SSPX in the Year of Mercy?

[commenter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan 64 View Post
"A member of the congregation wearing a short skirt is one thing, but liturgical abuse is another matter.

It could be argued that in such circumstances it is not a doctorate in Canon Law that is required, but an honest judgement of conscience?"

You could say that. “Morally impeded” covers a lot of territory, at least in English. An occasion to/of sin may not be that manifest to one but it could to another. And one can’t simply dismiss it as being too scrupulous IMO.

from Commenter:
I’ve tried not to be frivolous lately, but can’t help note the posts about wearing a short skirt, and covering a lot of territory. There are some situations where the objective observer might silently wish they *did * cover more territory.
OK, back to the thread.

 

[Kevin12]

What about this situation? If someone lived in a small town with no Catholic church but an SSPX chapel, would they be justified in attending there as opposed to not going to church at all?

I think the situation is Victory isn’t exactly unique and like I said, I think the SSPX does it on purpose. In that situation, the nearest Church is 12 miles away. I don’t think there’s any excuse there. Someone in the nearest Church would be able to pick you up and take you back. If it was farther than that, I think you’d have to do everything in your power to either move out of said town or find some way of getting to a legit mass before you even considered it (like again, getting someone to pick you up if you have no car - if you have a car and aren’t too poor to drive, there’s no excuse). And even then, if it were me, I’d try to get a dispensation from obligation for weekly mass before I set foot in an SSPX church.

Of course, there are some people who would find any excuse to tell themselves they are justified in attending SSPX mass because it “never left Rome”–even though the SSPX apparently consider the current Church a “new religion”. The level of cognitive dissonance much be massive for people like this who truly believe the only real issue at hand here was Lefebvre’s false ordinations rather than a profound disagreement about the correct interpretation of past Church documents.

 

[Brendan_64]

You could say that. “Morally impeded” covers a lot of territory, at least in English. An occasion to/of sin may not be that manifest to one but it could to another. And one can’t simply dismiss it as being too scrupulous IMO.

That is true. In such cases an honest examination of conscience (in line with Church teaching and current discipline) would be needed. But if, after an honest examination of conscience, a person felt they were indeed morally impeded from attending Mass in a particular church (and that in itself could indeed be quite common) there would have to be no other suitable Catholic churches within reasonable travelling distance that would not result in this moral impediment (and that would be far more uncommon).

It is possible, but would be quite uncommon for most people. But I could foresee the occasion of a person for whom a moral impediment due to occasion to sin might apply not just in Mass in one particular church, but in several. I could see why a person in such a position good in good conscience attend an SSPX Mass due to the moral impediment ‘clause’, but it would not be a common occurrence.

 

[Brendan_64]

I’ve tried not to be frivolous lately, but can’t help note the posts about wearing a short skirt, and covering a lot of territory. There are some situations where the objective observer might silently wish they *did * cover more territory.

 

[ProVobis]

That is true. In such cases an honest examination of conscience (in line with Church teaching and current discipline) would be needed. But if, after an honest examination of conscience, a person felt they were indeed morally impeded from attending Mass in a particular church (and that in itself could indeed be quite common) there would have to be no other suitable Catholic churches within reasonable travelling distance that would not result in this moral impediment (and that would be far more uncommon).

It is possible, but would be quite uncommon for most people. But I could foresee the occasion of a person for whom a moral impediment due to occasion to sin might apply not just in Mass in one particular church, but in several. I could see why a person in such a position good in good conscience attend an SSPX Mass due to the moral impediment ‘clause’, but it would not be a common occurrence.

If one goes by the moral standards which were in existence in 1962, he might easily be morally impeded where by today’s standards, not so much. All one has to do is to read an Examination of Conscience before Confession in some of the older handmissals, including (but not limited to) violations of the first Commandment.

 

[peter26]

God’s moral standards are the same today that they were in 1962.

 

[quies]

…I’ve tried not to be frivolous lately, but can’t help note the posts about wearing a short skirt, and covering a lot of territory. There are some situations where the objective observer might silently wish they *did * cover more territory…