SSPX Mass ok?

[bear06]

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.

I would rather have people attend neither of the above. I don’t know how you figure that an SSPX Mass is arguably schismatic and illicit. The Church has said that they are is schism.

You seem to have fallen in to the “Darth Vader Axiom”. You can’t do good by doing evil. Leading souls into schism is evil. You can’t fight for Tradition when you are going against it. They are fighting for their version of Tradition.

 

[Dropper]

bear06:

You seem to have fallen in to the “Darth Vader Axiom”. You can’t do good by doing evil. Leading souls into schism is evil. You can’t fight for Tradition when you are going against it. They are fighting for their version of Tradition.

They are fighting for 2000 years of Church Tradition. The only other version is the one that only dates back to Vatican II. It’s a shame that so many only want to date back to this unfortunate council.

 

[bear06]

Dropper:

They are fighting for 2000 years of Church Tradition. The only other version is the one that only dates back to Vatican II. It’s a shame that so many only want to date back to this unfortunate council.

Most schismatic groups claim that they are doing wrong to save the Faith. When you are leading people into disobedience, you are leading people into disobedience. Nothing wrong with trying for a universal indult. Nothing wrong with prefering the TLM. Everything wrong with leading people to schism. Pope Pius X, himself, warned

If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. Yet there are priests – a considerable number of them – who submit the word of the Pope to their private judgement and who, with unheard-of audacity, make their obedience to the Roman Pontiff conditional upon such personal judgement." (From an Allocution given on 18 September 1912.)

Apparently the SSPX doesn’t actually believe in following their namesake.

You might also want to check out these 2 pre-Vatican II documents:
ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6
adoremus.org/MediatorDei.html

 

[Iohannes]

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?

It is true, no matter what their views are, as long as the ordinations are valid, then their Holy Communion is valid. As for anglicans their ordination is invalid thus their Holy Communion is invalid.

For example, The Eastern Orthodox has the corrrect ordination and therefore their priest can confect the Eucharist.

The Oriental Orthodox has the correct ordination, thus able to confect the Eucharist.

It is the same thing with the SSPX. Even the most virulent anti-sspxer will admit they are valid. Even ask Sean OL, he will say that they are valid but illict and “schismatic” or whatever he throws out there.

 

[Iohannes]

Here is basically the simple answer:

It is not recommend to attend, however if the person has a devotion to the old missal and do not intend schism, then it is ok to attend and give money to them. It is not a sin to do so. One does not join the SSPX by attending their chapels.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Ham1:

I can’t really see why you would want to witness a SSPX priest committing an egregious mortal sin by “celebrating” mass. Maybe if faithful Catholics would stop attending their sinful masses, they might realize that they really don’t have as many supporters as they thought.

emphasis added

Ham,

Regardless how one views the SSPX (and I am not a proponent of the Society), to term their service of a Mass that is valid though illicit as “sinful” strikes me as a dangerous place to go.

The Novus Ordo Mass is neither less authentic nor holy than the Tridentine Mass; each, as a service of worship directed to God, has its own intrinsic holiness when served faithfully and reverently. To the extent that abuses exist within either, they must needs be addressed; but the form is only that - an external; ultimately, worship comes from within oneself, one’s heart and soul. That said, any valid celebration of the Mass is a recreation of the Last Supper and cannot be other than intrinsically holy, albeit it may be licit or illicit, depending on the cicumstances surrounding its service. The Church can and does judge its validity, as well as its licity; the former being established, it is an impossibility for it to be “sinful”. The sinfulness, if any (and that is for God’s judgement, not ours) lays in the disobedience of lawful spiritual authority by the presbyter who elects not to submit to the authority of the Pope.

JohnyJ:

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.

JohnyJ,

To claim that the absence of a valid and licit sacramental bond of Catholic matrimony between the parents of a child causes that child to be illegitimate in the eyes of the Church or civil society is preposterous, to put a nice word to it. And to go on and suggest that such a conclusion only applies to children of those whose parents were married by an SSPX priest and could be avoided if only the SSPX would declare itself Protestant, leaves me shaking my head, wondering where you perceive a logic in that scenario.

TNT:

See Canon 844 for the fact that EO’s are in fact outside the church, as they cannot receive catholic sacraments without special dispensation.

TNT,

Canon 844, which you reproduce in your post, establishes only 2 requirements as to the reception of the Sacraments by Eastern or Oriental Orthodox from a Catholic priest - and neither of those is dependent on dispensation. One is a spontaneous request to be communed, confessed, or anointed; the other is that they be properly disposed - a matter between the individual and his God since we, none of us, can see into the soul of our brother.

Canon 844

§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

emphasis added

Many years,

Neil

 

[Irish_Melkite]

To all who have posted regarding the SSPX, either in their defense or condemnation:

It is instructive that within the past 125 years there have been five major schisms (including that of the SSPX) within the ranks of Catholicism, four of which (two Western and two Eastern) resulted in the founding of Churches.

One of those was the Polish National Catholic Church (and the Croat, Czech, Lithuanian, and Slovak NCCs that have since been subsumed into it). Reaction by Catholics to its formation 100 years ago by Father Francis Hodar, of blessed memory, was much the same as that by those who oppose the SSPX today, except for being somewhat more muted because they were “just Polacks” nor was reaction toward Latin Catholicism by the new PNCC faithful significantly different than that by today’s SSPX adherents. It has taken three generations, but PNCC and Latin Catholic hierarchs and clergy today meet to find a resolution to their sad separation and the principal topics are not invalidity or illicitness, faculties to marry or absolve, but a new-found respect for one another and maybe, possibly, someday, reunion.

My point? The PNCC departed Catholicism without even the benefit of a hierarch at their helm, turning to those of Utrecht who preceded them in secession to provide an episcopal character to their clergy. Those of either side of the SSPX battle who elect to label the other as sinful, intransigent, or any other equally uncharitable characterization would do well to remember that three generations from now (unless, please God, the rift is sooner healed) the same qualities of forgiveness and reconciliation that currently elude them (or which they choose to push aside) might well have found their way through the pride and allowed their spiritual descendents to see and speak with one another in the same spirit that the Catholic Church and the PNCC now find in common. Perhaps, a kinder, gentler attitude might prevail and allow the time to be shorter in this instance. One might pray for that.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Pere_i_Pau]

Freeway4321:

I know of someone who attendes an Orthodox Liturgy then goes to an N.O. to recieve communion. Not unheard of, and isn’t a bad idea… as long as you are not receiving Holy Eucharist at the SSPX chapel.

So, let me get this straight. Even though Ecclesia Dei Commission tells us we may go an SSPX Mass if an indult is not available, even though the Prefect Cardinal Hoyos tells us we may attend and that the SSPX is in his own words “an internal matter”, even though everyone in the hierarchy considers the SSPX “Catholic” (something no one even gives the OLD Catholics that honor), you are telling people it is better for one to attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy?

Honestly, some of you can’t get your heads straight. If you claim the SSPX are schismatic and heretics (which you would have to prove the latter), how can you make the claim the Orthodox are in a ‘better’ state? Is the only thing involved in being able to participate in a nonCatholic “Mass” and partake of the Eucharist that our hierarchy determines ‘x’ group ecumenical?

BTW: That avatar of yours, guess what Mass she attended?

 

[bear06]

While I agree with you on the EO’s, I’d have to say that the burden of proof is on the SSPX.

This distinction was drawn by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. “Between heresy and schism”, explains St. Jerome, "there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10). And St. Augustine: “By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe” (De fide et symbolo, ix). But **as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy. **

newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

 

[Dropper]

bear06:

While I agree with you on the EO’s, I’d have to say that the burden of proof is on the SSPX.

newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

But they don’t deny papal primacy… Not in the least.

From their (sspx.org) site…

The Society of Saint Pius X professes filial devotion and loyalty to Pope Benedict XVI, the Successor of Saint Peter and the Vicar of Christ.

The priests of the SSPX pray for the intentions of the Holy Father and the welfare of the local Ordinary at every Mass they celebrate.

I know, I know it’s just lip service…

 

[JOHNYJ]

Round and round we go,this merry go round has been going on ever since the Lefebvreists left the church. All kinds of complicated mental and legalistic gymnastics to prove they are not what they are.
Reams of papers defending and explaining their position . That in itself should be a give away. Anything that needs that much explaining must have something wrong with it.
What Catholic worthy of the word would attend a Mass Celebrated by people who are not in union with the Pope.Its just that simple

 

[Dropper]

JOHNYJ:

Round and round we go,this merry go round has been going on ever since the Lefebvreists left the church. All kinds of complicated mental and legalistic gymnastics to prove they are not what they are.
Reams of papers defending and explaining their position . That in itself should be a give away. Anything that needs that much explaining must have something wrong with it.
What Catholic worthy of the word would attend a Mass Celebrated by people who are not in union with the Pope.Its just that simple

Yes, we do go round and round… I (and others) will still say, they are in union with the pope, you (and others) will not.

Just for the record. I have never been to an SSPX chapel but I do find that most of the criticism that is heaped upon them is not of merit…

 

[bear06]

Yes, we do go round and round… I (and others) will still say, they are in union with the pope, you (and others) will not.

Yes, but you are not the authority in these matters which is, of course, the root of the problem. It doesn’t matter what you or I think, it matters what the Magisterium teaches on this matter.

 

[Freeway4321]

Pere i Pau:

So, let me get this straight. Even though Ecclesia Dei Commission tells us we may go an SSPX Mass if an indult is not available, even though the Prefect Cardinal Hoyos tells us we may attend and that the SSPX is in his own words “an internal matter”, even though everyone in the hierarchy considers the SSPX “Catholic” (something no one even gives the OLD Catholics that honor), you are telling people it is better for one to attend an Orthodox Divine Liturgy?

Honestly, some of you can’t get your heads straight. If you claim the SSPX are schismatic and heretics (which you would have to prove the latter), how can you make the claim the Orthodox are in a ‘better’ state? Is the only thing involved in being able to participate in a nonCatholic “Mass” and partake of the Eucharist that our hierarchy determines ‘x’ group ecumenical?

BTW: That avatar of yours, guess what Mass she attended?

Apparently you missed this…
latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm

And to your last question… no, i’m clueless on that one.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Freeway4321 wrote - and I wonder if you know precisely what you are writing!::

I must say… that wasn’t unhelpful

Which means “I must say…that WAS helpful” - is that what you really meant to say - if so, then whew - great!

Why bother typing all of this when you can get all of the info you mentioned from your signature? (“Cheat Steet” on the Society of St Pius X (SSPX).

Well, when you say “you can get” (meaning Sean O L) - I have to say that: why would Freeway4321 write this, as I am the author of the reference. Do you really mean “one can get all the info…”?

Although I know about everything you have said… and I do not want to be an SSPX apologist.

If you DO know “everything” then, I must say: “good for you”, but, **I **donot know precisely what you do know - and based on what you have said, I suspect that you do NOT know everything. Sorry about that!

I do want to give a serious comment on this…

“Schism IS a very grave sin against God and the Unity of the Church, and is also a scandal to the faithful. And, yes, it IS necessary for a schismatic to repent of all of their sins whilst being in a state of schism – just as it is necessary for faithful Catholics to repent of their sins whilst in Union with the Church.”

…That’s happening. And I take it the agreement with all of the Eastern Rite churches (besides the Maronites) said “repent for all of those schismatic masses you performed” Aye, methinks this wasn’t so.

And considering the Orthodox think we are schismatic they’d ask the same of our priests. What a mess that will be.

Well, I am still waiting for the “serious comment”! What part of my quote do you comment upon or disagree with:

a) Schism IS a very grave sin against God and the Unity of the Church?
b) and is also a scandal to the faithful?
c) And, yes, it IS necessary for a schismatic to repent of all of their sins whilst being in a state of schism?
d) just as it is necessary for faithful Catholics to repent of their sins whilst in Union with the Church.?
e) What’s “happening”?
f) “And I take it the agreement with all of the Eastern Rite churches (besides the Maronites) said “repent for all of those schismatic masses you performed” Aye, methinks this wasn’t so.” - is speculative, isn’t it - if, not please provide evidence.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Dropper wrote:

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.

From 1976 those who were ordained priests for the SSPX (and their associated Religious Orders, such as the Transalpine Redemptorists, etc) were lawfully suspended a divinis from performing ALL priestly functions. Those “good men” told the pope “get stuffed, pope!” Furthermore, those “good men” again told the pope to “get stuffed” when they were warned that progressing down the track of consecrating bishops for the SSPX woulf earn for them excommunication. And they have continued with those sentiments these past 30 past years in all attempts by the Vatican to reconcile them.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Iohannes wrote:

It is true, no matter what their views are, as long as the ordinations are valid, then their Holy Communion is valid. As for anglicans their ordination is invalid thus their Holy Communion is invalid.

The problem with generalized statements is that they can provide both true and false elements. This is the case with your claim above.

It IS true to say that the Church has declared that Anglican Ordinations using the Anglican Ordinal are not effective - for the very reason that the Ordinal did not provide for Anglican sacrificing priests. However, many Anglican Bishops (and priests) HAVE obtained valid Orders from valid but schismatic bishops, such as Old Catholic bishops. Thus, SOME Anglicans DO possess valid Orders and, all other Catholic Church requirements being in place - their Holy Communion IS valid.
…

It is the same thing with the SSPX. Even the most virulent anti-sspxer will admit they are valid. Even ask Sean OL, he will say that they are valid but illict and “schismatic” or whatever he throws out there.

“Virulent” is an ad hominem!
What I claim to be is a former adherent to the SSPX for over 23 years; to be a member of the Committee that brought Archbishop Lefebvre’s SSPX priests to Australia; to have been a former National Vice-President of the Latin Mass of Australia; to have (finally) discovered the “clay-feet” of Archbishop Lefebvre and his SSPX.

In the light of the Grace given by the Merciful Lord, Jesus AND my knowledge gained over those years, I desire to inform my SSPX brethren (and any interested parties) as to the true state of the SSPX - in accordance with the obedience due to my lawful superiors, the Archbishop of Melbourne and the reigning Roman Pontiff.

I challenge YOU, Iohannes to provide evidence of any error of fact in any of my files. If you are able, sucessfully, to prove any such error - then I will willingly and cheerfully re-assess, re-write, or remove any such error from my writings.

Finally, yes, indeed, I DO (and always have) stated that the SSPX Mass is valid but illicit. Note that this admission is conditional - validity does NOT apply to all of the Sacraments and Sacramentals performed by the SSPX owing to the suspensions a divinis, the lack of jurisdiction, and the excommunications. However, I do NOT “throw” anything about without providing minute detail - an area wherein you fail yourself.

Furthermore, my most tresured friends are three couples who are current SSPX adherents. We meet for mutual birthdays and anniversaries, and our loved SSPX friends just a week ago hosted our 45th Wedding Anniversary.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Irish_Melkite wrote Message #66:

The Church can and does judge its validity, as well as its licity; the former being established, it is an impossibility for it to be “sinful”.

A valid priest performs and conform with all of the requirements of the Church as to validity. He is, God forbid, a Satanist. He confects the Sacrament. Do you still hold that his Mass is not sinful - for him (the priest) and for those who attend and know of his orientation, and for those who promote attendance thereat?

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Sean O L:

A valid priest performs and conform with all of the requirements of the Church as to validity. He is, God forbid, a Satanist. He confects the Sacrament. Do you still hold that his Mass is not sinful - for him (the priest) and for those who attend and know of his orientation, and for those who promote attendance thereat?

Sean,

Your zeal to bring those who adhere to the SSPX back to the Church is admirable but may I suggest that prayer and dialogue are significantly more persuasive means of doing so than is the throwing of anathemas.

I am not going to dignify the above question with an answer. Any attempt to draw an analogy between the acts of priests who embrace Satanism and priests of the SSPX is more than distasteful, it represents a calumny that is unworthy of being given note on a Catholic forum.

Many years,

Neil

 

[bear06]

Let me ask you this? Do you believe that the SSPX is doing evil?