calling them schismatic and never once said that “they were out”.
Although the situation is quite odd and has came very close to being considered schismatic in the past:


It is a peculiar situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top