Sorry, but SSPX Masses DO NOT normally fulfill the Sunday obligation

[JKirkLVNV]

The Tridentine Rite is the lawfully promulgated one (for the Latin part of the Church anyway).

It is A lawfully promulgated rite where it is permitted by Indult. It is no more or less so than the Pauline.

If my argument is Protestant, then St Vincent of Lerins must have been a Protestant!

It is the Church who determines what is error, not individual Catholics or individual groups. The Jansenists thought the Church was in error (as did all of the heretical and/or schismatic groups). You’ve simply substituted YOUR judgement for the Church’s (a very Protestant notion).

It’s what trads do! Call it Protestant private judgment if you wish. It’s simply good sound Catholic sense, if you ask me!

Triumpha.

**To me it sounds like what it is: How many groups have ALREADY broken off from the SSPX (not to mention individual sedevacanteists)? The splintering will continue, since schism breeds schism, just as it did with Protestantism. In fact, in your quotation of St. Vincent, you’ve basically done no more than prooftexting (like a good Protestant apologist!). We both know that the saint would never advise schism or disobedience, particularly where it’s mutable issue of discipline (the discipline of the Mass). **

 

[bear06]

you would know automaticially if it was SSPX or not. in the TLM at the SSPX all women wear long clothing and head coverings. some women at the TLM in the FSSP don’t always wear headcoverings. also another way to tell or not, is to look at the SSPX site in your area, sspx.org they lsit all the SSPX chapels in the USA. i might be wrong, but there could be FSSP churches that all the women wear headcoverings and long clothing.

Weren’t you at the SSPX chapel when you ran across the woman with awful pants and no headcovering? Just curious.

 

[pnewton]

The Tridentine Rite is the lawfully promulgated one (for the Latin part of the Church anyway).

It is not the only one that is valid and lawtully promulgated. The SSPX will never be reconciled as long as they reject the Mass that the Catholic Church uses. Doing so rejects the authority of the papacy to regulate the Mass. Saying that the pope is still pope while denying his authority is only lip service.

I do not know the status of all SSPX and their supporters, but when I here of a total rejection of papal authority, it is hard for me to see how this can be viewed as still being with in the Catholic Church.

 

[maryalene]

Thank you OP for the information. I was confused about this and appreciate you citing an official document.

Obedience to God. Sometimes it conflicts with obedience to the Pope.

Obey God before man.

Obedience is at the service of faith!



Triumpha.

I think this seems to be treading very close to what Luther thought when he nailed his theses to the church door. I think that he too thought that he was obeying God and resisting the errors of man.

The fact is that Jesus gave Peter and the Church the ability to bind and loose sins on earth. If we believe in the Church, we believe that the Pope is God’s representative here and that he is guided by the Holy Spirit. Given that, I personally would not be comfortable disregarding his teachings and instructions.

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

Whether you fall out of the boat on the left side or the right side, you’ve still fallen out of the boat.

:clapping: There’s a very succinct description of what I’ve been feeling ever since I started reading up on SSPX and browsing the “Traditional Catholicism” forum. I’m sure I’ll be plagiarizing your words in the future, sir.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

:clapping: There’s a very succinct description of what I’ve been feeling ever since I started reading up on SSPX and browsing the “Traditional Catholicism” forum. I’m sure I’ll be plagiarizing your words in the future, sir.

That’s fine, I ripped them off from someone myself! I would give them credit, but I can’t remember who they were.

 

[bear06]

That’s fine, I ripped them off from someone myself! I would give them credit, but I can’t remember who they were.

How about “Those who go too far to the left and those who go too far to the right will eventually meet in the middle in anarchy”? I always like that one but can’t remember who said that one either.

 

[Triumpha]

In fact, in your quotation of St. Vincent, you’ve basically done no more than prooftexting (like a good Protestant apologist!).

Sorry… what does “prooftexting” mean?



Triumpha.

 

[Triumpha]

I do not know the status of all SSPX and their supporters, but when I here of a total rejection of papal authority, it is hard for me to see how this can be viewed as still being with in the Catholic Church.

There is no *total *rejection of papal authority. It is reasonable to reject the abuse of any authority!

And while, yes, a Pope may introduce a New Rite, the New Rite we have is not as thoroughly Catholic as the Rite it has attempted to replace.

It is also questionable whether the Pope has the right to suppress a Rite, as tried and tested as the Tridentine. Especially in the light of Pope St Pius V’s prophetic Quo Primum. I believe it was divine inspiration which got Pius V specifically to condemn any possible suppression of the Tridentine Rite, and also condemn obliging priests to say anything other than it! He must have seen this situation coming!

Triumpha.

 

[Triumpha]

I think this seems to be treading very close to what Luther thought when he nailed his theses to the church door. I think that he too thought that he was obeying God and resisting the errors of man.

Yeah. The thing is, he was wrong!

The fact is that Jesus gave Peter and the Church the ability to bind and loose sins on earth. If we believe in the Church, we believe that the Pope is God’s representative here and that he is guided by the Holy Spirit. Given that, I personally would not be comfortable disregarding his teachings and instructions.

But it is undeniable that there have been bad popes! And the Holy Ghost’s influence hasn’t prevented that happening!

Because, as I have said, the guarantee is simply a negative one. One of protection, not of absolute whole-hearted encouragement for the Pope’s every action!
First Vatican Council:

For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

Triumpha.

 

[maryalene]

Yeah. The thing is, he was wrong!
.

But how do you know you’re not? I know inflection is difficult to convey over the internet, but I am sincerely curious about this. I don’t think Luther had any intent of starting a new church. I’m sure he thought that we had a bad or misguided pope who wasn’t addressing what he saw as abuses in the church. So why is ok for Luther to be excommunicated for his protest but not ok for the SSPX? They both seem to originate from the same idea - saving the Church from misguided popes.

 

[Marilena]

Weren’t you at the SSPX chapel when you ran across the woman with awful pants and no headcovering? Just curious.

yes. but we wont continue that discussion here.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

I don’t think a priest’s temporary or even permanent doubts about transubstantiation would invalidate the consecration.
Remember, though the Priest acts in persona Chrisi, ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who transubstantiates the elements.

Good lord, there have always been people who didn’t understand, or doubted, the real presence. If mere doubt or disbelief on the priest’s part could invalidate the consecration, then the only safe way to ensure a valid consecration would be, each and every Sunday morning, to ask each and every priest if, that day, he believes fully in the Real Presence.
We could never be reasonably sure.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

 

[pnewton]

There is no *total *rejection of papal authority. It is reasonable to reject the abuse of any authority!

And every believer interprets this for themselves, huh? At least protestants go to the first source, the Bible, before arguing individual interpretation. It is more consistant.

 

[ctos]

How could anyone seriously suggest that attending a valid mass fails to fulfill the Sunday obligation? My goodness, the times we live in.

The chapels are bastions of strong faith, true piety, and sincere worship.

One of the common myths floated against chapels is that they are ‘cherry-picked’ Catholics, the ‘really good’ ones; that if only they would stay in the Novus Ordo, the latter would benefit. Well in fact, many of those who go to chapels actually had troubled lives prior to that. It was their exposure to strong faith, true piety, and sincere worship, that saved them, that drew them to God.

In the Novus Ordo one is constantly exposed to agendas, glad-handing, sentimentalism, and change for the sake of change.

 

[Triumpha]

But how do you know you’re not? I know inflection is difficult to convey over the internet, but I am sincerely curious about this. I don’t think Luther had any intent of starting a new church. I’m sure he thought that we had a bad or misguided pope who wasn’t addressing what he saw as abuses in the church. So why is ok for Luther to be excommunicated for his protest but not ok for the SSPX? They both seem to originate from the same idea - saving the Church from misguided popes.

The SSPX upholds Church teaching.

Luther did not.

As per St Vincent of Lerins, when there’s confusion, look to the constant teaching of the Church for the truth!

Luther didn’t do that. He changed the Bible, for one thing! The SSPX hasn’t changed anything. The SSPX resists novelties. Luther resisted tradition.

Triumpha.

 

[Triumpha]

I don’t think a priest’s temporary or even permanent doubts about transubstantiation would invalidate the consecration.
Remember, though the Priest acts in persona Chrisi, ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who transubstantiates the elements.

Good lord, there have always been people who didn’t understand, or doubted, the real presence. If mere doubt or disbelief on the priest’s part could invalidate the consecration, then the only safe way to ensure a valid consecration would be, each and every Sunday morning, to ask each and every priest if, that day, he believes fully in the Real Presence.
We could never be reasonably sure.

Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

I agree with this. Ex opere operato.

In order for a validly ordained priest to fail to confect the Eucharist, he’d have to be deliberately trying not to!

Triumpha.

 

[Triumpha]

And every believer interprets this for themselves, huh? At least protestants go to the first source, the Bible, before arguing individual interpretation. It is more consistant.

Trads look to the Traditional Constant Teaching of the Church.

That isn’t Protestant. It is following the counsel of St Vincent of Lerins and others, for instances when there is confusion. And there is confusion!

Triumpha.

 

[AJV]

---

Disbelief involves the will. A priest may mouth the words–but if inside his will is in disbelief --how can there be intention.

There doesn’t have to be an actual intention of confecting the sacrament or offering the Sacrifice. There should not be an actual intention against.

The Summa:

Objection 1. It seems that faith is required of necessity in the minister of a sacrament. For, as stated above (8), the intention of the minister is necessary for the validity of a sacrament. But “faith directs in intention” as Augustine says against Julian (In Psalm xxxi, cf. Contra Julian iv). Therefore, if the minister is without the true faith, the sacrament is invalid.

Reply to Objection 1. It may happen that a man’s faith is defective in regard to something else, and not in regard to the reality of the sacrament which he confers: for instance, he may believe that it is unlawful to swear in any case whatever, and yet he may believe that baptism is an efficient cause of salvation. And thus such unbelief does not hinder the intention of conferring the sacrament.
But if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. **Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: **because as stated above (8, ad 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister’s faith is made good.

“Esteem it to be nothing” is disbelief, no?

 

[AJV]

It is also questionable whether the Pope has the right to suppress a Rite, as tried and tested as the Tridentine. Especially in the light of Pope St Pius V’s prophetic Quo Primum. I believe it was divine inspiration which got Pius V specifically to condemn any possible suppression of the Tridentine Rite, and also condemn obliging priests to say anything other than it! He must have seen this situation coming!

Triumpha.

I think Pius XII answered that in the affirmative in Mediator Dei practically opening the Pandora box? His sentences about promoting faith and increasing the glory of God and piety and so forth, notwithstanding.

If one really wants to take the sentences of Quo Primum as condemning suppression then that would make St. Pius V condemn suppression of his breviary, more specifically the method of reciting the psalms.