SSPX and being canonically irregular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jas84173

Guest
I was curious, does anyone know what the specific concerns or reasons are why the SSPX are not in full communion with the Holy See? What do they refuse to acknowledge?
 
That we have had valid Popes since Vat II and everything contained in Vatican II.
Kind of sad. It’s been 50 years. 😥
 
I understand they are in schism but Pope Francis did give them authority to administer the sacrament of Reconciliation and provide absolution to any Catholic. And not just for the year of Mercy.
 
jas84173 said:
I was curious, does anyone know what the specific concerns or reasons are why the SSPX are not in full communion with the Holy See? What do they refuse to acknowledge?
Click to expand...
As an organization (canonically a Society) they have no status in the Church—their Society is unofficial and illegal.

However, being “in full Communion with the Church” is a standard that applies to individual persons—not to societies. The converse of that is likewise true: being excommunicated applies to individual persons, not groups.

Some of the members of the SSPX are in a status of being excommunicated, although the excommunication of their bishops was lifted a few years ago, and most members are not excommunicated.

Only priests can be full members of the SSPX. They consider lay people to be “visitors” rather than having any formal status of membership; so, for example, they do not use the word “parish” to describe their local communities. By avoiding words like parish and by not granting laity any formal status of membership, they avoid the technical definition of schism. Therefore, they are not schismatics as canon law defines the word.
 
FrDavid96 said:
Therefore, they are not schismatics as canon law defines the word.
Click to expand...
They may not be in de jure schism.

But they are in de facto schism.

Cardinal Burke said this in July, 2017:

"[T]he fact of the matter is that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is in schism since the late Abp. Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops without the mandate of the Roman Pontiff. And so it is not legitimate to attend Mass or to receive the sacraments in a church that’s under the direction of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X."
 
Last edited:
jas84173 said:
I was curious, does anyone know what the specific concerns or reasons are why the SSPX are not in full communion with the Holy See? What do they refuse to acknowledge?
Click to expand...
I note you use the plural in referring to SSPX. One could argue that there are many reasons, since each member has his own. Some SSPX priests are now reunited with the Church, and serve in a diocese already. Since a few “come in” each year, it is likely at any given time some are in discussions with their RCC bishop, and may, possibly, come in next year.

Other SSPX priests support Bishop Fellay, but may have different reasons for staying under his direction, rather than their ordinary. Some prioritize the liturgy, others different documents of V II, and still others recent disagreeable actions of the popes. A lot depends on who the ordinary of their particular city is. If he is old, they may be waiting to see who will replace him as ordinary.

Still other SSPX priests, The Resistance, are remaining “out”, in terms of Rome, but also are more or less in opposition to Bishop Fellay, though not for the same reasons.

The 30 year old priest may have different reasons from the 60 year old. The acceptance of the TLM by the hierarchy in France is much less than in the US. Thus, French SSPX priests may have different reasons for staying “out” than Americans, and priests in other places different from both. The reasons under Pope Francis might be different from the reasons for individual SSPX priests staying out, under Pope Benedict.
So, you are right in asking why (most of) the SSPX are choosing out, rather than why the SSPX is choosing out, for 2018. But the answers are many, because we are talking about individuals.

Keep in mind many SSPX priests have become fully regularized, and serve parishes now.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
Keep in mind many SSPX priests have become fully regularized, and serve parishes now.
Click to expand...
SSPX priests are serving in regular diocese and parishes, while remaining in the SSPX? Do you have documentation of this?
 
I think that Pope Francis has shown himself to be more of a friend to the SSPX than other people are willing to give him credit.
Let us pray that the situation will be such that there will be a full reconciliation between the Holy See and the SSPX.
 
It is certainly irregular in every sense to call the Mass most Catholics attend ‘evil’. I don’t understand why Catholics spend any time thinking about these people.
 
PaulfromIowa said:
40.png
commenter:
Keep in mind many SSPX priests have become fully regularized, and serve parishes now.
Click to expand...
SSPX priests are serving in regular diocese and parishes, while remaining in the SSPX? Do you have documentation of this?
Click to expand...
No, they were enrolled “SSPX priests” before they regularized with their bishop ordinary. They are no longer affiliated. But their training, formation, and earlier ministry experience, and perhaps friends and family members, is SSPX. That is why I described them as “SSPX” priests. From what I have read, they do quite well in their new ministry.
 
Last edited:
jas84173 said:
I was curious, does anyone know what the specific concerns or reasons are why the SSPX are not in full communion with the Holy See? What do they refuse to acknowledge?
Click to expand...
The biggest reason is that the priests of the SSPX aren’t under the command of the local bishops. They do their own thing.
 
poche said:
I think that Pope Francis has shown himself to be more of a friend to the SSPX than other people are willing to give him credit.
Let us pray that the situation will be such that there will be a full reconciliation between the Holy See and the SSPX.
Click to expand...
We can certainly pray for positive new developments. That being said, people tend to forget there already is a reconciliation plan up and running, which is partially successful. Some SSPX clergy have come in, full reconciliation, and others also come in each year. Many parishes exist now, that would not exist were it not for the Cardinal Ratzinger/St JP II plan.

This plan has borne fruit, will likely continue to bear fruit, and should not be minimized.
 
Last edited:
So these priests who are very qualified to do the EF of Mass using the 1962 Missal just decide not to anymore? That’s a shame kind of. We need more priests who know the EF. I don’t know if it is taught in seminary but it really should be. I got in an argument with my priest once who is a typical baby boomer priest and they are the ones who seem to have the biggest problem with the EF. I have no idea why maybe it was a rough time to be in seminary. I asked that we put altar kneelers and railings back in our church. He laughed at me. I asked we have the EF sometimes in our parish. He said I’m on the road to being a schismatic. Sorry if I’m wrong but does not Pope Benedict XVl Summorum Pontificate say it is completely legal to use the EF form using the 1962 Missal? How does this make me a schismatic. I notice many priests think just because you like the old form it means your schismatic?
 
Last edited:
jas84173 said:
So these priests who are very qualified to do the EF of Mass using the 1962 Missal just decide not to anymore? That’s a shame kind of. We need more priests who know the EF. I don’t know if it is taught in seminary but it really should be. I got in an argument with my priest once who is a typical baby boomer priest and they are the ones who seem to have the biggest problem with the EF. I have no idea why maybe it was a rough time to be in seminary. I asked that we put altar kneelers and railings back in our church. He laughed at me. I asked we have the EF sometimes in our parish. He said I’m on the road to being a schismatic. Sorry if I’m wrong but does not Pope Benedict XVl Summorum Pontificate say it is completely legal to use the EF form using the 1962 Missal? How does this make me a schismatic. I notice many priests think just because you like the old form it means your schismatic?
Click to expand...
I assume SSPX priests who “swim the Tiber” and come into communion with the Church continue to say the TLM afterwards, using the Extraordinary Form. Only now they are in the ministry of a diocese and/or a religious order of the Church.

I agree, we need more priests who know the EF. Where I live they have rotating diocesan priests who say the EF, but the community here would love a full time parish.

Yes, from my contacts with fellow baby boomers, that was a very rough time to go through seminary. Give thanks to God for your priest, who is likely a survivor of many struggles. Don’t take it seriously if he says a few things you don’t like. He may have met TLM supporters in the past who were elitist, judgmental, or just plain ornery. Let’s face it we aren’t perfect.

If he finds the traditional type Catholics are also the ones who help out in the parish, who have a sense of humor, and able to learn things from him, he may come to have a different view.

And gently bring up your request for the TLM again, in the future. And accept his decision then, if he rejects it again.
 
Last edited:
It wasn’t a argument I just told him I personally find the Old mass more reverent. There’s thing I like about the new mass as well. I like that much more bible is read for example.
I believe both forms if done liturgically correct are both beautiful. I just personally feel closer to Christ at the consecration of the Eucharist in the EF than in the OF. It’s not saying it isn’t valid it’s just a preference. Also I prefer kneeling and receiving the Eucharist on the tongue by a priest. I personally don’t like receiving Christ from my aunt the EM. I am not rejecting it as valid I just have a preference.

What annoys me is when say the Holy Father questions why people like myself who are to young to have known the mass can’t understand why we prefer it. It’s almost like older priests think the youth are attracted to a “rigid” old Mass. When the Holy Father said that I believe he himself was speaking negatively about the EF. Yes many young people are attracted to the EF. It is no secret. We like the reverence paid due. The mystery. The feeling of a true sacrifice. I don’t need the pope who I pray for every day questioning why I prefer it. I only go to EF on Sundays. For daily mass I go to OF so it’s not like I think any less of it. I like mixing it up actually.
 
That’s beautiful! And so young. I wasn’t very religious until I was in my 20s. I am so happy to know you have faith like that and also appreciate the older Latin music. It really is beautiful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top