Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) In communion with the Chair of Peter, YES or NO?

[demolitionman65]

Please note that I am not defending Lefebvre, as he should not have disobeyed-

My apologies if I mis-read that.

but the hatred here on this site for Traditional Catholics, especially SSPX most of whom who attend are good devout Catholics, more so than 99% of the Novus Ordo attendees is astonishing.

Hatred? Not here, at least with me. Impatience? Yes.

To sit here and judge these people and call them schismatics because this Pope JPII decided to actually get up the guts and excommunicate Lefebvre-while moving Cardinal Law to a cushy job in Rome, and leave countless Bishop after Bishop in their place while they covered up for their own pedophile priests is amazing to me.

Bringing up Law, for good or ill, is resurrecting the strawman again.

If you wish to start at thread on those sorts of liberal abuses/neglect, open it up. . I’ll be more than willing to engage those arguments (many of which I am sympathetic to, believe it or not. They just aren’t relevant to the topic at hand).

I am not deflecting or doing a strawman argument-I am saying as Catholics we have all of this sympathy for all kinds of sinners, the Jews who this Pope makes us call “Our Elder Brothers”, the Moslems, whom he kissed their Koran, the Orthodox schismatics, whom he turned over precious relics to-but excommunciated an Archbishop who just wanted the Mass he revered.

I;m sorry, but this IS a strawman argument. Changing the topic.

And you all want to call him JPII the Great? I dont think so

Now when has this been said? I will go to bat and say that he is in the running with Pius XII for the greatest Pope of the 20th Century. But JPII the Great? Only time will tell that.

 

[BulldogCath]

I hear you demo man-I dont like what SSPX is doing in some ways-my inlaws attend and we argue as my wife and I are Conservative/Trad Catholics with the hope of seeing the church make a turn back to Tradition and if all like us leave-and if the SSPX’rs were still around, maybe the church and the Modernists would have a counterweight.

I just dont like the constant bashing of them as I have attended the masses there with them, have gone to my in-laws communions there, and I have to admire much about it, and have a tinge of jealosy in my heart as to why we cant have the same devotion to the church.

demolitionman65:

My apologies if I mis-read that.

Hatred? Not here, at least with me. Impatience? Yes.

Bringing up Law, for good or ill, is resurrecting the strawman again.

If you wish to start at thread on those sorts of liberal abuses/neglect, open it up. . I’ll be more than willing to engage those arguments (many of which I am sympathetic to, believe it or not. They just aren’t relevant to the topic at hand).

I;m sorry, but this IS a strawman argument. Changing the topic.
Now when has this been said? I will go to bat and say that he is in the running with Pius XII for the greatest Pope of the 20th Century. But JPII the Great? Only time will tell that.

 

[demolitionman65]

I just dont like the constant bashing of them as I have attended the masses there with them, have gone to my in-laws communions there, and I have to admire much about it, and have a tinge of jealosy in my heart as to why we cant have the same devotion to the church.

Believe me, I get this. I have been terribly torn with this, mostly because my spiritual advisor bolted for an SSPX community (and bought the whole package. Will attend no NO masses, not even those my children might get married in, and she is the god mother of 5 of our 7 children) and I see why, on the surface. I too LONG for a properly reverent Mass, and it is to seldom found in the NO. (If I can find an Opus Dei or especially a Legionnaires of Christ mass, I know I’m in good shape). You and I probably have more than just a TINGE of jealousy.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Okay, I’ll admit to not being clear on the details but my understanding is that SSPX does 2 things:

1. They did not accept Vat.2 because they prefer the Trinedine Mass (1962 Missal) . This reason is not good for me because the Vat. 2 didn’t forbid the Trinidine Mass as far as I can tell - just made the NO a stated preference. It even states that room should be made to provide the latin mass for those who feel more comfortable with it.
2. They refuse to accept the pope then or JP2 now? What was their reason for this?

Now, they say their Bishop had valid and legal reason to appoint bishops without approval - I thought this was only allowed in extreme situations - like underground religion in China?? More to the point they not only did it without approval, they did it in direct disapproval of the Holy See. What exactly is the circumstances that they site as their reason for this? To me this sounds like a teenager who askes permission knowing the answer is going to be “NO!”, but thinks they know better than the parent and proceeds to do it anyhow - then gets mad when they are punished.

 

[EddieArent]

Rob's Wife:

Okay, I’ll admit to not being clear on the details but my understanding is that SSPX does 2 things:

1. They did not accept Vat.2 because they prefer the Trinedine Mass (1962 Missal) . This reason is not good for me because the Vat. 2 didn’t forbid the Trinidine Mass as far as I can tell - just made the NO a stated preference. It even states that room should be made to provide the latin mass for those who feel more comfortable with it.
2. They refuse to accept the pope then or JP2 now? What was their reason for this?

Now, they say their Bishop had valid and legal reason to appoint bishops without approval - I thought this was only allowed in extreme situations - like underground religion in China?? More to the point they not only did it without approval, they did it in direct disapproval of the Holy See. What exactly is the circumstances that they site as their reason for this? To me this sounds like a teenager who askes permission knowing the answer is going to be “NO!”, but thinks they know better than the parent and proceeds to do it anyhow - then gets mad when they are punished.

1. While it wasn’t forbiden, there are prosecutions of traditonal priests. For example, Father Zigrang was told by his bishop to seek mental help after he decided to only celebrate the Tridentine Mass. About 19 years ago Cardinals told Pope John Paul II (RIP) that no priest can be forbidden to say the Mass. Well, what is it then? No one being forbidden or receiving so called special pemission from the bishop? There is a contradiction here and the SSPX all the time is saying for the Vatican to re-affirm the Cardinal’s study and open up the Tridentine Mass for those priests who wish to celebrate it freely.
2. The SSPX accepts all the Popes. I was at Bishop Williamson’s Mass today which he offered Mass for the soul of Pope John Paul II.

But acceptance of the Popes doesn’t mean they don’t have a problem with the post-conciliar Popes and bishops who trying to bridge the modern world and the Church and thus causing chaos within the Church. Further, where are the excommunications to the bishops that assist in Protestant ordinations? The Lutherans orain “bishops” without Papal mandate and even Catholic bishops attend and I betcha that activity is encouraged in the name of eccumenism.

Archbishop Lefebvre invoked a Canon of emergency to contine the work of the Society and that is what the bishops of today are doing by offering the Sacrements in the Tridentine way. Take a look at many churches today where basic Catechism isn’t the focus, rather nonsense from Brown’s book. Even here in the Orlando diocese they don’t teach the Catechism in the schools rather a textbook that a local newsletter in the area has exposed to be full of errors and being extremely ambiguous.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

EddieArent:

…the SSPX all the time is saying for the Vatican to re-affirm the Cardinal’s study and open up the Tridentine Mass for those priests who wish to celebrate it freely.
This I have no problem with. **
2. The SSPX accepts all the Popes. I was at Bishop Williamson’s Mass today which he offered Mass for the soul of Pope John Paul II. This doesn’t mean anything at all. Many protestants churches are offering prayer for the Pope too, but it doesn’t mean they are willing to be allied with the Church.**
But acceptance of the Popes doesn’t mean they don’t have a problem with the post-conciliar Popes and bishops who trying to bridge the modern world and the Church and thus causing chaos within the Church.
I agree that not being of the same understanding as the pope or certain bishops is not of itself a schismatic act. We are individuals with individual minds.
Further, where are the excommunications to the bishops that assist in Protestant ordinations? The Lutherans or[d]ain “bishops” without Papal mandate and even Catholic bishops attend and I betcha that activity is encouraged in the name of eccumenism.
I wouldn’t bet on that being endorsed by JP2. 1st off, why as Catholics would we have anything to do with a protestant matter - I do not see how this relates to SSPX. Are you saying that SSPX actions are justified because the protestants do it??? I would agree that if the Catholic bishop participation action did not stop asap, there would be reason to excummunicate said bishops for encouraging and aiding the further separation of a group that chose to leave the Faith long ago. It shouldn’t be an instant knee-jerk reaction, but it should be clear and come straight from the pope.
Archbishop Lefebvre invoked a Canon of emergency to contine the work of the Society and that is what the bishops of today are doing by offering the Sacrements in the Tridentine way.
What emergency?! There is not any emergency to continue the work of any individual society - only the Catholic church. Since when is that an emergency?
Take a look at many churches today where basic Catechism isn’t the focus, rather nonsense from Brown’s book. Even here in the Orlando diocese they don’t teach the Catechism in the schools rather a textbook that a local newsletter in the area has exposed to be full of errors and being extremely ambiguous.

This is an entirely different issue and I would agree is sad and in need of immediate change. It’s also one of the reasons why I homeschool. One could argue though that creating division in the Church certainly would not help this issue. Instead of SSPX bishops washing their hands of the rest of the Catholics in their community - they should be working for the betterment of the Church as a whole? I think that is what is really at the heart of peoples strong feelings for/against SSPX.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

EddieArent:

1. While it wasn’t forbiden, there are prosecutions of traditonal priests. For example, Father Zigrang was told by his bishop to seek mental help after he decided to only celebrate the Tridentine Mass. About 19 years ago Cardinals told Pope John Paul II (RIP) that no priest can be forbidden to say the Mass. Well, what is it then? No one being forbidden or receiving so called special pemission from the bishop? There is a contradiction here and the SSPX all the time is saying for the Vatican to re-affirm the Cardinal’s study and open up the Tridentine Mass for those priests who wish to celebrate it freely.
2. The SSPX accepts all the Popes. I was at Bishop Williamson’s Mass today which he offered Mass for the soul of Pope John Paul II.

But acceptance of the Popes doesn’t mean they don’t have a problem with the post-conciliar Popes and bishops who trying to bridge the modern world and the Church and thus causing chaos within the Church.

A lot depends on what one thinks this implies or necessarily involves. The Church has to spread the Good News of Christ - and Catholics cannot do this if no one can understand what the Good News is, or why Christ matters. IOW, what Catholics say and believe has to be comprehensible by non-Catholics.So some kind of adaptation to the world is not optional - it is essential. It’s happened in the past - why should it be wrong, illegitimate, evil, and foul now ?​

It may well be painful to adapt, and to risk moving from what is familiar to what is less familiar or unfamiliar - but this is a condition of growing up, of “growing in wisdom and understanding”, after the pattern of Christ. Christianity can’t become a means of hiding from the world, or hiding from inconvenience or discomfort; that was not why Christ established the Church - if He had, He would not have “sent [His disciples] out”.

Tradition by itself is not enough - it needs what is newer; and newer things need to be balanced by what is traditional. Otherwise one ends up with tradition-worship or novelty-worship - but not with a healthy Christianity. ##

Further, where are the excommunications to the bishops that assist in Protestant ordinations? The Lutherans orain “bishops” without Papal mandate and even Catholic bishops attend and I betcha that activity is encouraged in the name of eccumenism.

Archbishop Lefebvre invoked a Canon of emergency to contine the work of the Society and that is what the bishops of today are doing by offering the Sacrements in the Tridentine way. Take a look at many churches today where basic Catechism isn’t the focus, rather nonsense from Brown’s book. Even here in the Orlando diocese they don’t teach the Catechism in the schools rather a textbook that a local newsletter in the area has exposed to be full of errors and being extremely ambiguous.

But do the deformities of the Church - there will always be deformities, just as there always have been - justify doing something which by 1988 was an excommunicable offence ? The Code of 1983, not that of 1917, was the Code by then in force - so it should be obeyed. It’s not relevant that originally the consecration of bishops without a mandatum was not originally an excommunicable offence: the same could be said of any number of things.​

And, after all, a bishop who deplores the infirmities of the Church should not himself do anything which may add to them; those who resist heresy, gain nothing by falling into some other offence. In fact, the thought that there are troubles in the Church already should make us determined not to add to them - even if this means great personal sacrifice on our part: which no one is saying is easy. That does not make it less necessary - Christ walked the way of the Cross, at crucifying cost: and we are required to follow Him. However hard that is. We have to trust that God will protect others - even if our bending or breaking the law seems to be required so that we can help others. Obedience, like all good or bad acts, always affects the rest of the Church - & so does disobedience. Because the Church is a Body. ##

 

[Milliardo]

Catholic29:

Though I can see a few individual SSPX priests trickling back into the fold here and there. However I feel it is only a matter of time before they declare themselves Sedevacantist, maybe as soon as immedietely following JPII’s death or not long after. Then perhaps reconciling with SSPV, CMRI or another such group, and setting up a papacy of their own is the more likely scenario.

Heaven help us all if that were to happen. The last thing we need right now is a full blown schism. Having two Popes would bring us back to the time of the Great Schism, and the confusion of the faithful. We hope and pray that that will not happen again, and that this matter will be resolved soon.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Milliardo:

Heaven help us all if that were to happen. The last thing we need right now is a full blown schism. Having two Popes would bring us back to the time of the Great Schism, and the confusion of the faithful. We hope and pray that that will not happen again, and that this matter will be resolved soon.

We’ve already got two popes. More than two in fact. Pope Michael I in Kansas, Pope Gregory XVII (two claiming that name!), and Pope Pius XIII. God bless the internet. No longer are the nut jobs and fruit cakes limited to late night AM radio.

And what is the SSPX involved in now, except a full blown schism? A half blown schism?

 

[demolitionman65]

Heaven help us all if that were to happen. The last thing we need right now is a full blown schism. Having two Popes would bring us back to the time of the Great Schism, and the confusion of the faithful. We hope and pray that that will not happen again, and that this matter will be resolved soon.

No, we certainly do not wish for this, but even if SSPX went entirely around the bend (and they are close to that already), this would not be as catastrophic as the Great Schism. . .there have been these splinterings forever. . .

And Gottle, while your refutations of EddieA are spot on, I suggest that you do not provide them on this thread again.

EddieA, as well as a number of radtrads, keep trotting out the tired old strawman argument that SSPX is not as bad as liberal abuses. . .why aren’t they getting punished?

This is avoiding the argument. The question again, is as follows: “Re: Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) In communion with the Chair of Peter, YES or NO?”. The answer is “no.” EddieA’s whinings and the others are no better than a 3rd grader complaining to a teacher that “. . other kids were throwing rocks TOO!! And they were throwing MORE of them.”

Whatever. The teacher still disciplines in that situation.

Now, as I have suggested to BullDogCatholic, and encourage EddieA as well, if you want to start a thread about the perceived injustice of the treatment meted out to Lefevre et al, then start a thread on that subject. Stop bringing your strawmen in here and confuse the issues.

SSPX IS NOT IN COMMUNION!!! DEAL WITH IT!!!

Take the strawman whinings to another thread.

Gottle, to engage them in here is to encourage their continued strawmen arguing.

 

[Adonis33]

demolitionman65:

No, we certainly do not wish for this, but even if SSPX went entirely around the bend (and they are close to that already), this would not be as catastrophic as the Great Schism. . .there have been these splinterings forever. . .

And Gottle, while your refutations of EddieA are spot on, I suggest that you do not provide them on this thread again.

EddieA, as well as a number of radtrads, keep trotting out the tired old strawman argument that SSPX is not as bad as liberal abuses. . .why aren’t they getting punished?

This is avoiding the argument. The question again, is as follows: “Re: Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) In communion with the Chair of Peter, YES or NO?”. The answer is “no.” EddieA’s whinings and the others are no better than a 3rd grader complaining to a teacher that “. . other kids were throwing rocks TOO!! And they were throwing MORE of them.”

Whatever. The teacher still disciplines in that situation.

Now, as I have suggested to BullDogCatholic, and encourage EddieA as well, if you want to start a thread about the perceived injustice of the treatment meted out to Lefevre et al, then start a thread on that subject. Stop bringing your strawmen in here and confuse the issues.

SSPX IS NOT IN COMMUNION!!! DEAL WITH IT!!!

Take the strawman whinings to another thread.

Gottle, to engage them in here is to encourage their continued strawmen arguing.

Hello. You do not seem to me to have any charity. I go to a SSPX chapel. You seem to cover all traditionalist with an incredibly broad stroke. Many of us are struggling with our faith - we pray for the Pope every day - and hope that some sort of agreement is made between the SSPX and the Vatican is made.

I do not go to the SSPX out of any sense of disobedience to the Holy See - or the local Bishop. While I agree 100% that simple getting into a p------ contest into who did worse is ridiculus - saying Archbishop Lef. is no better (or something to that effect) than a protestant is the hidth of intellectual ingnorance. SSPX bishops and priests are validly ordained, and one can fullfil there Sunday obligation at a SSPX mass. Please read Ecclesia Dei.

None of your arguments (that I read) cite any sources. You also cannot dismiss any argument as a “straw man”. The Code of Canon Law states, if someone commits an act out of necessity - and that act in itself is not a mortal sin - any excommunication is invalid. Whether or not the necessity exists is immaterial.

I do not claim to be a Doctor of the Faith - according to my earlier thread - I’m not that smart. However I have spent a great deal of time studying and praying about this very topic.

None of the Vatican officials I read consider this matter than anything other than an internal problem. I would cite sources - but is is about 12:45, I’m tired, and I have to work in the morning.

If I am in error, please let me know. And yes - I understand that poor spelling isn’t necessarily a sign of incredible intelligence. I apologize - I cannot spell vary wail.

God Bless.

 

[Catholic29]

Adonis33:

Hello. You do not seem to me to have any charity. I go to a SSPX chapel. You seem to cover all traditionalist with an incredibly broad stroke. Many of us are struggling with our faith - we pray for the Pope every day - and hope that some sort of agreement is made between the SSPX and the Vatican is made.

I do not go to the SSPX out of any sense of disobedience to the Holy See - or the local Bishop. While I agree 100% that simple getting into a p------ contest into who did worse is ridiculus - saying Archbishop Lef. is no better (or something to that effect) than a protestant is the hidth of intellectual ingnorance. SSPX bishops and priests are validly ordained, and one can fullfil there Sunday obligation at a SSPX mass. Please read Ecclesia Dei.

None of your arguments (that I read) cite any sources. You also cannot dismiss any argument as a “straw man”. The Code of Canon Law states, if someone commits an act out of necessity - and that act in itself is not a mortal sin - any excommunication is invalid. Whether or not the necessity exists is immaterial.

I do not claim to be a Doctor of the Faith - according to my earlier thread - I’m not that smart. However I have spent a great deal of time studying and praying about this very topic.

None of the Vatican officials I read consider this matter than anything other than an internal problem. I would cite sources - but is is about 12:45, I’m tired, and I have to work in the morning.

If I am in error, please let me know. And yes - I understand that poor spelling isn’t necessarily a sign of incredible intelligence. I apologize - I cannot spell vary wail.

God Bless.

Yes everyone, by all means read Ecclesia Dei: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

If Adonis’s assertion is correct that any Catholic can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending a SSPX mass, then a call into your local chancery (diocese) should confirm that. And I suggest everyone by all means do that as well.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Catholic29:

Yes everyone, by all means read Ecclesia Dei: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

If Adonis’s assertion is correct that any Catholic can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending a SSPX mass, then a call into your local chancery (diocese) should confirm that. And I suggest everyone by all means do that as well.

And if one may fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending a SSPX mass then one can fulfill their Sunday obligation by attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. There is no difference.

The SSPX are not in communion with Rome and neither are the Orthodox.

 

[demolitionman65]

None of your arguments (that I read) cite any sources. You also cannot dismiss any argument as a “straw man”.

I do not need to cite sources. I am not challenging the content of the SSPX arguments, only the method.

Anytime during an argument when one essentially says: “Look! Over there!” he is engaging in a strawman argument.

Let me try it this way. Have you ever been pulled over for speeding? The cop comes to your window, and asks, “Do you realize you were speeding?” To which you reply, “But the three cars in front of me were driving even faster!”

Does the cop agree with you, or give you the ticket even faster? The latter is likely. Why? Because you are trying to distract the officer from the truth: You were speeding, but you try to get him to focus on the fact that others were speeding as well, in a vain hope to get him to ignore your own breaking of the law. Cops don’t respond well to strawman arguments.

I’ve said this before: If one wishes to engage another thread on the apparent injustice of SSPX excommunication when compared to liberal abuses, open it up. This thread is not the place for it. Make a thread where this topic is no longer a strawman argument, but is in fact the focus of the argument.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Adonis 33 wrote:

saying Archbishop Lef. is no better (or something to that effect) than a protestant is the hidth of intellectual ingnorance. SSPX bishops and priests are validly ordained, and one can fullfil there Sunday obligation at a SSPX mass. Please read Ecclesia Dei.

None of your arguments (that I read) cite any sources. You also cannot dismiss any argument as a “straw man”. The Code of Canon Law states, if someone commits an act out of necessity - and that act in itself is not a mortal sin - any excommunication is invalid. Whether or not the necessity exists is immaterial.

Item 5 HERE points out, for example:

The Masses … are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing…not being able to assist at the … the so-called “Tridentine” Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

What YOU are claiming is an old “traditionalist” problem of:
selectively quoting and sifting documents (a variation on protestant sifting of Scripture). Another example of this is to conveniently ignore the second part of the definition of schism in Canon 751 - the “OR from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” This means the refusal to attend a (so-called) Novus Ordo Mass.

The full documents of the matter may be viewed in one place HERE

 

[Adonis33]

I could not get the link you cited.

I was referring to Msr. Perles interpretation of Ecclesia Dei. He states that if one adheres to the “shizm” to Archbishopl Lef., then we would indeed be guilty of the same. But if one goes to a SSPX out of a devotion for the old rite - it is not a mortal sin to attend the said mass. One may even be justified in giving a modest contribution.

I don’t understand the last statement “refusal to attend the N.O. mass.” Does this include somebody who attends an indult mass, or FSSP mass?

 

[Sean_O_L]

Adonis33 wrote:

I could not get the link you cited.

Sorry – my error. This should direct you to the proper pages:
HERE and HERE

I was referring to Msr. Perles interpretation of Ecclesia Dei. He states that if one adheres to the “shizm” to Archbishopl Lef., then we would indeed be guilty of the same. But if one goes to a SSPX out of a devotion for the old rite - it is not a mortal sin to attend the said mass. One may even be justified in giving a modest contribution.

But, he does not say just that or in isolation from other documents:

1988, July 2 - “ECCLESIA DEI” - Apostolic Letter of John Paul II

"5. c)…Everyone should be aware that ** **
1995, Sept. 27 - “ECCLESIA DEI” Pontifical Commission’s Msgr Camille Perl
Reply to Scott Windsor

…] The Masses … are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless

they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing…not being able to assist at the … the so-called “Tridentine” Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.
1998, Oct. 27 - “ECCLESIA DEI” Pontifical Commission’s Msgr Camille Perl
Reply to F. John Loughnan (that is to me.)

…] participation in the [SSPX] Mass…does not of itself

constitute “formal adherence to the schism”, such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality…[such as]

the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass,and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

…because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending [SSPX] Masses…
2003, Jan. 18 - “ECCLESIA DEI” Pontifical Commission’s Msgr Camille Perl
Communication to Una Voce America

In the strict sense

you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X." His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:

"2. …we cannot recommend

your attendance at such a Mass **and have explained the reason why. … **

…“Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass” to which we responded:

“3. It would seem that a modest contribution … would be justified.”
…]

"You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a 'right’

to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct… it constitutes an exception to the Church’s law…
Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice."

 

[Sean_O_L]

Adonis33 wrote:

I don’t understand the last statement “refusal to attend the N.O. mass.” Does this include somebody who attends an indult mass, or FSSP mass?

"
There is NO CONTEST that attendees at an Indult Mass or the FSSP Mass are in communion with the Pope. The problem lies with attendance at illicit Masses (or invalid Masses) at such venues as the SSPX, “Independent” priests, sedevacantist priests, or priests who are otherwise not in full communion with Rome.

This is what Bishop Rifan of Campos, Brazil wrote:

Now, to refuse continually and explicitly to participate in every and any Mass in the rite celebrated by the Pope and by all the bishops of the Church while judging this rite, in itself, incompatible with the Faith, or sinful, represents a formal refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate.

The objective fact cannot be denied that the rite of Paul VI is the official rite of the Latin Church, celebrated by the Pope and by all the Catholic episcopate.

If we consider the New Mass in itself, in theory or in practice, as invalid or heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, sinful, illegitimate or not Catholic, we would have to hold the theological conclusions of this position and apply them to the Pope and the entire episcopate residing in the world - that is, the whole teaching Church: that the Church has officially promulgated, maintained for decades, and offers every day to God an illegitimate and sinful worship — a proposition condemned by the Magisterium — and that, therefore, the gates of hell have prevailed against her, which would be a heresy. Or else we would be adopting the sectarian principle that we alone are the Church, and outside of us there is no salvation, which would be another heresy. These positions cannot be accepted by a Catholic, either in theory or in practice. See original HERE

 

[Catholic29]

bump

 

[coralewis]

Adonis33:

Hello.You are wrong. According to Eclesia Dei (I’m not a good speller), One can fullfill their Sunday obligation at a SSPX mass. Babtist and Methodist reject Catholic dogma, while Levebre (again my spelling) and the four bishops were excommunicated for a disciplinary reason. The bishops are still validly ordained.

Attending a charismatic Catholic Mass would be the same as a Pontifical High Mass in Latin? From my limited knowledge of a charismatic mass - isn’t that more like a protestant fundamentalist service? Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Adonis33, you’re not wrong. You seem to be right on the mark. Keep up the good work!