Sspx faq

[PiousTemplar]

I came across this:

sspx.com.au/faq.html

I dont understand this can someone please explain:

Q: Why is the SSPX so quick to condemn FSSP, when the mass celebrated is exactly the same ? Is it so bad that the FSSP are officially acknowledged by Rome ? (In my personal experience, I have never come across nor have I ever heard of any FSSP priests agreeing with the New Mass.)

A: Our critical view of the FSSP does not relate to their Mass, but to their doctrine. Indeed, on many points they have agreed to current deviations. Especially the way they mislead good souls into thinking the SSPX is outside the Church, or administers some invalid sacraments

Cheers!

 

[PiousTemplar]

Also, I was reading another FAQ by the SSPX and they say that letting children watch television frequently is a near occasion of sin because it gives them perverted ideas of liberalism or whatever. Does that sound a little like they want to brain wash?

 

[pnewton]

I came across this:

sspx.com.au/faq.html

I dont understand this can someone please explain:

Q: Why is the SSPX so quick to condemn FSSP, when the mass celebrated is exactly the same ? Is it so bad that the FSSP are officially acknowledged by Rome ? (In my personal experience, I have never come across nor have I ever heard of any FSSP priests agreeing with the New Mass.)

A: Our critical view of the FSSP does not relate to their Mass, but to their doctrine. Indeed, on many points they have agreed to current deviations. [Especially the way they mislead good souls into thinking the SSPX is outside the Church, or administers some invalid sacraments

Cheers!

The ultimate explaination is that it is an SSPX website, so of course, the defend the SSPX position. The specific question is the validity of some Sacraments, especially the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, which requires the permission of the bishop with jurisdiction for validity. The SSPX position is that, even though they do not have the permission of the appropriate bishop in most cases, they can rely on a principle of “supplied jurisdiction”. The problem is that this was never supposed to cover a deliberate act of avoidance of those who have the authority to hear confession. The SSPX makes it a type of loophole, using this for a purpose it was never intended. It might well be the case where a Catholic accidently went to an SSPX priest without faculties to hear confession and was absolved thinking it was a regular Catholic priest. However, this deliberate avoidance of diocesan faculties is not what this canon was meant for.

I guess the bigger question is why would anyone base their forgiveness on a slippery possibility a loophole might apply?
[/QUOTE]

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Question has been answered.

**
CLOSED**