SSPX and Marriage

[Corki]

Actually, concerning the letter, the opposite is true. There was only one letter which was to an unknown source, under unknown circumstances, which did not have permission to be published, once upon a time - which stated the Sunday obligation was not met. Nobody knows anything about this letter, whether it’s authentic, who it was to, or the guy’s circumstances. All the other letters (and there’s quite a few of them) have stated the opposite and the one I’ve repeatedly referenced here on this thread was written by a journalist, Brian Mershon, with the intention and permission to be published by the PCED and it says that you can attend SSPX Masses and fulfill your Sunday obligation. That is the most official statement we have on this subject. Here it is below and if you’re still in doubt you can google Fr. Z’s blog where he featured the letter as well.

renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/080711

One of those Vatican documents also states (bolding mine):

1. 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

Most of the people who attend SSPX Masses do not do so simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal. Most go to SSPX Masses because they want to separate themselves from others who remain in full Communion with the Church and the Pope.

In your own words

You just gave the justification why people attend the SSPX in the first place - because SSPX accepts ALL of the teachings of the Catholic Church but rejects this torturous ‘spirit of the council’ and the novelties which are not part of the deposit of Faith.

According to the Vatican, if one attends SSPX services because they are rejecting anything that is licitly promulgated, they may be doing so sinfully. The **only **valid reason to attend SSPX services is out of love for the older Mass.

I think it’s inaccurate to say that the SSPX accepts all the teaching of the Church. Just to get started, the society rejects much of the teachings contained in Vatican II documents as well as many of the teachings of Pope John Paul II on the Liturgy, ecuminism and human sexuality.

 

[curlycool89]

You do not accept the Church’s teachings on the SSPX. Ergo, you are not Catholic.

If you really want to get technical (and if you’re not being sarcastic), what the Church says about the SSPX is not a matter of faith and moral, therefore it is not something that needs to be given willful assent to (it’s not a dogma after all).

 

[choy]

Nobody has stated the SSPX is in full communion. It’s certainly imperfect at the moment (at least exteriorly) but the SSPX not being in full communion is not to say that they’re not in communion at all as are schismatics and protestants. If you read the passage you quoted again you’ll find that the Pope repeatedly says (at least three times) they’re in the Church but their "ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church." Meaning they are exercising ministries within the Church just not legitimate ones. A non-Catholic exercises no ministry whatsoever in the Church - legitimate or not.

sorry but communion is an all-or-nothing deal. you either are in full communion or not. and imperfections and you are outside of communion and not one with the Church. even Protestants are not fully outside of Communion with the Catholic Church. most of them believe that Jesus is God, most of them believe in the Trinity, that Jesus became man, born, died on the cross and resurrected. these similar beliefs form partial communion. but does that make them Catholic?

more than Protestants, the Orthodox hold perhaps 90-95% of the same beliefs as Catholics. but still because its not 100%, we can’t consider them big-C Catholics.

and no, SSPX does not exercise any ministry within the Church presently. its also in the same letter Father David posted.

 

[choy]

If you really want to get technical (and if you’re not being sarcastic), what the Church says about the SSPX is not a matter of faith and moral, therefore it is not something that needs to be given willful assent to (it’s not a dogma after all).

what the Church says about the SSPX is about faith and morals. because the SSPX does not accept all Church teaching and they are disobedient to the Pope (ordaining bishops without the Pope’s approval) then it is a matter of faith and morals. because we are to be obedient to the Pope and to the Church in such matters

 

[choy]

One of those Vatican documents also states (bolding mine):

Most of the people who attend SSPX Masses do not do so simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal. Most go to SSPX Masses because they want to separate themselves from others who remain in full Communion with the Church and the Pope.

In your own words

According to the Vatican, if one attends SSPX services because they are rejecting anything that is licitly promulgated, they may be doing so sinfully. The **only **valid reason to attend SSPX services is out of love for the older Mass.

I think it’s inaccurate to say that the SSPX accepts all the teaching of the Church. Just to get started, the society rejects much of the teachings contained in Vatican II documents as well as many of the teachings of Pope John Paul II on the Liturgy, ecuminism and human sexuality.

i agree with this
there are many ways for people to attend TLM/EF Mass from priests and societies/religious orders that are in Full Communion with the Pope. the FSSP is one. and i heard there are diocesan priests who also are qualified to say the Mass in the Extraordinary Form (not every diocese may have this). so why be insistent in going to an SSPX parish? also, since they do not have a canonical status within the Church, the masses are not valid Catholic masses

 

[choy]

Which is why the greatest danger of heresy and schism is actually found in the rank and file Catholic Churches where heresy goes unchecked and anything goes. By your definition, which I don’t dispute, my local Priests (under the Bishop) are not Catholic and I’m not allowed to attend their services. You just gave the justification why people attend the SSPX in the first place - because SSPX accepts ALL of the teachings of the Catholic Church but rejects this torturous ‘spirit of the council’ and the novelties which are not part of the deposit of Faith. And SSPX is not the only one - FSSP does just as well although their polemics are more subdued - but they’re saying the same thing.

if the SSPX is as good as you would say, then why are they not pushing for Full Communion? good morals and teachings are only half of the story, if we are not obedient to the Church and the Vicar of Christ that heads it, then we miss half of the truth. how many times in the Bible are there stories of genuinely good people but cannot follow Christ? right now i see the SSPX in the same way. if they really want to promote good Christian Values, humility and submission to the Church is some of those values. they’re not showing it.

Actually, concerning the letter, the opposite is true. There was only one letter which was to an unknown source, under unknown circumstances, which did not have permission to be published, once upon a time - which stated the Sunday obligation was not met. Nobody knows anything about this letter, whether it’s authentic, who it was to, or the guy’s circumstances. All the other letters (and there’s quite a few of them) have stated the opposite and the one I’ve repeatedly referenced here on this thread was written by a journalist, Brian Mershon, with the intention and permission to be published by the PCED and it says that you can attend SSPX Masses and fulfill your Sunday obligation. That is the most official statement we have on this subject. Here it is below and if you’re still in doubt you can google Fr. Z’s blog where he featured the letter as well.

renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/080711

i would put more weight on letters that come from the Pope and the Vatican posted on the Vatican website

 

[choy]

You do not accept the Church’s teachings on the SSPX. Ergo, you are not Catholic.

and what are these “teachings” that i do not accept?

 

[dans0622]

An interesting quote I have only now seen is the following:

“In a letter of 15 December 2008 addressed to Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, Mons. Bernard Fellay writing also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on 30 June 1988 requested once again the removal of the excommunication latae sententiae formally declared by a Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation for Bishops on 1 July 1988. In his letter, Mons. Fellay stated, among other things, that ‘we continue firmly resolute in our desire to remain Catholics and to put all our strength at the service of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept her teachings in a filial spirit. We firmly believe in the primacy of Peter and in his prerogatives, and for this reason the current situation causes us much suffering.’” vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html

As I’ve said before, it is clear that the SSPX is in an irregular situation and the priests do not exercise licit ministries. There are also the doctrinal issues that need to be addressed by the CDF/PCED and the SSPX. But, to make the separation between “them and us” more profound than it is does not help matters. I see no harm in taking the bishop at his word that he, and the soceity, desire to remain Catholic, etc.

Dan

 

[RosaryCrusader]

If you rephrase it you can say that the “sspx are exercising illegitimate ministries in the Church.” So, where does that leave us???

It leaves them inside the Church but illegitimate which is what we’re discussing.

 

[choy]

An interesting quote I have only now seen is the following:

“In a letter of 15 December 2008 addressed to Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”, Mons. Bernard Fellay writing also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on 30 June 1988 requested once again the removal of the excommunication latae sententiae formally declared by a Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation for Bishops on 1 July 1988. In his letter, Mons. Fellay stated, among other things, that ‘we continue firmly resolute in our desire to remain Catholics and to put all our strength at the service of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept her teachings in a filial spirit. We firmly believe in the primacy of Peter and in his prerogatives, and for this reason the current situation causes us much suffering.’” vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cbishops/documents/rc_con_cbishops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html

As I’ve said before, it is clear that the SSPX is in an irregular situation and the priests do not exercise licit ministries. There are also the doctrinal issues that need to be addressed by the CDF/PCED and the SSPX. But, to make the separation between “them and us” more profound than it is does not help matters. I see no harm in taking the bishop at his word that he, and the soceity, desire to remain Catholic, etc.

Dan

there are many “Catholic” groups out there who are schismatic but still would call themselves Catholic and claim to be part of the Catholic Church. but since they are not in communion with the Pope, they are not. to name a few, Old Catholics, Holy Catholic Charismatic Church, Sedevacantism, etc. all these claim to be Catholics but in reality they are not. why? they are not in communion with the Pope

 

[RosaryCrusader]

According to the Vatican, if one attends SSPX services because they are rejecting anything that is licitly promulgated, they may be doing so sinfully. The **only **valid reason to attend SSPX services is out of love for the older Mass.

You’re putting more into it than what’s there. It doesn’t say there is only one reason to attend - it says there is only one reason why you can’t attend.

I think it’s inaccurate to say that the SSPX accepts all the teaching of the Church. Just to get started, the society rejects much of the teachings contained in Vatican II documents as well as many of the teachings of Pope John Paul II on the Liturgy, ecuminism and human sexuality.

The SSPX accepts all the teachings of the Church. The new policies of Vatican II are not new dogmas and as such are to be weighed in light of tradition and not the other way around. This is the stance of the SSPX and also our current Holy Pontiff as well as other traditional or conservative Catholic organizations. It does not make someone less Catholic - in fact it makes them more so since clarifying and defending the faith as well as dispelling confusion and ambiguity while challenging heterodoxy are noble and virtuous endeavors. This task doesn’t always come from the top as you would expect. Sometimes it comes from the bottom as in the case of Eusebius vs Nestorius (a layman vs a prelate who was second only to the Pope). As Catholics we are not hold the Pope in such high esteem as to think he is impeccable and can do or teach no wrong - that is papolotry and the notion that the Pope is impeccable was condemned by the 1st Vatican Council.

 

[Timothysis]

It leaves them inside the Church but illegitimate which is what we’re discussing.

So, they are inside the Church, yet operating illegitimate ministries?

That’s like saying a disbarred lawyer is still in good standing with the Bar, even though he still practices illegitimately.

While it has been said that it is an internal question regarding the sspx, it seems that since sspx priests are automatically suspended from any priestly duties immediately upon ordination (and, therefore, act in disobedience if they say mass) and that they have no active ministry within the Church (Pope Benedict’s words, not mine), then I think that the case can be made that the sspx are certainly more “outside” of the Church than “in.”

 

[RosaryCrusader]

So, they are inside the Church, yet operating illegitimate ministries?

That’s like saying a disbarred lawyer is still in good standing with the Bar, even though he still practices illegitimately.

While it has been said that it is an internal question regarding the sspx, it seems that since sspx priests are automatically suspended from any priestly duties immediately upon ordination (and, therefore, act in disobedience if they say mass) and that they have no active ministry within the Church (Pope Benedict’s words, not mine), then I think that the case can be made that the sspx are certainly more “outside” of the Church than “in.”

Timothysis, it appears you came late into the discussion and didn’t read up on what was being discussed so I’ll throw you a bone. The issue arose, by Choy (and Fr. David), that SSPX Priests are not valid Priests and they’re not Catholic. Both of which are false. The legitimacy of their ministry is irrelevant at this point in the discussion and was only stated to make a point. If SSPX Priests are not Catholic then that would mean they’re guilty of schism, heresy or apostasy. Someone needs to put on a blindfold and pick one in order to continue the discussion - not that there is anything more to discuss - the claim that SSPX Priests are non-Catholic is fallacious and completely without merit. If such were the case they would not be under suspension which is a censure reserved for Catholics and not non-Catholics.

Your lawyer analogy isn’t really correct. A suspended student is still a student of the school and a police officer put on leave still belongs to the department.

 

[Timothysis]

Timothysis, it appears you came late into the discussion and didn’t read up on what was being discussed so I’ll throw you a bone. The issue arose, by Choy (and Fr. David), that SSPX Priests are not valid Priests and they’re not Catholic. Both of which are false. The legitimacy of their ministry is irrelevant at this point in the discussion and was only stated to make a point. If SSPX Priests are not Catholic then that would mean they’re guilty of schism, heresy or apostasy. Someone needs to put on a blindfold and pick one in order to continue the discussion - not that there is anything more to discuss - the claim that SSPX Priests are non-Catholic is fallacious and completely without merit. If such were the case they would not be under suspension which is a censure reserved for Catholics and not non-Catholics.

Your lawyer analogy isn’t really correct. A suspended student is still a student of the school and a police officer put on leave still belongs to the department.

Yet, while sspx priests are certainly validly ordained, any ministry they celebrate is illict, meaning “illegal” or “not allowed” by the Church. It does raise an interesting question as to how one can be a valid catholic priest and, yet, not be able to licitly carry out the functions of the position.

And no one has said that sspx priests are "guilty of schism, heresy or apostasy;" that is reserved to the appropriate, legitimate powers that be. However, that doesn’t mean that the day couldn’t come when that declaration is made if the discussions between the Holy See and the sspx don’t pan out. Too many here are trying to answer a question that has not officially been asked. While we can say with complete certainty that sspx priests are valid Catholic priests, the fact that they cannot licitly celebrate the sacraments (and act in disobedience to the Holy See when the do) and have no active ministry in the Church means that they are in a type of ministerial limbo.

 

[MarkThompson]

Yet, while sspx priests are certainly validly ordained, any ministry they celebrate is illict, meaning “illegal” or “not allowed” by the Church. It does raise an interesting question as to how one can be a valid catholic priest and, yet, not be able to licitly carry out the functions of the position.

And no one has said that sspx priests are "guilty of schism, heresy or apostasy;" that is reserved to the appropriate, legitimate powers that be. However, that doesn’t mean that the day couldn’t come when that declaration is made if the discussions between the Holy See and the sspx don’t pan out. Too many here are trying to answer a question that has not officially been asked. While we can say with complete certainty that sspx priests are valid Catholic priests, the fact that they cannot licitly celebrate the sacraments (and act in disobedience to the Holy See when the do) and have no active ministry in the Church means that they are in a type of ministerial limbo.

Well, it’s impossible for someone to cease being a valid Catholic priest. The sacrament of Holy Orders is indelible. So the situation is exactly the same, for instance, for a pedophile priest who is “defrocked,” or a heretic priest like Martin Luther who is excommunicated. If the sacrament was ever valid, then they’re priests forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.

 

[choy]

Well, it’s impossible for someone to cease being a valid Catholic priest. The sacrament of Holy Orders is indelible. So the situation is exactly the same, for instance, for a pedophile priest who is “defrocked,” or a heretic priest like Martin Luther who is excommunicated. If the sacrament was ever valid, then they’re priests forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.

RosaryCrusader kept arguing about the validity of the Orders, which was never the issue. like i said, Orthodox Priests are validly Ordained, but they are not big-C Catholic. they have Valid Orders, Valid Sacraments, Valid Priesthood, but not Catholic.

the issue is not the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but their status as lacking full communion with the Bishop of Rome. that is what makes them not Catholic.

 

[MarkThompson]

RosaryCrusader kept arguing about the validity of the Orders, which was never the issue. like i said, Orthodox Priests are validly Ordained, but they are not big-C Catholic. they have Valid Orders, Valid Sacraments, Valid Priesthood, but not Catholic.

the issue is not the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but their status as lacking full communion with the Bishop of Rome. that is what makes them not Catholic.

I was responding to the statement, “It does raise an interesting question as to how one can be a valid catholic priest and, yet, not be able to licitly carry out the functions of the position.” If we can understand how that’s possible in the case of a defrocked or excommunicated priest, then we can equivalently understand how it’s possible in the case of the SSPX.

 

[Timothysis]

RosaryCrusader kept arguing about the validity of the Orders, which was never the issue. like i said, Orthodox Priests are validly Ordained, but they are not big-C Catholic. they have Valid Orders, Valid Sacraments, Valid Priesthood, but not Catholic.

the issue is not the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but their status as lacking full communion with the Bishop of Rome. that is what makes them not Catholic.

This is a good point, too. While one may still be a *valid *priest, if he is out of communion with the Church, the pope and its bishops can he still claim to be a “big-C Catholic” priest? If one knowingly places themselves outside of the Church, are they still “Catholic?”

 

[RosaryCrusader]

RosaryCrusader kept arguing about the validity of the Orders, which was never the issue.

Choy, below are your quotes where you questioned the validity of the SSPX’s Priesthood and likened them to anglicans and lutherans who are w/o Holy Orders:

Post #49

choy:

thats the thing, if salvation is important,** wouldn’t you want to receive the Sacrament (or in this case, the Sacarament be witnessed) by a valid priest?**

its like receiving communion from an Anglican or Lutheran priest. they can give you the correct teaching, but they’re not valid priests with valid sacraments in the Catholic Church. in the end, the marriage is null and void and you’ll be living in sin, so where’s the salvation in that?

Post #55

RosaryCrusader:

Actually, it’s nothing like anglican or lutheran “priests.” SSPX are valid Catholic Priests.

choy:

sorry, but they are not, despite how insistent you are they do not have a canonical status within the Church, therefore they are not valid priests

Maybe it was just a poor choice of words on your part but when you say a Priest is “invalid” it means he does not have valid Holy Orders and is therefore not a Priest at all. “Illicit” means valid Holy Orders but the orders were conferred unlawfully. There’s an enormous difference which is what I was trying to tell you.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

I’m going to have to bring my contributions to this thread to a close.

In closing I would like to say:

I submit my opinions to the judgment of the lawful authorities in the Church and I pledge my loyalty to the Catholic Church and submission to our Holy Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI.

Good Night,

Rosary Crusader