SSPX mass OK?

  • Thread starter Thread starter marci
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Callixtus said:
When you can’t counter a statement factually, make sarcastic, personal attacks.
Click to expand...
Sorry Callixtus, but you offered no facts at all to substantiate your bottom line and your arrogance of presupposing what the Pope would say was frankly, breathtaking.
 
giuseppeTO said:
Sorry Callixtus, but you offered no facts at all to substantiate your bottom line and your arrogance of presupposing what the Pope would say was frankly, breathtaking.
Click to expand...
Feel free to share with us all the relevant documents from the Vatican stating that the SSPX is now in full communion with Rome.
 
Callixtus said:
“In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.” - Pope Benedict XVI, March 10, 2009:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html
Click to expand...
I have never seen this before - I’m sure you made it up. But even if it is somehow authentic, I am amazed at how you got from that quotation to:

"…you are still not at liberty to receive the sacraments from the SSPX .." Callixtus I (2010)

**" …Unless they are the only place you can receive the sacraments - i.e. the nearest Catholic church in your area is 500 miles away and you would otherwise go without the mass, confession, etc. - then you are not supposed to go." **

I am dying to see which papal document this nugget came from.
 
giuseppeTO said:
I have never seen this before - I’m sure you made it up. But even if it is somehow authentic, I am amazed at how you got from that quotation to:

"…you are still not at liberty to receive the sacraments from the SSPX .." Callixtus I (2010)

**" …Unless they are the only place you can receive the sacraments - i.e. the nearest Catholic church in your area is 500 miles away and you would otherwise go without the mass, confession, etc. - then you are not supposed to go." **

I am dying to see which papal document this nugget came from.
Click to expand...
I happily and without malice concede to you, Giuseppe, victory in what unfortunately seems to have become, for you, “a battle of the egos.” I don’t mind your insults, especially as persons far better than myself have endured much worse. I expect there will be more, but again, I don’t mind.

I responded here in the first place to provide a helpful answer to the question of the original poster.

Anybody interested in what the pope (and therefore the universal Church) has said on the subject, which is what’s at the heart of this discussion for those who wish to be in full communion, can find his statement at the link I provided in my last post.

That’s all I have to say.
 
In spite of having just said I was done with this discussion, I feel I must write this postscript to make two points:
  1. The first is that it remains true that Pope Benedict has stated in a document released by the Vatican and available on its website that “until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.” [available at - and this link, I now realize, was already posted in a much more eloquent post earlier in this thread - http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html ]. You can do a text search in your internet browser to quickly find the passage I have just quoted.
  2. I want to applaud Giuseppe - and this is most sincere on my part - on what he wrote in a post elsewhere in the forums. To quote him,
“The cantankerousness with which we frequently treat eachother on boards such as these, will manifest themselves in the real (non-cyber) world until we allow charity to always rule the day.”

Well said.
 
Yes, it is illicit. Most here seem to agree. It doesn’t mean people are going to stop going to a valid Mass. I don’t know why you think it needs to be restated.
Click to expand...
Because some on this forum would seem to want to deflect the seriousness of this very direct statement by the Holy See into ambiguities of validity and liceity, which are for the Church to determine through a well-developed canonical process, and not individual armchair canonists.

I do not doubt that those who wish to continue to support schism will use whatever relativistic arguments possible to continue to justify such actions. Every faithful Catholic can read the words of the Holy See very clearly claryfying the status of the SSPX.
the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
Click to expand...
Well, that Papal “nugget” came from - the Pope.

It should further cause every faithful Catholic to pause when the Holy Father also clearly stated that there are DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES between the SSPX and the Church. So if there are questions of doctrine, as the Holy Father has stated exists, then every Catholic should err to the side of Magisterial direction and not a religious order that does not possess any canonical status nor can excercise any ministry in the Church. It is not so simple as an empirical personal interpretation of “valid” and “licit” when there are doctrinal differences involved.
 
Callixtus said:
I happily and without malice concede to you, Giuseppe, victory in what unfortunately seems to have become, for you, “a battle of the egos.” I don’t mind your insults, especially as persons far better than myself have endured much worse. I expect there will be more, but again, I don’t mind.

I responded here in the first place to provide a helpful answer to the question of the original poster.

Anybody interested in what the pope (and therefore the universal Church) has said on the subject, which is what’s at the heart of this discussion for those who wish to be in full communion, can find his statement at the link I provided in my last post.

That’s all I have to say.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I sounded insulting my friend. We have been discussing this thread since before Christmas (Dec 17th, to be exact). This is the 326th post and back around post #21, someone already made your point with the same reference to the Pope’s March 2009 statement.

So, I would image that not reading this thread, some 300 posts later, you post a me-too message that has already been made and you put your own interpretation and spin on it and tell us that this is what the Pope would say if he were here, like you were somehow involved in his inner circle and knew exactly what he meant but perhaps lacked the ability to communicate.
As the doctrinal discussions continue between the Vatican and the SSPX, there is feeling and mood of progress, at least from my perspective. We discuss these matters on this board and there has been a distinct but subtle change in the tenor of the discussions here - a lot less of the “you are all disobedient, schismatic, and heretical Lefebricanos (my new favorite word from L’OR) that will end up in hell with your founder” attitude.
 
Diak said:
It should further cause every faithful Catholic to pause when the Holy Father also clearly stated that there are DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES between the SSPX and the Church. So if there are questions of doctrine, as the Holy Father has stated exists, then every Catholic should err to the side of [the] Magisteri[um]…
Click to expand...
Well said, Diak! I do not think I could have said it any better or plainer.
 
Diak said:
It should further cause every faithful Catholic to pause when the Holy Father also clearly stated that there are DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES between the SSPX and the Church.
Click to expand...
That’s what we read. So then there was some new doctrine introduced to the Church? When? What is it? Simply declaring that “we have differences” is perhaps valid but nevertheless an empty claim. Would God send someone to Hell if He didn’t state why?
 
That’s what we read. So then there was some new doctrine introduced to the Church? When? What is it? Simply declaring that “we have differences” is perhaps valid but nevertheless an empty claim. Would God send someone to Hell if He didn’t state why?
Click to expand...
Nobody said anything about “new doctrine”. What was stated is that doctrinal differences exist between the SSPX and Rome. The SSPX has rejected the last 45 years of Magisterial teaching and the last universal Council of the Church. That would indeed create “doctrinal differences”. As I mentioned previously, every faithful Catholic should carefully discern any support whatsoever of the SSPX when the Holy Father clearly states there are doctrinal differences between the Catholic Church and that religous order that does not enjoy any canonical status and of whose ministers cannot exercise any ministry.

If you consider a definitive statement of the Holy Father on a disciplinary matter over which he has full jurisdiction to be an “empty claim”, then I would suggest you have far more issues with the Catholic Church than just ontological questions of what is “valid” and “licit”.
 
ProVobis said:
That’s what we read. So then there was some new doctrine introduced to the Church? When? What is it? Simply declaring that “we have differences” is perhaps valid but nevertheless an empty claim. Would God send someone to Hell if He didn’t state why?
Click to expand...
The SSPX doctrine that the Council and the Pope have no authority to alter the Mass immediately comes to mind.
 
Diak said:
Nobody said anything about “new doctrine”. What was stated is that doctrinal differences exist between the SSPX and Rome. The SSPX has rejected the last 45 years of Magisterial teaching and the last universal Council of the Church. That would indeed create “doctrinal differences”. .
Click to expand...
Well if set A represents doctrine prior to the 45 years and each side agrees on set A, then in order for any differences to exist and reject means that the new side is playing with set A + B of doctrines which means B is “new” doctrine. Simple logic and math, I would think.

Now tell us exactly what the set B is. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask this in light of all the general accusations you’ve been repeating from what you’ve been readings. Don’t you question when you’re being accused of something you have no idea about what you’re accused of?

I sense this is going nowhere so I’ll just let you have the last word and put you on ignore. It sounds as if you just enjoy gossip.
 
Diak said:
Nobody said anything about “new doctrine”.
Click to expand...
The SSPX have never, at any time, been accused of rejecting any infallibly-defined doctrine of the Church. Please correct me, somebody, if I am wrong.
It is not possible to do that with the Vatican II statements, of course, because they are not infallible: See “The Nota praevia”, ordered to be inserted by Pope Paul VI, which states this explicitly.
fisheaters.com/notapraevia.html
Click to expand...
Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council
**
Note: This was written as a Nota Praevia, a preliminary introductory note, to the document, Lumen Gentium. It was, in defiance of Pope Paul VI’s wishes, relegated to the Appendix of the document in published editions of the Second Vatican Council’s documents. Nonetheless, though it exists in a less important place, it is still a part of the document. The nota-appendix clearly states that the Council was a pastoral one and clarifies the notion of collegiality in order to prevent Modernists from diminishing the power of the Petrine Ministry while elevating that of the College of Bishops, which Lumen Gentium could be – and has been – interpreted to call for.
  • [From a footnote on page 88 of The Great Facade, by Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr. which explains the reason for this Nota:** “The most famous example [of the Pope acting decisively to prevent the Second Vatican Council from promulgating outright errors as Catholic doctrine] is Pope Paul’s intervention forcing the Council to include the Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium, which correct’s LG’s [Lumen Gentium’s] erroneous suggestion that when the Pope exercised his supreme authority he does so only as head of the apostolic college, wherein the supreme authority resides. Paul was alerted to this problem by a group of conservative Council Fathers, *[nume: led by Mgr Lefebvre] who finally persuaded him of LG’s destructive potential: ‘Pope Paul, realizing finally that he had been deceived, broke down and wept.’ Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, p. 232.”]Mgr Lefebvre said right from day one that he was standing by the Faith that had always been taught, and rejected Modernist novelites. He also said from the very beginning that he accepted Vatican II “in the light of tradition” - which is beginning to sound very much like what Pope Benedict has been saying.
Click to expand...
What was stated is that doctrinal differences exist between the SSPX and Rome. The SSPX has rejected the last 45 years of Magisterial teaching
Click to expand...
No, they rejected the Modernist spin on the ambiguous statements of the Council documents. Mgr Lefebvre & many other Council Fathers had tried and tried during the Council to warn the other bishops what would happen after the Council Fathers had gone back home. Examples of this have been posted on CAF & in fact, whole books have been written on the matter. See previous posting on M. Davies’ books.
and the last universal Council of the Church. That would indeed create “doctrinal differences”.
Click to expand...
It would if anybody declared off his own bat that the council was invalid. The SSPX never make such claims.
Pope Benedict did not see fit to specify what these "doctrinal differences’ actually are. Perhaps we should give him, and the SSPX, a little space to discuss fully and honestly what are the problems with the documents and the aftermath of Vatican II – which are unparallelled in the entire history of the Church –
As I mentioned previously, every faithful Catholic should carefully discern
Click to expand...
disown?
any support whatsoever of the SSPX when the Holy Father clearly states there are doctrinal differences
Click to expand...
What are they, again, exactly?
between the Catholic Church and that religous order
Click to expand...
which is also within the Church
that does not enjoy any canonical status
Click to expand...
that is because they are established as an emergency measure, that has achieved very great success within the Church, despite everything their enemies have been able to do. The Vatican does not officially admit in so many words that a State of Emergency exists – although there are many individual statements by the popes. E.g. “The smoke of Satan … has entered the Church” (Pope Paul VI); “There is a silent apostasy” (Pope John Paul II). If there actually is a state of emergency, however, then the SSPX do have a role - even if, by definition, it is outside the mainstream. That is the whole point, and it is not hair-splitting to repeat it.
and of whose ministers cannot exercise any ministry.
Click to expand...
His Holiness did not use the word “cannot” and not only are SSPX Masses offered in such illustrious places as the Lourdes Basilica, but high prelates have participated in their Masses. Yes, the situation with the SSPX is still not fully tidied up, but this fact should not be exaggerated. There is a process going on which is extremely encouraging.
Click to expand...
 
Aramis said:
The SSPX doctrine that the Council and the Pope have no authority to alter the Mass immediately comes to mind.
Click to expand...
No, they say no such thing, as proved by the fact that the SSPX have always accepted the 1962 revision of the Tridentine Rite (even though some changes were regretted by individuals). They state explicitly that this was because it was within the Holy See’s authority and the changes did not endanger the Faith. As to how the Novus Ordo endangers the Faith, please see The Ottaviani Intervention:–
fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html
In such a case, the SSPX assert that the higher duty to the Faith, and to God, over-rides the personal wish of the Pope that all abandon the Immemorial Liturgical Rite (which, as we now know, had not actually been canonically abrogated).
 
Aramis said:
The SSPX doctrine that the Council and the Pope have no authority to alter the Mass immediately comes to mind.
Click to expand...
Could you provide a link to that ‘doctrine’ - it would be an interesting read. Pope John XXIII added St Joseph to the Mass. Pope Pius XII allowed for an alteration of the Holy Week Liturgies, as well as the Breviarium Romanum, all of which are accepted by the SSPX (but not the sedevacantists).

So I think your information is faulty.
 
Onegin said:
As I’ve said in the past, if I had to pick (for spiritual edification) between a diocesan Mass that is illicit because the Priest ad-libs the Eucharistic Prayers or an SSPX Mass that is illicit because of Jurisdiction, the choice (for me) is clear.
Click to expand...
Actually one can make a case that the New Mass is both illicit and invalid PER TRENT’s one canon that anathematizes any pastor whomsoever who creates a new rite. However, since that canon is not infallible, though the Council of Trent was doctrinal, this is not the case.

Then one could make the case, based on Trent and Quo Primum, that the New Mass is an indult. However, the 2007 SP that decrees two forms to be both equally licit and valid and makes this indult issue irrelevant.
 
FYI - John Salza is a lawyer, not a canon lawyer. He has done some excellent works, but supplied jurisdiction is one of controversy. Canon law is is specialty. Canon lawyer Ed Peters has spoken on the radio on supplied jurisdiction where it can apply, but it is not universal. For example, knowledge of lack of jurisdiction can negate supplied jurisdiction.

In any case, in reference to this thread, there is no canon lawyer I have heard that questions the validity of SSPX Mass. It does not need this eclessia supplet.

Also, it should be noted that the article in the above link does not even have a footnote designating where it came from. I tried to locate the reference and found that catholicintl.com links another article on supplied jurisdiction by Fr. Ramon Angles, an Irish SSPX priest (no canon law credentials listed). My point is that one should always understand any possible bias, especially when documentation is lacking.

As I said before, if in doubt, err on the side of caution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top