SSPX says I will go to hell for not being SSPX

[maurin]

It is a real ministry of the Church. It is an extension of the mercy of God. Diminishing the mercy of God, and the pastoral ministry of His Church is as dangerous as diminishing Hell, and the reality of sin. Stray too far one way and you are in danger of moral relativism. Stray too far the other way you risk legalism and pharisee-ism (?).

In this context, it seems only common sense that if you invite a group over, you make them comfortable and help provide their needs. Imagine what would have been the atmosphere if while the Vatican was in conference with the SSPX they would have forbidden their Masses in any Catholic facility.

and I don’t disagree with you in this context, pnewton, I’m sure you understand. I’m talking about “pastoral” as it is used in false ecumenism, among other things, such as the women’s “priest” movent, active homosexuals, etc, some of which are tolerated in some dioceses.

 

[JReducation]

Brother, I am concerned about the wording of your post here, because it may be misconstrued as “okay to attend” to a casual reader who overlooks the rest of your sentence and clings to the bolded part. I have read the Church’s statements, and they carry a heavier warning.

Noteworthy is that, although this statement was issued in 1995, it was repeated by Msgr. Perl again in 1999.

These two letters warn of the situation that I observed personally in a member who is totally imbued with the SSPX mentality, when he was formerly just a sincere Catholic who looked for a church that offered the TLM. The change was so radical that it pains me even today as I encounter his efforts to evangelize others to this Society’s “mentality.”

You’re right about my wording. I would hope that people would read the entire idea and read the letters that have come from Ecclesia Dei. People don’t tend to grab on to the idea of “not a sin” and fail to look at the fact that the mass is celebrated illegally. As Catholics, we should not attend any illegal celebration of the sacraments.

I must add to my statement, which I did not include in my original post, that Rome does allow one to attend an SSPX mass for extraordinary reasons. She’s not talking about a regular basis. For example, I’ve been to two locally, one was a funeral of a dear friend’s mother and the other was the first communion of another friend’s child.

There have been different statements about regular attendance and they all end up expressing the concern over contamination. It’s true. You can be with a group so much that you begin to think as they do and speak as they do. Sometimes the rhetoric can get very hostile. That’s not a good thing no matter which side is speaking.

It is too late to edit my post to add the reference to Canon 844.2 , which clarifies further the Church’s position in Msgr. Perl’s letter.

1. §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid

This would not apply to the SSPX, because they are Catholic. This applies to the Orthodox, Old Catholics and a few other Churches that have Apostolic Succession. It has been further clarified by the Orthodox that they want to be asked first. You can’t just walk into an Orthodox Divine Liturgy and receive Holy Communion. Their Code of Law requires that you approach the priest and ask for permission. It’s not always granted to Roman Catholics. They never deny Eastern Catholics, but some of their clergy are very uncomfortable with Roman Catholics. It’s not the same the other way around. Roman Catholic bishops are usually very agreeable to giving Holy Communion to the Orthodox, when asked. Catholics have always been less legalistic and more pastoral than the Orthodox.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RyanBlack]

You can’t just walk into an Orthodox Divine Liturgy and receive Holy Communion. Their Code of Law requires that you approach the priest and ask for permission. It’s not always granted to Roman Catholics. They never deny Eastern Catholics, but some of their clergy are very uncomfortable with Roman Catholics. It’s not the same the other way around. Roman Catholic bishops are usually very agreeable to giving Holy Communion to the Orthodox, when asked. Catholics have always been less legalistic and more pastoral than the Orthodox.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

That the Orthodox never deny Holy Communion to Eastern Catholics is simply not the case. Many Orthodox priests (and I believe some entire jurisdictions) interpret the restriction of Holy Communion to the Orthodox faithful as absolute.

 

[JReducation]

That the Orthodox never deny Holy Communion to Eastern Catholics is simply not the case. Many Orthodox priests (and I believe some entire jurisdictions) interpret the restriction of Holy Communion to the Orthodox faithful as absolute.

Thank you for that clarification.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sirach2]

Thank you Brother JR for clarifying your thoughts in a new post. I appreciate your feedback.

With respect to the canon 844.2, I agree with your point that it does not necessarily apply to SSPX, who are Catholic, but the focus that seems important pertains to the words below:

• Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it;
• provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided
• physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister [who has valid faculties to administer the sacrament of Penance, which SSPX does not]

It seems prudent to align oneself with the cautions and warnings of the Magisterium, even though this canon may have referred to the Orthodox, et al. For some reason, they included it in the statement regarding SSPX, perhaps to further illustrate the abovementioned points.

 

[pnewton]

and I don’t disagree with you in this context, pnewton, I’m sure you understand. I’m talking about “pastoral” as it is used in false ecumenism, among other things, such as the women’s “priest” movent, active homosexuals, etc, some of which are tolerated in some dioceses.

I know, and you give examples of the other extreme. I do not think we should let the extremes give the concept distaste though. How does a priest deal with sin? I think we all agree that it is best not to give an appearance that it is *not *sin. Yet is it the sin that is tolerated, or the people who sin that are tolerated? The things you mention make the news and stir emotion, but we could also substitute, gossip, pride, lust, gluttony, greed, etc.

I guess what I am saying is that we should not lose sight of the fact that priests have to deal pastorally with all of us, accepting us, even with our sin.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you Brother JR for clarifying your thoughts in a new post. I appreciate your feedback.

With respect to the canon 844.2, I agree with your point that it does not necessarily apply to SSPX, who are Catholic, but the focus that seems important pertains to the words below:

• Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it;
• provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided
• physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister [who has valid faculties to administer the sacrament of Penance, which SSPX does not]

It seems prudent to align oneself with the cautions and warnings of the Magisterium, even though this canon may have referred to the Orthodox, et al. For some reason, they included it in the statement regarding SSPX, perhaps to further illustrate the abovementioned points.

I think that’s what Pearle and Hoyos both meant when they spoke of “adopting the mindset o the SSPX”. They have that concern.

I believe that’s why the Holy See does not consider the laity to be part of the SSPX, because if it starts to think of the laity as part of the Society, there is a danger that the laity will respond in unison with the Society, especially if things go wrong and the Society walks. They speak in a manner that reminds the laity that because you attend an SSPX mass, you’re not an SSPX Catholic. You’re a Catholic and you don’t go where the SSPX goes. You go where the Holy See goes.

This is very important. I’ve seen this happen to people whom I know that attend the local SSPX chapel. They identify themselves as SSPX to the point that if the Holy See says Black and the SSPX says White, they say Black. They always have to be reminded that the SSPX does not speak for the Church. The Holy See speaks for the Church. If the Holy See says that something must be black, then black it must be.

It’s not a matter of dogmas all the time. Very often it’s a matter of who’s in charge. We tend to forget that part about the Church. She does not always speak dogmatically or morally, but simply authoritatively. She has the right to govern and no Catholic can govern above her or parallel to her. This is the fear of contamination of which we’re speaking.

When you start to look at one group as being as authoritative or more than the hierarchy, you run the risk of falling into a doctrinal error. By doctrine, it is Peter’s role to govern and those bishops in communion with him. After that, anyone to whom he delegates. That leaves out the clergy of the SSPX until they are given a canonical place.

They’re in the line of Apostolic Succession, but not in the chain of command. Therefore, they cannot contradict the boss or his delegates, even if you’re talking about the color of pasta. If the boss says that Catholics can eat only white pasta, then white pasta it is, not because it’s dogma or because it’s revealed moral law, but because he has the authority to govern.

If you fall into the line of thinking that you can second guess and even go with the other guy because it feels better, then you step onto slippery slope. This is the danger that they’re trying to avoid.

People may ask about diocesan bishops who do one thing when the pope says another. There is a big difference there. He is in the chain of command. The pope is not interested in what are simply differences of opinions on the part of diocesan bishops. He has neither the time nor the desire to get involved. If it’s an abuse of authority, then you go to the next level, which is not the pope either. It’s always a department or a congregation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sirach2]

Great post, JR.

 

[maurin]

I know, and you give examples of the other extreme. I do not think we should let the extremes give the concept distaste though. How does a priest deal with sin? I think we all agree that it is best not to give an appearance that it is *not *sin. Yet is it the sin that is tolerated, or the people who sin that are tolerated? The things you mention make the news and stir emotion, but we could also substitute, gossip, pride, lust, gluttony, greed, etc.

I guess what I am saying is that we should not lose sight of the fact that priests have to deal pastorally with all of us, accepting us, even with our sin.

Agreed, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about situations such as the block of priests in austria who are campaigning for married priests, which we know are absolutely impossible, but–to my knowledge currently–remain in good standing. Situations such as that.

 

[Mike30]

**They are still praying to the same God with the Word of God. ** The sacredness of God and his Word does not change. Pay close attention to what Pope Benedict said on this matter when he prayed in the Synagogue in NY. Also, pay attention to what he has to say about the Jews and the Orthodox. The Jews are our older brothers and sisters in the faith and the Orthodox are the other lung of the Church. Those are not my words, but the words of one of the brightest popes that we have seen in more than a century. Pope Benedict is neither a fool nor a heretic. He’s orthodox, faithful and an excellent theologian.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Hi Brother. I think in all honesty and fairness it must be pointed out that while we believe we all worship the same God, neither the Muslims nor the Jews believe it. In fact from everything I have read, they would consider it almost a sacrilege to think such a thing, particularly in the case of the Muslims…

 

[Sirach2]

Maurin:

Agreed, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about situations such as the block of priests in austria who are campaigning for married priests, which we know are absolutely impossible, but–to my knowledge currently–remain in good standing. Situations such as that.

Surely you realize, Maurin, that the Church moves slower than many would prefer. It has only been six months since the issue was raised in Austria, and I am not aware that the public knows the outcome at this point in time. Do you? It may be yet another issue that is currently under negotiations with the Holy See.

Meanwhile, it is appropriate to be “pastorally” sensitive. However, there is little similarity to the issue with Abp. Lefebvre, who made a definitive break in disobedience which severed relations with Rome. Yet the Church has permitted them to celebrate the liturgy in the basilica. How is this differential treatment? It seems you are making a big to-do over this, needlessly, arguing for the sake of arguing, and using the permission to celebrate in St. Peter’s as a cloak that therefore the Church is recognizing them as a lawful Society in the Church. Pnewton was pointing out that this permission does not mean what you want to convey, and that it is simply a gesture of pastoral courtesy.

 

[Lormar]

There have been different statements about regular attendance and they all end up expressing the concern over contamination. It’s true. You can be with a group so much that you begin to think as they do and speak as they do. Sometimes the rhetoric can get very hostile. That’s not a good thing no matter which side is speaking.

I can attest to the truth of that. It is a slippery slope once you get on it, and once you are on it, without powerful graces from God, it is difficult to extricate oneself from it. Even when you manage to do so, you are left with a mentality toward the Church that is very, very difficult to turn around.

My advice to anyone is to stay away from them, no matter how enticing they may appear.

 

[Lormar]

Great post, JR.

I second that!

 

[maurin]

Surely you realize, Maurin, that the Church moves slower than many would prefer. It has only been six months since the issue was raised in Austria, and I am not aware that the public knows the outcome at this point in time. Do you? It may be yet another issue that is currently under negotiations with the Holy See.

I appreciate what you are saying here, Sirach, and surely you realize that a whole laundry list of other examples can be cited of clergy worldwide voicing dissent against teachings on Morality, the Priesthood, etc. I have but named three, which is enough, I believe, to make my point.

Meanwhile, it is appropriate to be “pastorally” sensitive. However, there is little similarity to the issue with Abp. Lefebvre, who made a definitive break in disobedience which severed relations with Rome. Yet the Church has permitted them to celebrate the liturgy in the basilica. How is this differential treatment? It seems you are making a big to-do over this, needlessly, arguing for the sake of arguing, and using the permission to celebrate in St. Peter’s as a cloak that therefore the Church is recognizing them as a lawful Society in the Church. Pnewton was pointing out that this permission does not mean what you want to convey, and that it is simply a gesture of pastoral courtesy.

The excommunications have been lifted–by an admitted-by-the-bishops-themselves magnaminous act of His Holiness. So the present circumstances are radically different than you are describing.

There is plenty of room to disagree with your and pnewton’s point of view. What I am about to write also relates to the first part of your post that is quoted above, but in these PC and “pastoral” times, it makes me think that we little attention is paid to Our Lord’s admonition against even the appearance of causing scandal.

I respect your point of view Sirach (and btw, one of my fav quotes is from the book of Sirach, “my son, when you come to serve the Lord be prepared for trials…”), but I disagree with it.

 

[Sirach2]

Maurin:

The excommunications have been lifted–by an admitted-by-the-bishops-themselves magnaminous act of His Holiness. So the present circumstances are radically different than you are describing.

I am puzzled as to why you might believe that the lifting of excommunication means that all is well, and the Society is reconciled. Or perhaps you, as an SSPX member, were not informed correctly by your pastors? Are you misunderstanding, maybe, that the rest of us will not realize their status is still irregular and the SSPX does not possess a canonical position in the Church? These words from Pope Benedict’s letter are rather somber and tell the true story, much to your dismay.

This brings me back to the distinction between person and institution. The releasing of the excommunication was a measure in the field of ecclesial discipline: the persons were freed of the burden of conscience of the heaviest ecclesial censure. From this disciplinary level one has to distinguish the doctrinal area.

That the Fraternity of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical position in the Church is not based ultimately on disciplinary grounds but on doctrinal ones. As long as the Fraternity does not possess a canonical position in the Church, its officials do not exercise legitimate offices in the Church. One has therefore to distinguish between disciplinary level affecting the persons as persons, and the level of doctrine, at which office and institution are concerned. To say it once again: As long as the doctrinal issues are not resolved, the Fraternity has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers, even if they are free from ecclesiastical censure, do not exercise in a legitimate way any ministry in the Church.

Can we move on back to topic, please?

 

[maurin]

I am puzzled as to why you might believe that the lifting of excommunication means that all is well, and the Society is reconciled. Or perhaps you, as an SSPX member, were not informed correctly by your pastors? Are you misunderstanding, maybe, that the rest of us will not realize their status is still irregular and the SSPX does not possess a canonical position in the Church? These words from Pope Benedict’s letter are rather somber and tell the true story, much to your dismay.

Can we move on back to topic, please?

I’m puzzled as to why you woul conclude that I have concluded that all is well.

I haven’t veered from the topic. I merely disagree with you.

 

[JReducation]

Hi Brother. I think in all honesty and fairness it must be pointed out that while we believe we all worship the same God, neither the Muslims nor the Jews believe it. In fact from everything I have read, they would consider it almost a sacrilege to think such a thing, particularly in the case of the Muslims…

Actually, both believe that we are praying to the God of Abraham. The stumbling block for Jews and Muslims is the Trinity. Once you stumble on that, the Incarnation makes no sense to you.

They believe that we have a misunderstanding of God, whereas we know that the fullness of trust subsists in the Catholic Church and that our understanding of God is complete and infallible. At the end of the day, what matters to a Catholic is what the Church says about Judaism and Islam, not what they say about us, because they don’t have the full understanding that we have.

Very often, I find that among the laity there is a tendency to make problems for themselves out of things that are not their’s to resolve. They’re for the hierarchy to resolve. What the Jews and Muslims say about God is one of those. There are plenty of scholars and prelates working on that, including Pope Benedict himself. Islam is his personal project. I for one am not about to stick my nose or two cents into the pope’s personal apostolate. If he says it’s the same God and that they have an incomplete understanding of the nature of God, that’s good enough for me. That’s Peter’s job to deal with, not mine.

If the Church says that it’s the same God, then it is. There is nothing for a Catholic to question. The fullness of truth subsists on this side of the fence. Let’s not complicate our lives thinking about what the other side thinks. Let’s focus on what the Church is saying. Let the scholars and those assigned to the task deal with the other side. I have too many other things on my plate. That’s my advice on this point.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sirach2]

Maurin,
Then what was the point in your injecting the comment about the excommunication being lifted? Whatever did you mean by your implication? It seemed directed to me and pnewton with your strong disagreement for our having made comments about pastoral courtesy being extended while they are still unreconciled. You are not making any sense at all.

 

[ricks1948]

Please excuse my ignorance what is SSPX

 

[ricks1948]

Please excuse my ignorance what is SSPX

OK I googled itLot of stuff to read:shrug:Just looking around thanks