Someone explain again why Ecclesia Dei is ignored by friends and members of SSPX?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jehanne_Darc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JKirkLVNV said:
WHY Cardinal Kasper gets to trot about the world saying what he says is not a question I am able to answer.

Black and Decker makes a MUCH better coffee maker.
Click to expand...
JK,
I give what I have, not what I wish I had. But thanks for the pointer. Where do you find them…at Home depot?
 
Mary_Henley said:
No, my dear, simply put, I am learning WHAT the Church teaches. I never claimed to teach Her nor did I claim to know more than She.:tsktsk:
She has taught us both from Rome and from the USCB that these masses are illicit. The Sacrament of Confession is invalid…
I am really and truly sorry that it is SO difficult for some “catholics” to adhere to:(
Click to expand...
I agree that the Masses are illicit. I agree that their confessions are invalid, (as well as their sacrament of marriage, apparently).
No argument there. I don’t attend their Masses as a habit, but once in a while I do out of a family obligation. And I know that it’s OK to do so out of love for the ancient rite, and because I’m not adhering to their schism.

By the way, they really know how to do a Mass with reverence, holiness, and beauty. I really look for for forward to the day they are in full communion with Rome.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Not so. It STILL doesn’t say that, no matter what spectacular mental gymnastics you perform to attempt to make it say so. The letter was addressed to ONE person in ONE particular circumstance. It is not a blanket permission to attend SSPX masses, whether you’re attached to the TLM or not.
Click to expand...
The first letter was addressed to one person. The follow up letter was issued to address the fact that the first letter was so widely circulated. The follow up letter said “Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.” Here is the follow up letter to the public

Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was “Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass” and our response was:
"1. 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 have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin.** If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”**
 
paramedicgirl said:
I agree that the Masses are illicit. I agree that their confessions are invalid, (as well as their sacrament of marriage, apparently).
No argument there. I don’t attend their Masses as a habit, but once in a while I do out of a family obligation. And I know that it’s OK to do so out of love for the ancient rite, and because I’m not adhering to their schism.

By the way, they really know how to do a Mass with reverence, holiness, and beauty. I really look for for forward to the day they are in full communion with Rome.
Click to expand...
Maybe they are already there. The closest SSPX chapel to me even has Masses on Saturday night. 🙂
 
BobP123 said:
Maybe they are already there. The closest SSPX chapel to me even has Masses on Saturday night. 🙂
Click to expand...
Do you know if they say the Saturday night Mass fulfills the Sunday obligation? Just curious.
 
paramedicgirl said:
The first letter was addressed to one person. The follow up letter was issued to address the fact that the first letter was so widely circulated. The follow up letter said “Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.” Here is the follow up letter to the public

Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was “Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass” and our response was:
"1. 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 have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin.** If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”**
Click to expand...
“We cannot recommend…” Seems simple, particulary coming from the Holy See. Also, the letter was made public to CLARIFY distortions (you left out the part where the author states that he can’t do anything about people making parts of the letter public). The letter was made public to establish context. It wasn’t made public to be used as a blanket permission to attend SSPX masses (see links to apologist Michelle Arnold above).

“Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us.”(emphasis mine). The parts you’re quoting, from the Unavoce website, are CLEARLY from the private letter (again, a “private communication dealing with the specific circumstances” of one person).
 
JKirkLVNV said:
“We cannot recommend…” Seems simple, particulary coming from the Holy See. Also, the letter was made public to CLARIFY distortions (you left out the part where the author states that he can’t do anything about people making parts of the letter public). The letter was made public to establish context. It wasn’t made public to be used as a blanket permission to attend SSPX masses (see links to apologist Michelle Arnold above).

“Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us.”(emphasis mine). The parts you’re quoting, from the Unavoce website, are CLEARLY from the private letter (again, a “private communication dealing with the specific circumstances” of one person).
Click to expand...
There are so many threads on this already, it’s hardly worth re-hashing here. I so seldom attend an SSPX Mass, and when I do it’s out of a family obligation. My NO priest sees no issue with me going there for the reasons I do, so I guess it’s a non- issue to me.
 
paramedicgirl said:
There are so many threads on this already, it’s hardly worth re-hashing here. I so seldom attend an SSPX Mass, and when I do it’s out of a family obligation. My NO priest sees no issue with me going there for the reasons I do, so I guess it’s a non- issue to me.
Click to expand...
I asked my confessor before I went. He didn’t have a problem with it, either. I’m not saying the odd attendance here or there, particularly for family obligations (Lord knows I’m cognizant of those, being the only Catholic in a family of Baptists) is inherently wrong. I’m simply clarifying (for the sake of any who might be in ignorance of the Church’s current stand on this) what is and isn’t the case. We cannot have people thinking that the SSPX masses are regularly viable options for conscientious Catholics. According to the Church, they aren’t. We’re called to think with the mind of the Church.
 
I agree that the Masses are illicit. I agree that their confessions are invalid, (as well as their sacrament of marriage, apparently).
No argument there. I don’t attend their Masses as a habit, but once in a while I do out of a family obligation. And I know that it’s OK to do so out of love for the ancient rite, and because I’m not adhering to their schism.
Click to expand...
But if it’s illicit then you can’t get your Sunday obligation from it! Because you know the family obligation is there, then go to a licit Mass first (Saturday night or earlier or later on Sunday) and then attend the SSPX service for the mere sake of being with your family.

And, sadly, all the beauty and reverence and striving to be perfect that the SSPX churches might have all means nothing if GOD is not there! I’ll stick to my ugly church run by imperfect priests and attended by irreverent ignorant people because none of that changes that GOD is truly present! Jesus never said “Let the perfect and most quietly reverent people come to me” and thank GOD for that because otherwise I, lifetime sinner, wouldn’t be invited!

❤️
 
paramedicgirl said:
Do you know if they say the Saturday night Mass fulfills the Sunday obligation? Just curious.
Click to expand...
According to Canon Law, it does. I don’t know if the SSPX say it does, but why else would they have it? Saturday afternoon/evening Masses aren’t exactly traditional.
 
paramedicgirl said:
There are so many threads on this already, it’s hardly worth re-hashing here. I so seldom attend an SSPX Mass, and when I do it’s out of a family obligation. My NO priest sees no issue with me going there for the reasons I do, so I guess it’s a non- issue to me.
Click to expand...
As long as you don’t develop a schismatics mindset, you’re ok. And Canon Law allows you to fulfill your obligation there.

Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.
 
Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.
Click to expand...
Yes, keyword being Catholic, defined in the Catechism:

833 The phrase “particular Church,” which is first of all the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession. These particular Churches “are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists.”

834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord.”

SSPX is not recognized by Rome.
❤️
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I asked my confessor before I went. He didn’t have a problem with it, either. I’m not saying the odd attendance here or there, particularly for family obligations (Lord knows I’m cognizant of those, being the only Catholic in a family of Baptists) is inherently wrong. I’m simply clarifying (for the sake of any who might be in ignorance of the Church’s current stand on this) what is and isn’t the case. We cannot have people thinking that the SSPX masses are regularly viable options for conscientious Catholics. According to the Church, they aren’t. We’re called to think with the mind of the Church.
Click to expand...
We agree!!! 😉
 
**JUST A THOUGHT!:hmmm: **

After reviewing all the NUMEROUS threads on this forum…all the bitter complaints about abuse (no argument here!) why is it we cannot see what Satan is achieving by by creating division among us…those who LOVE the sacraments and Holy Mass!
If we were to take all this energy…and launch it against those who are abusing …against those Bishops allowing the abuse…if we were to become that squeaking wheel that gets the attention we would at least be on the right track!

For years, we Catholics have allowed the modernist to infiltrate positions of decision making within the Diocese
in America. Bishop Sheen warned us years ago that this was happening… in the 50’s folks! This is not some novo idea of Satan’s.

There are so many intelligent young catholics here. If we were to spend as much time being the squeaking wheel to our Diocese as we do chatting on this boobus tubus we could achieve wonders.
 
BobP123 said:
As long as you don’t develop a schismatics mindset, you’re ok. And Canon Law allows you to fulfill your obligation there.

Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.
Click to expand...
The canon is NOT refering to the SSPX masses, it’s refering the Divine Liturgy at the Eastern sub juris Churches in union with Rome, if anything. No permission from the Holy See exists to regularly attend the SSPX Masses, any more than there is permission to fufill our obligation at the Eastern Orthodox’s liturgies or those of the Old Catholics, both of whose orders are recognized as valid.
 
I’ve read most of the posts of this thread and cannot make heads or tails of it.
 
Mary_Henley said:
**JUST A THOUGHT!:hmmm: **

After reviewing all the NUMEROUS threads on this forum…all the bitter complaints about abuse (no argument here!) why is it we cannot see what Satan is achieving by by creating division among us…those who LOVE the sacraments and Holy Mass!
If we were to take all this energy…and launch it against those who are abusing …against those Bishops allowing the abuse…if we were to become that squeaking wheel that gets the attention we would at least be on the right track!

For years, we Catholics have allowed the modernist to infiltrate positions of decision making within the Diocese
in America. Bishop Sheen warned us years ago that this was happening… in the 50’s folks! This is not some novo idea of Satan’s.

There are so many intelligent young catholics here. If we were to spend as much time being the squeaking wheel to our Diocese as we do chatting on this boobus tubus we could achieve wonders.
Click to expand...
Well put. Seems like the closer the family, the bigger the fight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top