SSPX & Sunday Obligation

[requiemaeturnum]

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

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

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

Pictures:

http://www.laportelatine.org/district/chartres/lourdes2008/report3/mes01.jpg

http://www.laportelatine.org/district/chartres/lourdes2008/report3/mes13.jpg

http://www.laportelatine.org/district/chartres/lourdes2008/report3/mes07.jpg

http://www.laportelatine.org/district/chartres/lourdes2008/report3/mes14.jpg

http://www.laportelatine.org/district/chartres/lourdes2008/report3/mes19.jpg

http://www.laportelatine.org/district/chartres/lourdes2008/report3/mes22.jpg

If Hindus were there, it is proof that the Church has changed. I find it hard to imagine Pius IX allowing Hindus to attend Holy Mass.

franklinf- finally someone gets it!!

 

[jmcrae]

If Hindus were there, it is proof that the Church has changed. I find it hard to imagine Pius IX allowing Hindus to attend Holy Mass.

Okay, obviously you haven’t heard the rumor, so I won’t get into that any more (since I think it was not really true).

 

[bubba451]

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?

Uhuummmm yeah—so we have 2 more pages of “Is not! and Is too!” when NONE of us make the final decision. Apparently we would all rather fight than find a way to reconcile. It’s not a lack of Charity but a lack of maturity. Years of separation and finger pointing cannot be overcome in a short time but it is work that must begin. We need to examine ourselves to make sure we are not contributing to the problem, nor ignoring it. Together we caused this problem and together it will take BOTH sides to resolve it. Saving that, pray go continue punching each other in the head and see for yourselves that the only thing that happens is that your heads and hands hurt.

 

[pnewton]

Uhuummmm yeah—so we have 2 more pages of “Is not! and Is too!” when NONE of us make the final decision. Apparently we would all rather fight than find a way to reconcile. It’s not a lack of Charity but a lack of maturity. Years of separation and finger pointing cannot be overcome in a short time but it is work that must begin. We need to examine ourselves to make sure we are not contributing to the problem, nor ignoring it. Together we caused this problem and together it will take BOTH sides to resolve it. Saving that, pray go continue punching each other in the head and see for yourselves that the only thing that happens is that your heads and hands hurt.

Relax. No one here is punching. In fact, this is one of the calmer threads on the subject, even though we disagree. If you do not wish to post, that is always your option. But please do not judge others so harshly because they do, especially if you have to exaggerate the issue so.

I am not leaving the issue at this time. I believe strongly in the need for unity of the Catholic faith. You can always suggest to the moderators a ban on the topic if that is what you think best.

 

[franklinf]

Uhuummmm yeah—so we have 2 more pages of “Is not! and Is too!” when NONE of us make the final decision. Apparently we would all rather fight than find a way to reconcile. It’s not a lack of Charity but a lack of maturity. Years of separation and finger pointing cannot be overcome in a short time but it is work that must begin. We need to examine ourselves to make sure we are not contributing to the problem, nor ignoring it. Together we caused this problem and together it will take BOTH sides to resolve it. Saving that, pray go continue punching each other in the head and see for yourselves that the only thing that happens is that your heads and hands hurt.

Part of the reason for this discussion is that certain posters refuse to recognize facts about the SSPX. Even if one doesn’t agree with the actions taken by the SSPX (which is completely their prerogative) it is imperative to recognize what the Magisterium currently says on the issue (no schism and no sin when assisting at an SSPX Mass out of love for the TLM). There is a difference between accepting the status of the SSPX and agreeing with their actions and beliefs. It seems like some posters disagree with the SSPX and just can’t accept the current Church statements on the subject.

 

[jmcrae]

Part of the reason for this discussion is that certain posters refuse to recognize facts about the SSPX. Even if one doesn’t agree with the actions taken by the SSPX (which is completely their prerogative) it is imperative to recognize what the Magisterium currently says on the issue (no schism and no sin when assisting at an SSPX Mass out of love for the TLM). There is a difference between accepting the status of the SSPX and agreeing with their actions and beliefs. It seems like some posters disagree with the SSPX and just can’t accept the current Church statements on the subject.

The Church currently forbids them to receive Diocescan faculties, which includes to say Mass and to hear Confessions. If they don’t have the faculties to say Mass, then how can anyone licitly attend their Mass? This is what I don’t understand.

 

[pnewton]

Part of the reason for this discussion is that certain posters refuse to recognize facts about the SSPX.

That is a one-sided answer. This basically says that we disagree because you are right and we are wrong. Not very constructive. Yes, I believe the SSPX is in schism, based on Ecclessia Dei. Yes, I also believe this schism to be an internal matter, based on recent statement. No, I know many, especially those who attend the SSPX, do not agree. Big deal. I have a greater insight to those who attend based on some of the more moderate attendees who have posted here.

 

[I_Believe]

Sorry but John Paul II publicly declared in Eccelesia Dei that SSPX is schismatic.** Until a formal declaration from our current pope overturns that** then they remain schismatic. One or other cardinal or bishop saying its “an internal matter of reconciliation” does not change the official position. Only the Pope can change it.

Francisco José Fernández de la Cigoña, author of the most widely read Spanish Catholic blog “La Cigüeña de la Torre” claims that on the desk of the Pope there is a decree revoking the excommunications of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988, based on lacking/reduced culpability pursuant to can. 1323, para. 4 and 7, and can. 1324, para 1, 3 and 8 of the Code of Canon Law. The only thing that would be necessary according to Mr Fernández de la Cigoña would be a humble petition by the bishops concerned alleging that they in good faith presumed a state of necessity, an argument which the Society of St. Pius X has advanced for a long time.

newliturgicalmovement.org/

Rumor ? We’ll see. NLM is fairly prudent in deciding what to post on their site though.

 

[requiemaeturnum]

That is a one-sided answer. This basically says that we disagree because you are right and we are wrong. Not very constructive. Yes, I believe the SSPX is in schism, based on Ecclessia Dei. Yes, I also believe this schism to be an internal matter, based on recent statement. No, I know many, especially those who attend the SSPX, do not agree. Big deal. I have a greater insight to those who attend based on some of the more moderate attendees who have posted here.

Ah yes, but is the SSPX truly schismatic? In order to be classified as schismatic, one must not recognise the authority of the Supreme Pontiff. Disobedience is not schism.

 

[pnewton]

Ah yes, but is the SSPX truly schismatic?

As I have already said, that is my understanding of Ecclessia Dei. It is does not agree with you you that as long as you recognize that the Pope is the Pope that you can not be in schism, but defines certain actions in and of themselves as schismatic by their very nature, specifically, ordaining your own bishops. Likewise, other groups can ordain their own bishops (like womenpriest groups) and can be schismatic, even though they recoginze the authority of the Holy Father. I do not think even Lefebvre argued that as long as he wasn’t denying the papacy he couldn’t be in schism, but rather that his actions were justified by the emergency he saw.

 

[thistle]

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.

So when Pope John Paul II publicly declared in Ecclesia Dei that the SSPX is a schismatic movement you are saying he lied???

 

[bubba451]

Relax. No one here is punching. In fact, this is one of the calmer threads on the subject, even though we disagree. If you do not wish to post, that is always your option. But please do not judge others so harshly because they do, especially if you have to exaggerate the issue so.

I am not leaving the issue at this time. I believe strongly in the need for unity of the Catholic faith. You can always suggest to the moderators a ban on the topic if that is what you think best.

I believe you may have misundertood me-I meant no judgement. I only meant the OP asked if fhe CAN, not if he SHOULD.

I agree w/ your comment that this IS one of the tamer threads on this topic. I just wish both sides would begin the discussion from a less “spoiled child” point of view. I am somewhat sympathetic to the SSPX position, but they tend to drive people away with the “shovel to the head treatment” when an issue or question is brought up regarding their position. My fellow traditionalist Catholics frequently do the same when you even say SSPX. This isn’t helpful.

It would be really interesting to get all the issuess out in the open and discuss them without all the “did not/did too.” I have really never seen a cohesive and clear explanation. Some people do not know all the issues and would like to know/understand from a much more objective viewpoint.

That said, I seem to be in the middle–seeing merit/points to both sides. I am neither looking for “permission” to attend an SSPX chapel nor looking for a secret document of excommunication for te Society. I am pleased to see the outreach from the Church and have been a bit disapointed by the lack of positive response from the SSPX. I can understand their reluctance to take on face what was said, but I see no reason to draw back a “nub” when reaching out to them either.

 

[franklinf]

So when Pope John Paul II publicly declared in Ecclesia Dei that the SSPX is a schismatic movement you are saying he lied???

No, but that was 1988. It is currently 2008. We are not discussing the formation of the SSPX. What is at issue is if someone can currently attend SSPX Masses to fulfill their Sunday obligation. Times have changed and the most recent statements from the Magisterium have declared that the SSPX is not in schism. To cite something from 1988 when there are recent documents updating the position of the Church is disingenuous. Also, I am not saying he lied. I’m sure that he felt the SSPX acted in schism. But again, with the recent documents and statements by Church authorities that document is not relevant in regards to status of the SSPX or Mass attendance.

 

[maurin]

No, but that was 1988. It is currently 2008. We are not discussing the formation of the SSPX. What is at issue is if someone can currently attend SSPX Masses to fulfill their Sunday obligation. Times have changed and the most recent statements from the Magisterium have declared that the SSPX is not in schism. To cite something from 1988 when there are recent documents updating the position of the Church is disingenuous. Also, I am not saying he lied. I’m sure that he felt the SSPX acted in schism. But again, with the recent documents and statements by Church authorities that document is not relevant in regards to status of the SSPX or Mass attendance.

Dear Thistle,

I am so glad that Franklin has made the distinction between JPII’s Motu Proprio and His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI’s. Times are changing, as has the situation, and the way the Society is viewed in Rome.

Let us make no mistake here: the Society’s status IS highly IRREGULAR, and one ought not make the decision lightly to attend her Masses, ESPECIALLY if one has easy access to a Diocesan Traditional Mass or one by the FSSP or ICK.

However the fact of the matter is that the Society of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King do not operate everywhere (we were turned down very nicely by the FSSP to pay the way for a Priest to come to our Diocese at least once or twice a month), and in many Dioceses the Traditional Mass is not “generously made available” by our Bishops even though the Pope asked for a generous availablity to the Faithful, whether they requested it or not (please see the Accompany Letter of the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” addressed to the Bishops of the world. You may find it on EWTN.com).

 

[requiemaeturnum]

Dear Thistle,

I am so glad that Franklin has made the distinction between JPII’s Motu Proprio and His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI’s. Times are changing, as has the situation, and the way the Society is viewed in Rome.

Let us make no mistake here: the Society’s status IS highly IRREGULAR, and one ought not make the decision lightly to attend her Masses, ESPECIALLY if one has easy access to a Diocesan Traditional Mass or one by the FSSP or ICK.

However the fact of the matter is that the Society of Saint Peter and the Institute of Christ the King do not operate everywhere (we were turned down very nicely by the FSSP to pay the way for a Priest to come to our Diocese at least once or twice a month), and in many Dioceses the Traditional Mass is not “generously made available” by our Bishops even though the Pope asked for a generous availablity to the Faithful, whether they requested it or not (please see the Accompany Letter of the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” addressed to the Bishops of the world. You may find it on EWTN.com).

I seem to be running into you no matter what forum I join!!

 

[I_Believe]

Welcome back maurin

 

[pnewton]

Welcome back maurin

I go away for a few days and maurin returns. Let me add me welcome. I apprecitate maurin’s balance and insight.