M
mick321
Guest
If you were assisting an ongoing clown mass in your parish, would you admit it?
Come on Sport - it’s just you and me here - what say you?
,
- Status
Come on Sport - it’s just you and me here - what say you?
,
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
Why do so many Catholics even want to go to Society chapels? Because they are dying for lack of spiritual nourishment. They are tired of leftist, environmentally friendly “prayers of the faithful”. They are tired of lounge acts and aging hippies leading the music. They are tired of sappy sermons about being nice to everybody that seem to not even notice any distinction between the supernatural and natural orders. They are tired of priests who don’t seem to have gone to a Catholic seminary that made them love the Catholic Church.
There are a lot of other things that good devout Catholics are weary with in the pew. And they are told that because the bishop doesn’t want them, they can’t go to a chapel of the Society, while at the same time, the bishop has no intention of forming his priests or parishes after any manner other than the one that currently sickens the faithful.
If some people in the Church are miserly about permitting fellow Catholics to worship in a manner that gives them peace and joy and tranquility of heart, I guess a few of us are willing to hope in the mercy and goodness of a good God who will have pity on someone who is so “defiant and rebellious” as to confess their sins to a good, orthodox priest that is unapproved and even despised by the diocesan bishop. There are good and orthodox Catholic priests, hundreds of them, waiting to serve the local bishops, formed by the SSPX in the Thomistic philosophical and theological tradition called for by Vatican II. But the bishops’ own seminaries have ignored the Thomistic tradition, the priests are formed in this ignorance, and many bishops wouldn’t want an SSPX priest if there WAS a canonical solution.
I am not making a sweeping statement about every bishop. Things have improved. The time may come when the Society will not accept a canonical solution to the current crisis and I am compelled to leave. But it will need to be accompanied with a bishop who doesn’t hate Tradition. I would think there might be in the near future, pockets where Society chapels remain justifiable (at least in my mind), and other where they are not. But for now, I have to thank God for a holy, loving, merciful priest who can speak the language of St. Thomas Aquinas. I am supposed to not go to his beautiful Masses why? Because there is no emergency in the Church? The bishops don’t want to incardinate these good priests, when they are closing parishes, and we don’t have an emergency? I don’t but it. My conscience is clear.
There are a lot of other things that good devout Catholics are weary with in the pew. And they are told that because the bishop doesn’t want them, they can’t go to a chapel of the Society, while at the same time, the bishop has no intention of forming his priests or parishes after any manner other than the one that currently sickens the faithful.
If some people in the Church are miserly about permitting fellow Catholics to worship in a manner that gives them peace and joy and tranquility of heart, I guess a few of us are willing to hope in the mercy and goodness of a good God who will have pity on someone who is so “defiant and rebellious” as to confess their sins to a good, orthodox priest that is unapproved and even despised by the diocesan bishop. There are good and orthodox Catholic priests, hundreds of them, waiting to serve the local bishops, formed by the SSPX in the Thomistic philosophical and theological tradition called for by Vatican II. But the bishops’ own seminaries have ignored the Thomistic tradition, the priests are formed in this ignorance, and many bishops wouldn’t want an SSPX priest if there WAS a canonical solution.
I am not making a sweeping statement about every bishop. Things have improved. The time may come when the Society will not accept a canonical solution to the current crisis and I am compelled to leave. But it will need to be accompanied with a bishop who doesn’t hate Tradition. I would think there might be in the near future, pockets where Society chapels remain justifiable (at least in my mind), and other where they are not. But for now, I have to thank God for a holy, loving, merciful priest who can speak the language of St. Thomas Aquinas. I am supposed to not go to his beautiful Masses why? Because there is no emergency in the Church? The bishops don’t want to incardinate these good priests, when they are closing parishes, and we don’t have an emergency? I don’t but it. My conscience is clear.
P
pnewton
Guest
I think it is important not to let the issue of the SSPX be obfuscated by unrelated issues. I am reminded of the story of Peter walking with Jesus and after being given a personal message, turned and pointed and said, “What about them.” The answer of Jesus is, “What is it to you.” In other words, stick to your own business. The valid Masses of the SSPX are to be understood in the context of their relationship with the Holy Father, a communion which is imperfect, in which the Masses they offer have not been approved. What other priests do, even when it is admittedly much worse, should not muddy the issue. The SSPX should be dealt with cautiously until such a time that the current talks have born fruit and they are granted full faculties to licitly celebrate Mass.
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
That is a fine statement pnewton. Absolutely. No one should lightly, in a cavalier manner decide to assist at an SSPX Chapel. It is a serious danger if the faithful should become confortable with the idea of disobedience to the local ordinary and losing respect for his august office. I never counsel anyone here to go to an SSPX chapel any other way than very cautiously.
I agree with the Ecclesia Dei Commission regarding the danger of a schismatic mentality. I am grateful that Society priests seem equally eager to make their chapel members aware that only an emergency can justify their presence where the bishops do not want them. Even so, I sometimes meet people in our chapels, or over the internet, who seem too comfortable in what must be considered a temporary lifeboat waiting for the big ship that seeing us, hasn’t decided yet if they want to pull us in.
PS: In my analogy above with the lifeboat, I don’t speak of myself as an SSPX in “the lifeboat” but those cautious Traditionalists who can’t be satisfied in an irregular status with Rome and our bishop, even if we love everything else about our SSPX parish. We want to be home. I don’t like this. I hope the Holy Father knows we love him and want to be his most loyal children, but its confusing. I can see how so many other good Catholics can’t understand how we could find ourselves in the lifeboat if we loved the pope.
P
ProVobis
Guest
But there are licit SSPX Masses. For one, they’re allowed to say Mass at the Vatican during the talks. I’m sure there are other such situations. But you’re right, they should be dealt with cautiously nevertheless.
P
pnewton
Guest
I totally concur and often offer prayers for this intention. I would add that in understanding the relationship of the SSPX to the Church, we view all who attend individually in the most charitable light and leave judgement to God.
T
Timothysis
Guest
So, he abdicated his conscience in order to gain what he desired???
R
roadsend
Guest
Thank you for the references.
Neither, however, address the two principles I brought up earlier.
Given a choice between a valid and reverent, traditionally Catholic Mass, arguably illicit due to issues of priestly faculties,
and
a Mass clearly illicit due to the actions of the celebrant or actions tolerated by the celebrant,
I know what choice I will make.
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
Hey Tim. No, Abp. Lefebvre doesn’t seem like the kind of man to sign the Vatican II docs because he was abdicating his conscience. I am sure he refused to sign one or two, and another is uncertain. He certainly didn’t do it so that his “order” could have the right to say the Old Mass, as someone else alleged, inasmuch as it was years after Vatican II was promulgated before the SSPX was formed.
I personally take the position that we should presume that Vatican II can be reconciled with Tradition even though I accept what all the popes have said denying infallibility to the Council.
E
excubitor
Guest
latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm
What a lot of people do not understand is that the SPPX priests have no ordinary jurisdiction to hear confessions. Therefore their confessions are invalid and illicit.
Also their weddings are all invalid.
If the faithful are ignorant of these things then extraordinary jurisdiction might apply
(but the irony is that as soon as the masters of the SSPX explain to their followers this principle then their followers are no longer ignorant and therefore extraordinary jurisdiction no longer applies.-my observation)
Also their masses are valid but illicit.
Attendance at their masses to fulfill the Sunday obligation is valid but doing so over time can result in the faithful absorbing the schismatic mentality of the society.
This is pretty heavy stuff. The lifting of the excommunications of the bishops actually is merely an olive branch being extended. It changes nothing from the canonical status of the SSPX from what is written in this letter from the Pontifical commission. Why would you go to a mass with such grave defects and perils, which are certainly ever much more perilous than the liturgical abuses of the Ordinary Form of the mass.
Also It is a matter of personal opinion as to whether the Mass of the Catholic rite can be rendered illicit by the actions of the celebrant or those at the mass. It is also a matter of opinion that SSPX priests have an extraordinary jurisdiction to hear confessions. As catholics we should be well tuned to judge our personal opinions with suspicion when it is painfully obvious that our personal opinions are in contradiction with the magisterium of the church.
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
I don’t know anyone who is ignorant of the fact that Society priests lack ordinary jurisdiction. Ignorance would be sudfficient grounds of course. I don’t know in what world anyone lives that involves an SSPX chapel or priory where there is any widespread ignorance about this. The question is with regard to whether there is an emergency or not. Some say yes. Some say no. If you don’t think there is, then don’t go.
Do you think that we don’t subjectively believe there is an emergency? So believing that, canon law teaches that the Church supplies jurisdiction. In the event of a perceived emergency, you are excused if you are wrong. What is pivotal is one’s subjective belief in an emergency. Do you believe in a God who will not forgive us for making this mistake? What if a dying man, unaware that a diocesan priest was available, made his last confession to a priest lacking faculties. Surely, you would excuse this mistake? But the principle is the same in our case.
It really doesn’t matter if there is an objective emergency. Most of the people who violently oppose the Society deny there is an emergency. But what matters isn’t what others think or what others motives are. What God will judge us on is our own beliefs and our own motives. Do we want to rebel? Do we want to defy Rome? Do we despise the bishop? If these are our motives to go to a Society Chapel for the Sacraments than I concede that our damnation is just. The heart can be deceptive, but I do not think that is my motive. If I am in error about whether there is an emergency, I have assurance in the Church’s own law, believing in its authority to bind and loose, and faith that God’s Church justly supplies His grace and forgiveness to one who is convinced that for the sake of his own salvation and that of his family, there is an emergency that requires our being able to receive the grace of the Sacraments elsewhere than where we would ordinarily seek them.
excubitor, this raises another question for those who are arguing that subjective belief in an emergency is inadequate for a valid sacrament. What about children? If I am to be damned for making a mistake about a perceived emergency, what about children following their parents? In your opinion, does the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II rule that their confessions are invalid as well? I have a hard time believing that the same Church that permits Cardinal Kasper to teach that Jews are saved by the Old Covenant are on the other hand saying that Catholic children who follow their mistaken parents in going to confession to a priest without faculties remain in their sins.
Only by reaching back for a legalistic rigor reminiscent of the Jansenist heresy, could I arrive at the place where I believed there is no forgiveness for this mistake. Is this “letter of the law, death for mistakes” kind of God what is actually being proclaimed by the post-conciliar Church? I don’t think so at all. I don’t think the Church has ever taught such a stonecold doctrine. The laypeople who oppose those of us who mistakenly think there is an emergency in the Church with dark warnings of no forgiveness seem out of touch with the pre-conciliar Church. But they are even more out of touch with the post-conciliar Church!
If there is an emergency in the Church, it is because She has become too accepting, too forgiving of everyone, except according to our detractors, her own children who mistakenly go the wrong place for confessions. Of course I do not grant there is no objective emergency. But we don’t need to analyze the question. I lay my case upon subjective emergency and concede the question of an objective emergency for sake of argument.
A
Alex_Luciano
Guest
Thanks for explaining what you meant by priestly faculties, I suppose I didn’t understand it properly. You are correct, seeing that these priests are illicitly imparting the sacraments it is not recommendable that anyone should knowingly participate. I have seen too many people on the forums recommend the SSPX to readily and without an explanation. I have been longing for a TLM in Orlando and unfortunately my only choices are an SSPX chapel in Sanford (about 45 min away) or a completely illicit “independent” traditional church closer to my neighborhood. I must admit I’ve been tempted to go to the SSPX chapel but I doubt I ever will, I am pretty obedient when it comes to those things. I doubt the TLM will be readily available in Orlando so I’ll have to be happy with watching them on EWTN for now. And yes, I have very few posts but I read a lot through the forums and keep up to date with New Advent and This Rock, I guess I don’t post too much cause it seems everything I’ve thought about has been thought about before and posted with much greater care and thought.Actually, I’ve seen plenty of people on this forum ask, “Who are these ‘SSPX’ people keep talking about? What are EF, OF TLM, all these letters?”
And I didn’t mean that they don’t have holy orders; priestly faculties are the authorization to act as a priest. When a priest is “defrocked,” his faculties are taken away, but obviously he can never be literally reduced to the lay state. Official faculties are also necessary to validly administer the sacrament of confession/reconciliation, except in danger of death.
I’m glad you’re aware of all these things already – plenty of people are not (not every Catholic in the world reads Father Z and Whispers in the Loggia), and most Catholics, once it’s explained to them, would find a big difference between going to the SSPX and, say, the FSSP. Ultimately they can make their own choices; I just wanted to make sure that it was explained.
Edited to add: “But I would say that most of those who frequent the forums have at least some basic knowledge…” – yes, but your post count is currently 29, so I hope you’ll forgive me for belaboring something you already knew. Oh, and welcome to CAF!
O
otjm
Guest
Considering that Rome has thoroughly answered that in the negative, one would think that it would not be put forth again. And again…
O
otjm
Guest
Priestly faculties is the permission to say Mass and to hear confessions, etc. in a diocese. No preist can simply wander into a diocese and set himself up as a pastor of a parish. Diocesan priests serve at the pleasure of the bishop and under him, representing him to the laity; they do so with his specific permission. Any order of priests cannot come into a diocese and set up either; although they may be directly under the authority of their head, they can only come into the diocese at the express request of the bishop.
So yes, they are ordained, but no, they do not have faculties unless a bishop has specifically given them that - and their bishops do not have that ability to do so either as the bishops do not have a dicocese or other granted authority.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
From what I hear, it sounds like good changes are happening in the Florida episcopate, so we’ll see.
P
ProVobis
Guest
The Mass itself is NOT the problem. The TLM is a catholic rite and attending one can fulfill the Sunday obligation. The priest’s state of sanctifying grace nor liturgical abuses do not affect its validity nor nor detract in the Real Sacrifice being offered for the sake of its participants. There are no grave defects and perils in the Mass. The problem is what happens outside the Mass and what is preached at the sermon. We don’t have to participate in that. But that’s true for the OF too.
V
VetA
Guest
Oh my God, really? that is so sad, i pry for them and you
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Well, if the Church (in the Pope and the Bishop with jurisdiction) has told you that there is no emergency and yet you persist in clinging to the belief there is one, you are simply playing games. This is the “imbibing of the schisimatic mentality” we were warned against, isn’t it?
D
Dum_Spiro_Spero
Guest
do you mean no jurisdiction? because they have not been stripped of their faculties
But without priestly faculties.
B
Bbigam
Guest
Ok, so you saw that at one parish. It’s gravely wrong and possibly invalid, but that’s one parish. There are many parishes out there - the vast majority, I suspect - that have valid, licit matter for the Eucharist. There are also many parishes (not as many, sadly) that celebrate the Ordinary Form of the Mass reverently, if not to your preferences.
That said, there are also many places that offer the Extraordinary Form in full communion with the Holy Father, such as FSSP, Canons of St. John Cantius, and ICRSS, as well as diocesan parishes. Admittedly, there are few if any Extraordinary Form Masses in many areas.
And by the way, the Lord primarily deals with “faculties” through the Church that He established.
- Status