SSPX Mass ok?

[Verbum]

Hi Dropper,

Do not forget the words that follow. Regular attendance can brlng on a situation where you are excommunicated and in danger of eternal damnation.

Verbum

 

[Dropper]

Verbum:

Hi Dropper,

Do not forget the words that follow. Regular attendance can brlng on a situation where you are excommunicated and in danger of eternal damnation.

Verbum

I agree, but the very same could be said of anyone attending a great number of NO parishes today.

I do not, at present, assist at an SSPX Mass, but I could foresee cirumstances where I would might have to.

The situation with the SSPX is far more complicated than most folks here would like to admit. It isn’t as simple as reading Ecclesia Dei or even the Pearle Letter.

It’s a shame to think that a lot of posters here would rather have someone attend an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy (which is schismatic and illicit) than assist at an SSPX Mass (which is arguably schismatic and illicit).

The members of the SSPX are good men and solid priests that have been on the front lines of the fight for Tradition. The fact that they are seemingly looked upon with such scorn and malice is sad. They don’t deserve it.

 

[Iohannes]

cainem:

how can the sspx mass be valid ? they are not in communion with rome, which also means that the sacraments are not valid, transubstanation does not happen because you wish it, the only valid sacraments are found in the holy catholic and apostolic church, if the sspx want to be catholic then they should come home instead of sitting on the sidelines spitting their dummy out the pram

For a valid Mass, all you need is:
a Priest
Proper matter
Proper form
Proper intention

IT is as easy as that.

 

[Iohannes]

The problem I think is that everybody assumes that everyone lives in the Diocese of Lincoln where the indult Traditional Latin Mass is abundant.

Well some of us live here or influenced by this region:

onelacatholic.blogspot.com/

 

[cainem]

lohannes wrote

For a valid Mass, all you need is:
a Priest
Proper matter
Proper form
Proper intention

IT is as easy as that.
but they if they are not in communion with rome, then surely the sspx priest is as catholic as the ulster unionist rev ian paisley?

 

[Dropper]

cainem:

lohannes wrote

For a valid Mass, all you need is:
a Priest
Proper matter
Proper form
Proper intention

IT is as easy as that.
but they if they are not in communion with rome, then surely the sspx priest is as catholic as the ulster unionist rev ian paisley?

The SSPX are indeed Catholic. They hold true to the faith. They are sedes. They use the 1962 Missal. They are Catholic. Their Masses are valid. They may not necessarily be licit (but a good many NO Masses are not either), but they are valid.

 

[EddieArent]

No offense, but typically speaking, the SSPX aren’t “sedes” - usually refereed to those who wrongly believe that St. Peter’s chair is vacant.

For those who wrongly believe that the SSPX are in “schism,” their response is below;
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q12_sspxschismatic.htm

 

[Freeway4321]

Even the oddest Bishop they have (Williamson) will tell you they aren’t “sedes”.

To much misinformation.

 

[JOHNYJ]

The only Formal Decress of Excommunication against the EO were in 1054. They were probably invalid from the start.They were formaly Revoked.By Paul VI in the 1960’s .
What is a person brought up in the lefebvreist Schism ,good question. A protestant possibly.
They are not Catholic,that is for sure.
Catholics in Iraq may receive the Scaraments Validy and licitly in the Assyrian Orthodox church.

 

[JOHNYJ]

It just keeps on getting better. If two Catholics allow themselves to be married by an SSPX priest any children they have would be illegitimate in the eyes of the Catholic church.Since an SSPX priest does not have the faculties to marry anyone.
It is true that the Lefebvreist renegades do not generaly admit that they are not realy Catholic This may give some missguided people some lee way for supporting them
.Up to a point !

 

[TNT]

JOHNYJ:

It just keeps on getting better. If two Catholics allow themselves to be married by an SSPX priest any children they have would be illegitimate in the eyes of the Catholic church.Since an SSPX priest does not have the faculties to marry anyone.
It is true that the Lefebvreist renegades do not generaly admit that they are not realy Catholic This may give some missguided people some lee way for supporting them
.Up to a point !

First, it is the state that declares “illigitimate”. The church does not declare children as such. The church supplies when needed to protect the innocent under her jurisdiction.
Second:
You have not addressed the following:
They’re in schism, are they not? If true, how do they gain “jurisdiction”?

As far as “permission” goes by a catholic bp., even a luthern-catholic marriage can be licit in a Lutheran ministry. That proves nothing, as no EO marriage of 2 EO’s calls a catholic bishop.
Where does the EO schismatic get jurisdiction to perform a sacrament of matrimony? That’s the question.
BTW:
A schismatic is ipso facto excommunicated as far as I can tell.
One can be excommunicated w/o being in schism, but one cannot be in schism without being excommunicated.

Third:
IF an SSPX couple have children, they were then “born into schism”, same as th EO all are. Therefore, since the church says “one is NOT born into schism”, the children are NOT in schism, but parents are?
See Canon 844 for the fact that EO’s are in fact outside the church, as they cannot receive catholic sacraments without special dispensation.

OH, what a web we weave when as first we do deceive,
with Ecumenism!

Canon 844:
paragraph 3 of Canon law 844;
[A] Catholic minister may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental church which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacrament and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgment of the Apostolic SEE are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as these sacraments are concerned.

 

[Dropper]

EddieArent:

No offense, but typically speaking, the SSPX aren’t “sedes” - usually refereed to those who wrongly believe that St. Peter’s chair is vacant.

For those who wrongly believe that the SSPX are in “schism,” their response is below;
sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q12_sspxschismatic.htm

Sorry, that should have read aren’t sedes. They are definately not. I am sorry if I offended anyone, it was certainly not intended.

 

[JOHNYJ]

RE ;TNT # 51
It does get complicated.What do the Lefebvreist schismatics claim to be, they claim to be Catholic. Than SSPX priests or any Real Catholic Priest that marries people without faculties can’t . So any child of any such attempted marriage is illegitimate.
Since there is no marriage.
Now if the lefebvreists announced they were protestant.Than there would be no question.
The Supreme Pontiff Has absolute authority no matter what Canon law says. He says his blessedness Bartholomew I Patriarch of Constntinople is the Successor of Saint Andrew .Thats it, If he says That the Patriarch can stand on the High Alter of Saint Peters and Recite the Nicene Creed with the Pope .Thats whats going to happen.
If the Pope says that Catholics who want to can with their bishops permisssion. Get married in the Greek Orthodox church and the marriage would be the same as if they had been married in a Catholic church,thats it. In Iraq Catholics and Assyrian Orthodox have intercommunion. For Traditionalists you would think you’d be familiar with, “Rome” Has Spoken the Matter is settled .

 

[EddieArent]

Dropper:

Sorry, that should have read aren’t sedes. They are definately not. I am sorry if I offended anyone, it was certainly not intended.

No problem. I knew you had good intentions but some times the mind thinks too fast and the fingers too slowly type. Believe me, it’s happened to me!

As well, “Fr. Clarke W. Moore, Tucson Arizona died this morning at 1:10. Fr. Burfitt SSPX Phoenix came to give Fr. Moore last rites and viaticum. Please pray for Fr. Moore.”

 

[EddieArent]

JOHNYJ:

RE ;TNT # 51
It does get complicated.What do the Lefebvreist schismatics claim to be, they claim to be Catholic. Than SSPX priests or any Real Catholic Priest that marries people without faculties can’t . So any child of any such attempted marriage is illegitimate.
Since there is no marriage.
Now if the lefebvreists announced they were protestant.Than there would be no question.
The Supreme Pontiff Has absolute authority no matter what Canon law says. He says his blessedness Bartholomew I Patriarch of Constntinople is the Successor of Saint Andrew .Thats it, If he says That the Patriarch can stand on the High Alter of Saint Peters and Recite the Nicene Creed with the Pope .Thats whats going to happen.
If the Pope says that Catholics who want to can with their bishops permisssion. Get married in the Greek Orthodox church and the marriage would be the same as if they had been married in a Catholic church,thats it. In Iraq Catholics and Assyrian Orthodox have intercommunion. For Traditionalists you would think you’d be familiar with, “Rome” Has Spoken the Matter is settled .

Oh no! I’m sure St. Athanasius was wrong as well.

You want to alk about excommunications? I’m still waiting to see the Vatican respond to my letter regarding the Florida bishops assisting the “installation” of a Lutheran bishop at a Catholic shrine! For that matter, the diocese won’t respond so it’s no surprise. Not only that, but their invalid “mass” took place on a Catholic altar (well, a butchar block table, but you get my drift). In the strict sense, it was a total desecration! Why is no one held accountable for this? Had they have been “evil” traditionalists looking to install bishops for the good of the Church, there would have been hell to pay. But since it was an ecumenical event, everyone slaps each other on the back is and proud of what happened. Even our old bishop apologized to the Lutherans about how they were treated before and after the so called “reformation.” In St. Pius V’s day, this modern bishop at best would have been an altar boy at a 6:00 AM low Mass.

Protestants deny a ton of Catholic dogma. Since when was an SSPX priest going around saying that there is no transubstantiation, no Immaculate Conception dogma, etc.? Not from the priests I have heard from. In fact, today there was a pretty good homily by Fr. Young on the most Holy Rosary.

 

[cainem]

so what you are saying you are guarding the church from the error the holy spirit made when he guided the then pope at vatican 2? on a more serious note you either belief the promise made that the gates of hell will not prevail or you don’t, stop judging the whole catholic church on a few erronous bishops and priests, perhaps you can swallow your pride and return home and help stengthen the church, seems a better idea than standing on the sidelines sniping away at all and sundry,

 

[Dropper]

cainem:

so what you are saying you are guarding the church from the error the holy spirit made when he guided the then pope at vatican 2?

This brings up a very interesting question. Did the Holy Spirit guide the Pope at Vatican II? I say no. I don’t think that the Holy Spirit could ever in any way be even partly responsible for most that came out of that council. God is unambiguous and forthright. That can’t be said for many of the documents that came out of that council. It was a “pastoral” council and most certainly isn’t infallible.

The very fathers of Vatican II went to great lengths even during the council to declare that it was a “pastoral” council. Vatican II was a mistake that has brought a great deal of harm to the Church.

on a more serious note you either belief the promise made that the gates of hell will not prevail or you don’t, stop judging the whole catholic church on a few erronous bishops and priests, perhaps you can swallow your pride and return home and help stengthen the church, seems a better idea than standing on the sidelines sniping away at all and sundry,

The gates of Hell haven’t prevailed. There are bad bishops. There have always been… St. John Chrysostom said “The The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”

And if I may be so bold. I would say that EddieArent is helping to strengthen the Church. The fight for Tradition and Restoration is the most important struggle going on at the moment and the SSPX and their attendees are on the front lines every day.

 

[Freeway4321]

I think we should keep in mind (as Dropper mentioned) that Vatican II was a pastoral not doctrinal council. There seems to be an overemphasise on Vatican II as if it is the end all and be all of all the councils.

There have been far more important councils held (you wouldn’t know considering how much everything has become Vatican II mania). And we have to follow them as well… but I will stop before this becomes a Vatican II thread.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**General Reminder:

This discussion is beginning to stray from its original topic of SSPX Mass. Please return to the original topic under discussion. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.
**

 

[bear06]

Dropper:

Here’s the most pertinent part of that letter… It answers the question that the original poster had.

And don’t anyone give me the “that was meant for only one person” schpiel. It doesn’t say “you” or “Mr. X you” it says “they” and “the faithful”.

You are referring to whether or not it fulfills Sunday obligation. That’s where folks like me will tell you that nowhere does it say that it fulfills Sunday obligation. This letter says you may attend but it doesn’t say that it fulfills Sunday obligation. The same thing can be stated about other churches not in union with Rome. No sin if you don’t adhere to the schism. This does not mean that they fulfill Sunday obligation. The “schpiel” you are speaking of is the Msgr. Perle letter to a member of the faithful telling him that he, in his specific circumstance, can fulfill his Sunday obligation at a chapel.