SSPX & Sunday Obligation

[requiemaeturnum]

What’s the matter with your FSSP parish, that you would want to switch? The FSSP has an almost identical liturgy, and has the advantage of being approved by both the local Bishop and the Pope. (In fact, the FSSP is the Pope’s personal apostolate.)

How can they be obedient to the Pope while at the same time participating in a movement that has no standing in the Church?

Actually, I will probably stay in my FSSP parish, as it is more firmly grounded than the chapel. The priest for the chapel only comes on weekends. I wanted to go because I hope to enter the SSPX seminary in Minnesota.

And for the last time!! The SSPX is a “internal matter”.

 

[pnewton]

It seems that many traditional Catholics are very willing to pile on the SSPX AND the SSPX and it’s members seem willing to fight to defend what they feel is right. Do you think it might be time to bury the hatchet anywhere EXCEPT in each other’s head?

Disagreeing with each other is neither piling on, or chopping up. Yes, the Vatican sent a message of reconciliation to the leadership of the SSPX. After their initial reaction, I do not know if any further progress has been made. Has anyone heard anything on this front?

 

[requiemaeturnum]

Disagreeing with each other is neither piling on, or chopping up. Yes, the Vatican sent a message of reconciliation to the leadership of the SSPX. After their initial reaction, I do not know if any further progress has been made. Has anyone heard anything on this front?

There is speculation that the excommunications will be lifted very soon…Fellay has launched another Rosary Crusade for this intention, it should be wise to note that the previous Crusade for the liberation of the Mass ended with Benedict’s Motu Proprio SP.

 

[jmcrae]

I haven’t seen anything that says attendence and support of schism is an excommunicatable (?) offense.

At the very least, it’s got to be a mortal sin. I can’t see how it could be justified without some very serious extenuating circumstances.

 

[requiemaeturnum]

At the very least, it’s got to be a mortal sin. I can’t see how it could be justified without some very serious extenuating circumstances.

For the last time!! SSPX is not schismatic. Schism means outside the Church, the Holy Father has said the SSPX is “an internal matter”.

 

[jmcrae]

Actually, I will probably stay in my FSSP parish, as it is more firmly grounded than the chapel. The priest for the chapel only comes on weekends. I wanted to go because I hope to enter the SSPX seminary in Minnesota.

You realize that that would put you very unambiguously into schism against the Church, right? You would actually be a member of the SSPX; not just an adherent and financial supporter.

And for the last time!! The SSPX is a “internal matter”.

So was Lutheranism. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t schismatic.

 

[requiemaeturnum]

You realize that that would put you very unambiguously into schism against the Church, right? You would actually be a member of the SSPX; not just an adherent and financial supporter.

So was Lutheranism. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t schismatic.

Luther ran off and made a new religion in his own image. Monsignor Lefebvre was preserving the Catholic Church uncorrupted by changes made “in the spirit of Vatican II”. Look at the first link in my signature, the man was no more a schismatic then the other traditional Catholics on this forum.

 

[jmcrae]

Luther ran off and made a new religion in his own image.

Yes - he kept Lutheranism going as a separate entity from the Church after he was excommunicated. And the Church dialogued with Lutheranism for nearly a century afterwards, as an internal matter. (And by the way, Luther also claimed to be preserving the uncorrupted Church in Lutheranism, as well.)

Monsignor Lefebvre was preserving the Catholic Church uncorrupted by changes made “in the spirit of Vatican II”.

And then got himself excommunicated, and then kept the SSPX going as an entity external to the Church. How is that not schism?

 

[franklinf]

At the very least, it’s got to be a mortal sin. I can’t see how it could be justified without some very serious extenuating circumstances.

If you are referring to the SSPX (and not a schismatic group like the Eastern Orthodoxs) then you are wrong and should stop spreading this misinformation. As has already been stated in this thread the PCED has said that no sin or canonical delict is incurred by assisting at a SSPX Mass. Furthermore, Cardinal Castrillon (head of PCED) has said that the SSPX is not in schism.

 

[franklinf]

Yes - he kept Lutheranism going as a separate entity from the Church after he was excommunicated. And the Church dialogued with Lutheranism for nearly a century afterwards, as an internal matter. (And by the way, Luther also claimed to be preserving the uncorrupted Church in Lutheranism, as well.)

And then got himself excommunicated, and then kept the SSPX going as an entity external to the Church. How is that not schism?

There is a big difference between Luther and Archbishop Lefebvre. Luther wanted to change the doctrines, dogmas, and practices of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre wanted nothing but the continuation of what the Church always taught. Archbishop Lefebvre stood for the ancient and venerable Traditions of the Church. Luther was a protestant reformer who created an entirely new religion.

 

[jmcrae]

There is a big difference between Luther and Archbishop Lefebvre. Luther wanted to change the doctrines, dogmas, and practices of the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre wanted nothing but the continuation of what the Church always taught. Archbishop Lefebvre stood for the ancient and venerable Traditions of the Church. Luther was a protestant reformer who created an entirely new religion.

Both of them were absolutely convinced that they were restoring the ancient liturgy of the Church. Both of them started movements with the aim to do so. Both of them got excommunicated, and both of them kept their movements going outside of the oversight of the Church, as independent entities.

 

[requiemaeturnum]

Both of them were absolutely convinced that they were restoring the ancient liturgy of the Church. Both of them started movements with the aim to do so. Both of them got excommunicated, and both of them kept their movements going outside of the oversight of the Church, as independent entities.

Mosignor was not restoring anything- he was preserving what the Church has always taught.

Is the SSPX really outside the Church? Why were we allowed to celebrate Holy Mass at Lourdes for the Anniversery then?

 

[jmcrae]

Mosignor was not restoring anything- he was preserving what the Church has always taught.

So does the Church, so there was never any need for him to separate himself.

Is the SSPX really outside the Church?

Well, no Bishop is allowed to give them Diocescan faculties; what does that tell you?

Why were we allowed to celebrate Holy Mass at Lourdes for the Anniversery then?

I have no idea; I wasn’t there. I have heard accusations that they let pretty much anybody celebrate pretty much anything they want at Lourdes, though - in fact, I thought the SSPX was the source of the accusations.

 

[franklinf]

Both of them were absolutely convinced that they were restoring the ancient liturgy of the Church. Both of them started movements with the aim to do so. Both of them got excommunicated, and both of them kept their movements going outside of the oversight of the Church, as independent entities.

Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t go against any dogma or tradition of the Church. Luther turned his back on what the Church had taught for a thousand years! For example he preached sola scriptura and sola fide which went against Church teaching. He is not the same as Archbishop Lefebvre who stood for what the Church has always taught. What was holy then is holy now. To compare him to Luther (a heretic as he was an RC monk who renounced Church teachings) is an insult to him and his position.

 

[jmcrae]

Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t go against any dogma or tradition of the Church. Luther turned his back on what the Church had taught for a thousand years! For example he preached sola scriptura and sola fide which went against Church teaching. He is not the same as Archbishop Lefebvre who stood for what the Church has always taught. What was holy then is holy now. To compare him to Luther (a heretic as he was an RC monk who renounced Church teachings) is an insult to him and his position.

Look, the fact remains that for whatever reason, LeFebvre was excommunicated, and didn’t stop what he was doing - instead of shutting down the SSPX, he made it external to the Church.

Of course he thought he was justified; that doesn’t make it so. The fact remains that the SSPX cannot get Diocescan faculties from any Bishop in communion with Rome, and it has nothing to do with “being mean” - this is a directive from Rome itself.

 

[franklinf]

Look, the fact remains that for whatever reason, LeFebvre was excommunicated, and didn’t stop what he was doing - instead of shutting down the SSPX, he made it external to the Church.

Of course he thought he was justified; that doesn’t make it so. The fact remains that the SSPX cannot get Diocescan faculties from any Bishop in communion with Rome, and it has nothing to do with “being mean” - this is a directive from Rome itself.

The fact remains that it is NOT external no matter how many times you say it is. The PCED has definitively stated that the situation of the SSPX is an internal matter within the Church and Catholics incur no sin or canonical delict when assisting at a SSPX Mass. To say that the SSPX is an external Society in schism with HMC and attending their Masses is sinful is blatantly wrong.

In regards to the authoritativeness of the PCED:
“This Pontifical Commission does its best to transmit responses which are in full accord with the magisterium and the present canonical practices of the Catholic Church. One should accept them with docility and can act upon them with moral certainty. We would further add that no dicastery of the Holy See will give other responses than those which we have given here.”

 

[requiemaeturnum]

So does the Church, so there was never any need for him to separate himself.

Many would disagree. Look at the teachings of the Church before and after Vatican II.

Well, no Bishop is allowed to give them Diocescan faculties; what does that tell you?

What does that tell me? That the Church is in a sad state if She excommunicates those who are sent to Her.

I have no idea; I wasn’t there. I have heard accusations that they let pretty much anybody celebrate pretty much anything they want at Lourdes, though - in fact, I thought the SSPX was the source of the accusations.

I highly doubt those rumours. There are pictures to prove that the SSPX was at Lourdes.

 

[jmcrae]

Many would disagree. Look at the teachings of the Church before and after Vatican II.

There is no essential difference. (And if you think there is a difference, then aren’t you in schism, by definition?)

I highly doubt those rumours. There are pictures to prove that the SSPX was at Lourdes.

There are also pictures to “prove” that the Hindus were there.

But if the Hindus could go there, then why not the SSPX?

 

[franklinf]

There is no essential difference. (And if you think there is a difference, then aren’t you in schism, by definition?)

No. One can easily see differences in the liturgy pre- and post-Vatican II. Archbishop Lefevbre was concerned with preserving the TLM, which was replaced by Vatican II with the Novus Ordo.

 

[jmcrae]

No. One can easily see differences in the liturgy pre- and post-Vatican II (i.e. the doing away with the TLM and the implementation of the Novus Ordo)

This is not a change in Dogma, or in the Doctrine of the Faith. It is simply a change in discipline. Changes in the liturgy have occurred throughout history. The shift from Greek to Latin, together with the changes in the order of events, the removal of the iconostasis, etc., must have been very upsetting to some people in the 4th century.

I think people also forget that the Apostles were not celebrating either the Greek Mass, or the Tridentine Mass, at the Last Supper.