SSPX Receiving Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic21
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
commenter said:
All it would take is a fiat from the Holy Father to bring the SSPX into a personal ordinariate “just as they are”, thus regularizing the SSPX and everything they do
Click to expand...
I was using “fiat” in the generic sense of “I am regularizing this, because I am the Pope and I have the authority”. What form it would take, a motu proprio, or whatever, is beside the point — that part is just technicalities. The tricky part is getting “just as they are” in line with the bare minimum the Church requires (e.g., not denying any part of Vatican II, yet raising the issue that certain documents are difficult to understand in the light of tradition, and seeking clarification).
AlNg said:
It seems, then, that conferral of the remaining five sacraments, while technically illicit…
Click to expand...
This seems to be more an issue of canon law than anything else. I do not know whether canon law addresses the morality of receiving sacraments from priests and bishops, who are not themselves schismatic or “outside the Church”, yet are administering sacraments illicitly. I would look to a canonist, or at the very least, a priest who is not hostile to the SSPX and does not regard them as schismatic (because they’re not), for further guidance.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Lavenderson said:
Their status with Rome is an internal matter
Click to expand...
The laity don’t belong to the SSPX. Their spiritual welfare is the responsibility of their pastor and bishop ordinary. It’s not an internal affair.

It wasn’t so much a problem years ago. Laity attending SSPX were still kinda connected to the parishes, and diocese, they had belonged to. They were “visiting” SSPX for the TLM.

Today, some SSPX children grew up in SSPX, never had connection to any parish or diocese. This is the problem.

If SSPX would admit the reality - they now have their own laity - then they would be treated as a separate denomination, with friendly ecumenical relations, like PNCC.

I think the SSPX is not yet a fully separate denomination, but each year it is a little closer to being one. There won’t be a formal declaration of Independence, rather just a formal acknowledgement of a reality that gradually came to be.
 
Last edited:
FiveLinden said:
How about their belief that the ordinary form of the Mass (the one nearly everyone attends) is evil?
Click to expand...
I know someone who was a part of an SSPX parish who last I saw attended OF Masses every week with the young adults group for the cathedral. Didn’t make a single crack about the OF and was there more often than I was.
 
Last edited:
Lavenderson said:
SSPX is within the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
I didn’t say the SSPX had fully become a separate denomination, but only that it was moving closer to that each year. Priests and laity who had experience working in a parish and diocese die, and are replaced by young priests and laity who grew up only in SSPX.
 
commenter said:
Priests and laity who had experience working in a parish and diocese die, and are replaced by young priests and laity who grew up only in SSPX.
Click to expand...
Pardon my ignorance, but could you explain how long term exposure to SSPX will lead to eventual full separation with Rome into a completely different denomination? SSPX explicitly preaches submission to Rome, the authority of the Pope, and Francis as the Pope. The SSPX has even expelled priests for not holding these positions.
 
Last edited:
thistle said:
Disobedience to the Pope is!!
Click to expand...
Saint Athanasius might’ve disagreed. The Pope’s authority does not override longstanding Tradition, and stating this does not put you outside of the faith.
 
Last edited:
I sure hope they are brought into full communion with the Church soon. One of their Churches is the closest TLM to me. I missed my Parish Easter vigil this year so I went to theirs which started later. It was one of the most beautiful Liturgies I’ve ever seen. But because of the whole not licit thing I could not in good conscience receive Communion.
 
AlNg said:
Is it a mortal sin to receive an illicit Sacrament if the Sacrament is easily available licitly?
Click to expand...
There was a Bishop who attempted to excommunicate some lay people for receiving the sacrament of Confirmation from an SSPX Bishop. This was overturned by the Vatican.
 
commenter said:
It wasn’t so much a problem years ago. Laity attending SSPX were still kinda connected to the parishes, and diocese, they had belonged to. They were “visiting” SSPX for the TLM.

Today, some SSPX children grew up in SSPX, never had connection to any parish or diocese. This is the problem.

If SSPX would admit the reality - they now have their own laity - then they would be treated as a separate denomination, with friendly ecumenical relations, like PNCC.

I think the SSPX is not yet a fully separate denomination, but each year it is a little closer to being one. There won’t be a formal declaration of Independence, rather just a formal acknowledgement of a reality that gradually came to be.
Click to expand...
I would object, on the other hand, that each year it comes a little closer to having a regular status, at least in some ways, within the Church. Strictly speaking, the SSPX has no lay “members”, it is just a priestly fraternity. Each and every person who attends the SSPX is legally a member of the geographical parish in which they reside (unless they are subject to a personal prelature, such as St John Vianney, Opus Dei, or the Chair of St Peter for ex-Anglicans). They are subject to the Ordinary of that diocese, even if they have been baptized, confirmed, and received First Communion at the SSPX chapel, and even if they have never set foot in their geographical parish church. That is just the way canon law works in the Latin (Roman) Rite.
Zach said:
I sure hope they are brought into full communion with the Church soon.
Click to expand...
“Full communion”, and the alleged lack thereof, may actually be a misnomer. They are a priestly society, once established in full obedience to the Church, which was suspended yet continued to operate regardless. They administer the sacraments illicitly, aside from penance and matrimony, the latter subject to certain conditions. I think it can safely be said that they have never not been in “full communion” — they’re not schismatic and they’re not heretical — they are just continuing their work and ministry without permission. It would be similar to someone, in civil law, driving without a license or operating a restaurant without a business license and health certification. I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that.
 
Last edited:
I realize everything you are saying. Saying ‘full communion’ or not is a question of semantics. Would saying I wish they would become ‘completely and fully licit’ be better?
 
Zach said:
I realize everything you are saying. Saying ‘full communion’ or not is a question of semantics. Would saying I wish they would become ‘completely and fully licit’ be better?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to take you to task, it’s just that the term “full communion” is heard all the time with regard to the SSPX, and I believe the official Church has even used it that way. I just thought, not too long ago, “why, precisely, do we not think they haven’t been in ‘full communion’ all along, just disobedient for what they see as very good reasons?”. I like your phrase “completely and fully licit” much better.
 
commenter said:
Their status with Rome is an internal matter
Click to expand...
The CDF document I previously referred to states that the situation re the SSPX is an internal matter of the Church and that the rules re ecumenism do not apply to the SSPX.

Think of it this way: Two sisters don’t speak to each other but they’re still family, and one deals with family in a different way than dealing with strangers.

Technically, the bishops, priests, Brothers, Sisters and the seminarians who have received tonsure and beyond are members of the SSPX.

Laity, as you posted, are not members of the SSPX.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If the SSPX is “schismatic”, then they’re the only “schismatics” who publicly pray for Pope Francis and the local bishop at Mass, Benediction, Rosary etc.

I guarantee that the Orthodox (who are still schismatics) would not pray for Pope Francis publicly in their services.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
They are subject to the Ordinary of that diocese, even if they have been baptized, confirmed, and received First Communion at the SSPX chapel, and even if they have never set foot in their geographical parish church
Click to expand...
There is a difference between
being symbolically a member of a parish and Diocese, with loyalty
… and …
an actual member, where the pastor and bishop affect your formation and actions, and you have ongoing personal participation.

With the passing of time, SSPX has fewer people with a background of actual participation, and more whose only background is symbolic (with loyalty).

The background and formation of most persons in SSPX today is very different from 1979.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
There is a difference between
being symbolically a member of a parish and Diocese, with loyalty
… and …
an actual member, where the pastor and bishop affect your formation and actions, and you have ongoing personal participation.
Click to expand...
Perhaps in actual life, but not in canon law, which governs the relationship of the faithful to their parishes and dioceses. I do not attend my territorial home parish, for some pretty serious personal and pastoral reasons, but in the eyes of the Church, I am still a member of that parish.

I know what you are saying, I just wish to clarify the fact of the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top