Sspx rcia

[psr13]

I have a question, then. If an SSPX confirmation is valid, what of one at an “independent” chapel. It’s not part of the SSPX but is essentially the same thing. The main difference is that the SSPX uses the 1962 missal I believe, and this one uses the one from sometime in the '50’s, with two confiteors. I was confirmed in one two years ago, and have since refrained from receiving communion as I was then informed that it wasn’t a real confirmation. If I were to go to confession would I then be able to take communion again? I have asked priests, but they all seem to have different answers.

 

[Shin]

I have a question, then. If an SSPX confirmation is valid, what of one at an “independent” chapel. It’s not part of the SSPX but is essentially the same thing. The main difference is that the SSPX uses the 1962 missal I believe, and this one uses the one from sometime in the '50’s, with two confiteors. I was confirmed in one two years ago, and have since refrained from receiving communion as I was then informed that it wasn’t a real confirmation. If I were to go to confession would I then be able to take communion again? I have asked priests, but they all seem to have different answers.

What independent chapel was it?

What was your relationship with it?

 

[pnewton]

I have a question, then. If an SSPX confirmation is valid, what of one at an “independent” chapel. It’s not part of the SSPX but is essentially the same thing. The main difference is that the SSPX uses the 1962 missal I believe, and this one uses the one from sometime in the '50’s, with two confiteors. I was confirmed in one two years ago, and have since refrained from receiving communion as I was then informed that it wasn’t a real confirmation. If I were to go to confession would I then be able to take communion again? I have asked priests, but they all seem to have different answers.

If priests have different answers, it would be unlikely you will get a concrete answer here. A chapel can not be both independent of the Catholic Church and a part of her, so, I would suspect the answer lies in the specific chapel you speak of.

 

[Shin]

If priests have different answers, it would be unlikely you will get a concrete answer here. A chapel can not be both independent of the Catholic Church and a part of her, so, I would suspect the answer lies in the specific chapel you speak of.

This is the kind of question I think going to ask an F.S.S.P. priest or someone similar solidly knowledgeable aboutt his sort of thing to sort out the tangle would be best, honestly.

 

[jmcrae]

I did read the article and what I got from it is most of the sacraments are illegal but valid. Honestly this whole thing is a bit confusing.

Put it this way: in the opposite ditch (SSPX being one ditch on the side of the straight and narrow road) we have Clown Masses - which are also valid (Catholics who attend them receive a real Eucharist there), but illicit (nobody who is thinking of his eternal soul should ever actually attend one).

I found one “regular” church that does the Tridentine mass the first Friday of each month and also does a mass in Latin every sunday.

Good. Support it as best you can, with attendance, tithes, and whatever volunteer assistance they may need from you. Encourage it as much as you can.

 

[ProVobis]

Put it this way: in the opposite ditch (SSPX being one ditch on the side of the straight and narrow road) we have Clown Masses - which are also valid (Catholics who attend them receive a real Eucharist there), but illicit (nobody who is thinking of his eternal soul should ever actually attend one).

Not that I would ever attend one, but how is a Clown Mass illicit? And if it is, could you please define what a Clown Mass is? Is everything innovative a Clown Mass? I would like to know so I don’t get arrested or put my soul at risk.

 

[ProVobis]

I have a question, then. If an SSPX confirmation is valid, what of one at an “independent” chapel.

Each independent chapel needs to be checked out prior to assisting there. If the priest reports to a valid bishop, outside the diocese in all likelihood, it is probably okay to assist there at Mass. Hearing confessions, however, requires the authority of the local bishop.

It’s not part of the SSPX but is essentially the same thing. The main difference is that the SSPX uses the 1962 missal I believe, and this one uses the one from sometime in the '50’s, with two confiteors. I was confirmed in one two years ago, and have since refrained from receiving communion as I was then informed that it wasn’t a real confirmation. If I were to go to confession would I then be able to take communion again? I have asked priests, but they all seem to have different answers.

The Second Confiteor is strictly not a part of the 1962 Missal, though this is often said by the servers. It doesn’t invalidate the Mass.

As far as the confirmation goes, if it was performed by the bishop in communion with Rome, then I don’t see any problems. Where you were confirmed does not matter.

If the confirmation was done by a priest, any priest, then I don’t have an answer as to its validity.

 

[jmcrae]

Not that I would ever attend one, but how is a Clown Mass illicit? And if it is, could you please define what a Clown Mass is? Is everything innovative a Clown Mass? I would like to know so I don’t get arrested or put my soul at risk.

I’ve never actually been to one, either (and have no plans to experiment) but my impression is that a Clown Mass is where the priest dresses up in a clown costume rather than in his regular vestments.

 

[puzzleannie]

There have been several threads on this board dealing with RCIA “problems”. Read them carefully.

yes and OP is asking about RCIA and SSPX, which are mutually exclusive. I, unlike the rest of the thread am still on topic

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve never actually been to one, either (and have no plans to experiment) but my impression is that a Clown Mass is where the priest dresses up in a clown costume rather than in his regular vestments.

I’ll have to look at Canon Law a little more carefully to see where it says this is illicit.

 

[ProVobis]

RCIA and SSPX, which are mutually exclusive.

And God Bless you too.

 

[ibkc]

yes and OP is asking about RCIA and SSPX, which are mutually exclusive.

Indeed, but it has been established that one can validly enter the Church via the SSPX. RCIA is hardly necessary. It didn’t exist for the majority of the Church’s history.

 

[psr13]

This is the kind of question I think going to ask an F.S.S.P. priest or someone similar solidly knowledgeable aboutt his sort of thing to sort out the tangle would be best, honestly.

Maybe I’ll email either an FSSP or ICK priest and ask then. I didn’t think of it because we don’t have one around here, but I can e-mail.

 

[DigitalAnarchy]

Just to clarify I said RCIA SSPX because I wasn’t sure what the SSPX called their education classes/meetings.Also, I was interested in going through the SSPX mainly for the Tridentine Mass, I certainly had no intentions of attending SSPX out of any form of schism attitude.

So the issues with SSPX are that they don’t accept Vatican II as valid? I’ve tried reading around on the forums but theres so many different threads on this I’m still a little lost as to whats going on.

Thank you all for your replies though, it’s good to see a healthy discussion.

 

[jmcrae]

Just to clarify I said RCIA SSPX because I wasn’t sure what the SSPX called their education classes/meetings.Also, I was interested in going through the SSPX mainly for the Tridentine Mass, I certainly had no intentions of attending SSPX out of any form of schism attitude.

If you don’t want to be in schism, then why not become initiated in the normal way, at your regular parish?

So the issues with SSPX are that they don’t accept Vatican II as valid?

Right. They believe that the Church ceased to have authority when Vatican II called for the Mass in the local languages, so that visitors to the Church (potential converts) could know what was going on. They believe that this goes contrary to the Council of Trent, which called for the Mass to be said in Latin, so as to be in a common language throughout the world. They see the new Mass as a contradiction of what they see as an eternal commandment to have the Mass “always and everywhere” in Latin.

 

[DigitalAnarchy]

If you don’t want to be in schism, then why not become initiated in the normal way, at your regular parish?

Right. They believe that the Church ceased to have authority when Vatican II called for the Mass in the local languages, so that visitors to the Church (potential converts) could know what was going on. They believe that this goes contrary to the Council of Trent, which called for the Mass to be said in Latin, so as to be in a common language throughout the world. They see the new Mass as a contradiction of what they see as an eternal commandment to have the Mass “always and everywhere” in Latin.

I guess I wanted to go to a parish that had a Tridentine Mass regularly, but I guess now that I think about it, it doesn’t really make much sense to go to SSPX. I’ll just hope that the Tridentine regains some popularity and more churches start doing one

 

[pnewton]

I guess I wanted to go to a parish that had a Tridentine Mass regularly, but I guess now that I think about it, it doesn’t really make much sense to go to SSPX. I’ll just hope that the Tridentine regains some popularity and more churches start doing one

There is also the possibility of going through you parish for your Sacramental initiation, then, if you can not find a TLM any where, visiting an SSPX parish from time to time. Maybe things with them will be sorted out before you finish RCIA.

 

[ProVobis]

Right. They believe that the Church ceased to have authority when Vatican II called for the Mass in the local languages, so that visitors to the Church (potential converts) could know what was going on. They believe that this goes contrary to the Council of Trent, which called for the Mass to be said in Latin, so as to be in a common language throughout the world. They see the new Mass as a contradiction of what they see as an eternal commandment to have the Mass “always and everywhere” in Latin.

LOL.

Vatican II explicitly stated that Latin is to be retained in the liturgy, with some benign (and perhaps ambiguous) allowance for vernacular in some parts of the Mass. If anything, the SSPX would claim that bishops undermined this document to the extent that they forced everything to be in the vernacular, which isn’t quite what the Vatican II documents state. The vernacular is really an indult, which means it has to be allowed by the bishops. (A priest can’t just go out and say a Mass in jive, for example.) The Novus Ordo was promulgated in Latin and there is not much question as to its validity as long as the Latin text is followed to the letter.

To keep claiming that the SSPX reject Vatican II in this one area is really disingenuous to them and to their attempt to be united with Rome again. If the SSPX bashers keep it up, I will consider it a malicious attempt to try to derail the reconciliation process.

If you don’t want to be in schism, then why not become initiated in the normal way, at your regular parish?

SSPX are not in schism. They are as Catholic as you and I are. The priests, however, are in suspension but their Masses are valid. You can attend there, even make a modest donation. It’s just not advisable to join their parish at this time.

May all you readers have a Blessed New Year.

 

[ibkc]

Right. They believe that the Church ceased to have authority when Vatican II called for the Mass in the local languages, so that visitors to the Church (potential converts) could know what was going on.

No. This isn’t what happened and it is not an accurate representation of the SSPX. The SSPX are NOT sedevacantists. They do NOT believe the Church “ceased to have authority.”

ProVobis wrote:

To keep claiming that the SSPX reject Vatican II in this one area is really disingenuous to them and to their attempt to be united with Rome again. If the SSPX bashers keep it up, I will consider it a malicious attempt to try to derail the reconciliation process.

Totally agreed. Why do people insist on making sure that untruths are spread about this situation? As a recent convert, I see it as a tragic situation and one which needs prayers to rectify. But sometimes I get the impression that others don’t want reconciliation.

 

[puzzleannie]

Indeed, but it has been established that one can validly enter the Church via the SSPX. RCIA is hardly necessary. It didn’t exist for the majority of the Church’s history.

when did I say RCIA was necessary, and when did I say SSPX sacraments are invalid? are you confusing me with someone else? OP asked if he can enter the Church through RCIA with an SSPX priest or parish. SSPX do not recognize RCIA as a legitimate rite since they do not recognize the liturgical reforms of which it is a part, therefor the answer to his question is, as I have stated, no you will not enter through the RCIA if you go this route. If he wants to know if the sacraments are valid the person to ask his his own bishop.