SSPX temptation - advice needed

[levavi]

Dear all

I’ve just posted a request for prayer in the prayer Forum (below), but may I also have some advice?

====

Please pray for me…

I feel like I’m having a crisis with my faith.

I converted to Catholicism 9 years ago and my faith is strong, but I am so unhappy with parish life, wherever I live… I am greatly attracted to the Traditional Mass, but also to Traditional Catholicism, but it doesn’t only stop there. I am very troubled by the “state” of the Church (as I perceive it) and the way the liturgy is generally so badly celebrated.

I have recently learned there is an SSPX chapel just round the corner from me, and I want to go and hear Mass there, partly for the aesthetics of it. But I know if I go I might get seduced by SSPX arguments…

 

[Brenda_V]

Prayers for you.

Brenda V.

 

[bilop]

Levavi,

Have you checked if there is an FSSP, ICRSS, or other traditional parish that is in full union with Rome? Alternatively, Eastern Catholic liturgies tend to avoid the abuses you sometimes find in the OF.

That would answer your dilemma, and take away the sspx temptation.

God Bless

 

[saint_rafael]

Go the SSPX chapel. They are faithful traditional Catholics. The Church has said for years that a Catholic can fulfill his Sunday obligation there. As Cardinal Hoyos said so many times they are not in schism but inside the Church.

You won’t agree with every single word that they say, but you will get nourished with the true faith. In times of apostsay and emergency, Catholics have always done anything they could to keep the Catholic faith from the catecombs, to the barnyards, to the SSPX chapels.

 

[bpbasilphx]

As Cardinal Hoyos said so many times they are not in schism but inside the Church.

If they have a “St. Charles Borromeo Canonical Commission” which presumes to give dispensations reserved to the Pope himself, can they still be said to be “not in schism”?

 

[latinmass]

Your story was my story a couple of years ago. I attend at a SSPX Church now and feel more at home there than I ever did at a Novus Ordo parish. I have never heard anything contrary to Church Doctrine. If you want a reverent atmosphere, with men and women dressed properly with truth always spoken, you will feel at home.

 

[saint_rafael]

If they have a “St. Charles Borromeo Canonical Commission” which presumes to give dispensations reserved to the Pope himself, can they still be said to be “not in schism”?

“Questions regarding the
ST. CHARLES BORROMEO CANONICAL COMMISSION”

sspx.org/Canonical_Commission/questions_re_canonical_commission.htm

"How can the Society’s St. Charles Borromeo Canonical Commission be considered “competent” concerning that which law reserves to the Holy See?

A first principle, which is quite clear, is that the Canonical Commission is not a canonically erected body and that, consequently, it does not possess ordinary jurisdiction over the faithful any more than do the district superiors. Consequently, there can be no question of it being “competent” in the technical, juridical sense of the word, with one having the ordinary jurisdiction to decide or handle certain questions or situations.

The comparison between the Canonical Commission and the Holy See, on the one hand, and between the District Superior and the Ordinary of the place, on the other, confirms this interpretation. There is no direct correlation between the powers of one and the other, but a pure analogy. The analogy is based upon the impossibility of recourse to the Ordinary and to the Holy See (not perhaps always, but at least in general). Clearly a priest should not be left, in such an instance, just to do what he wants, simply because he has personal supplied jurisdiction.

Does not the establishment of such a commission make us look schismatic, as our accusers maintain?

To keep the spirit of the Church means to keep to its prudence and its rules as much as possible, even in the difficult circumstances that we find ourselves. This means that we should have recourse to our superiors, just as we would if they really had jurisdiction. This will safeguard the use of personal, supplied jurisdiction and keep it within the mind of the Church. It follows from this that neither the District Superior, nor the Canonical Commission, can technically give a dispensation using the power of Ordinary Jurisdiction. They can only grant the authorization for a priest to dispense in the act of administering the sacrament. This is what is clearly explained on our M-15 form, which is based upon the application of Canon 1044 (in the 1983 Code, Canon 1079), in the case of the extraordinary form of marriage"

"Does not the Commission make a claim to the pope’s primatial authority by claiming to take care of matters reserved to the Holy See?

Clearly the Canonical Commission does not have the pope’s primatial authority to govern, nor does it ever claim to do so. It is a sharing in the Superior General’s authority to guide and direct the members of the Society in their use of the personal, supplied jurisdiction, which they have in the administration of the sacraments, in the case of impossibility of having recourse. Canon 2254, °3 of the 1917 Code admits that this might be the case and grants the priest hearing confessions the authorization to dispense from censures. Canon 1357 of the 1983 Code does not speak of this, but it does not abrogate or deny it either. Consequently this prevision still exists. I believe that a clear case can be made for the Canonical Commission, itself to be the subject of supplied jurisdiction in individual cases (it would then be personal for each case). But this is not at all necessary to explain this Commission’s decisions to guide the priests in the administration of the sacraments."

 

[Timothysis]

Masses offered by the sspx are illicit, meaning “illegal” under Canon law. Canon law is what we are bound to as Catholics. Do you think that it is right and proper to attend an illegal Mass under Canon law, regardless of the fact that it is perfectly valid, as a good Catholic? Is it a sin to participate in an illegal Mass offered by suspended priests ?

Contrary to our good buddy saint rafael, Cardinal Hoyo’s words were that the society isn’t “exactly in schism,” which is not the same as saying they “aren’t in schism.” The Vatican has not issued a declaration as to whether or not the society is or isn’t in schism. I think that it is highly relevant, however, that the society turned their noses up at a very generous offer by Pope Benedict regarding being regularized.

 

[BrendanD]

Masses offered by the sspx are illicit, meaning “illegal” under Canon law. Canon law is what we are bound to as Catholics. Do you think that it is right and proper to attend an illegal Mass under Canon law, regardless of the fact that it is perfectly valid, as a good Catholic?

Liturgical abuse in a diocese-approved Mass is also illicit, are Catholics not allowed to go to those either?

Also, Cdl. Hoyos said specifically that Catholics may fulfill their obligation at the SSPX. Was he wrong?

Contrary to our good buddy saint rafael, Cardinal Hoyo’s words were that the society isn’t “exactly in schism,” which is not the same as saying they “aren’t in schism.”

Cdl. Hoyos said “The Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics.” Let’s not take words out of his mouth…he’s said numerous times that he believes they are not in schism.

I will never get this double-standard, that a Catholic can’t go to the SSPX even when the Church says it’s ok, but they’d be obligated to go to an approved Mass with liturgical abuse by a heretic priest

Anyway levavi, if you don’t want to the go to the SSPX, you still have other options. Look for an approved traditional Mass, find a better parish in your area, or talk to your priest about the problem.

 

[Ahlman]

I will never get this double-standard, that a Catholic can’t go to the SSPX even when the Church says it’s ok, but they’d be obligated to go to an approved Mass with liturgical abuse by a heretic priest

John Paul II said in Ecclesia Dei to the faithful regarding SSPX “that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement.” So that shouldn’t really be an option. Of course, we shouldn’t just accept other liturgical abuses. If you think the abuses are serious enough, ask your priest about it. If he doesn’t listen, go to the bishop. If he doesn’t care either, it’s probably not as serious as you think. But you always have the option to go further to the nuncio.

Of course, you could likewise try to persuade the SSPX priest to consider returning to full communion.

 

[Timothysis]

Liturgical abuse in a diocese-approved Mass is also illicit, are Catholics not allowed to go to those either?

If an act or an action is illicit, then it is illicit. One cannot make right the fact that Masses said by the sspx are illicit by pointing out illicit acts in a “diocese-approved Mass,” as if the one negates the other. The fact of the matter is that Masses said by suspended priests of the sspx are illicit. An illicit Mass is contrary to Canon law. Are you, as a supposed good Catholic, comfortable with attending a Mass that is illegal under the eyes of the Church?

Also, Cardinal Hoyos has made statements as a private individual pertaining to his belief of the standing of the sspx. As of now, the Holy See has not determined whether or not if the sspx is in schism. If the time does come, it will be the Powers That Be who decide, not Cardinal Hoyos. As was pointed out before, Pope John Paul II exhorted the faithful to not support the “schismatic actions” of the society. I think a Pope trumps a Cardinal any day.

I will never get this double-standard, that a Catholic can’t go to the SSPX even when the Church says it’s ok, but they’d be obligated to go to an approved Mass with liturgical abuse by a heretic priest

But the Church has never said that it’s “ok” to go to a sspx Mass. In fact, here in my diocese the bishop used to regularly take out an ad in the church newspaper warning the faithful that this local chapel was not in full communion with Rome.

Furthermore, one does not fulfill the Sunday obligation by going to a Mass where the clergy are not in full communion with the Pope. The double standard that I will never get is how the (so called) traditionalists lambast liberal Catholics for their practices, yet practice the same cafeteria-style Catholicism themselves. As Catholics, we don’t get to take what we like and leave the rest.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Whenever necessity requires it or ***true spiritual advantage ***suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the [Catholic] 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
(canon 844 §2).

And this is just for non-Catholic ministers- the SSPX are Catholics.

As well, Ecclesia Dei has stated that while discouraged, a SSPX Mass fulfills your Sunday obligation. However, if you get into the “SSPX-only” mindset, you commit a mortal sin. And by attending an SSPX chapel it may be easy for you to fall into that- if it is, I don’t recommend going.

 

[Ahlman]

However, if you get into the “SSPX-only” mindset, you commit a mortal sin. And by attending an SSPX chapel it may be easy for you to fall into that- if it is, I don’t recommend going.

Not to mention the fact that it has to be “physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister”.

 

[palmas85]

If an act or an action is illicit, then it is illicit. One cannot make right the fact that Masses said by the sspx are illicit by pointing out illicit acts in a “diocese-approved Mass,” as if the one negates the other. The fact of the matter is that Masses said by suspended priests of the sspx are illicit. An illicit Mass is contrary to Canon law. Are you, as a supposed good Catholic, comfortable with attending a Mass that is illegal under the eyes of the Church?

Also, Cardinal Hoyos has made statements as a private individual pertaining to his belief of the standing of the sspx. As of now, the Holy See has not determined whether or not if the sspx is in schism. If the time does come, it will be the Powers That Be who decide, not Cardinal Hoyos. As was pointed out before, Pope John Paul II exhorted the faithful to not support the “schismatic actions” of the society. I think a Pope trumps a Cardinal any day.

But the Church has never said that it’s “ok” to go to a sspx Mass. In fact, here in my diocese the bishop used to regularly take out an ad in the church newspaper warning the faithful that this local chapel was not in full communion with Rome.

Furthermore, one does not fulfill the Sunday obligation by going to a Mass where the clergy are not in full communion with the Pope. The double standard that I will never get is how the (so called) traditionalists lambast liberal Catholics for their practices, yet practice the same cafeteria-style Catholicism themselves. As Catholics, we don’t get to take what we like and leave the rest.

The following is from an interview with the Cardinal in Le Osservatore Romano in March of this year

Interviewer
How is return to “full communion” possible for people who are excommunicated?

Cardinal Hoyos
The excommunication regarded only the four bishops, because they were ordained without the mandate of the Pope and against his will, while the priests are only suspended. The Mass they celebrate is without question valid, but not licit and, therefore, participation is not recommended, at least when on Sunday there are other possibilities. Certainly neither the priests nor the faithful are excommunicated. I would like to underscore the importance of a clear understanding of these things to be able to judge them correctly.

So as I see it you can go but they really don’t want you to but do not in any way forbid it… Neither the the Priests in the Socirty nor the congregations have been excommunicated, the Priests are validly ordained, and while their faculties are suspended the sacraments are valid . Only the four Bishops were ever excommunicated.

Not recommended is a long long way from being prohibited.

It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Not to mention the fact that it has to be “physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister”.

A liturgy where abuse runs rampant, especially if the abuses are severe, offends God and is sacrilegious. It would be morally impossible to attend a Mass that disrespects God.

 

[BrendanD]

If an act or an action is illicit, then it is illicit. One cannot make right the fact that Masses said by the sspx are illicit by pointing out illicit acts in a “diocese-approved Mass,” as if the one negates the other. The fact of the matter is that Masses said by suspended priests of the sspx are illicit.

Fine-- then you would tell this poster that they are forbidden from attending a diocese-approved Mass that is illicit just like the SSPX, right? How could it possibly be allowed to attend one but not the other?

An illicit Mass is contrary to Canon law. Are you, as a supposed good Catholic, comfortable with attending a Mass that is illegal under the eyes of the Church?

No, and there is no need for me to do so. Which is why I don’t go to illicit Masses, either those of suspended priests, or those with liturgical abuse. However, there are situations where attendance at an illicit Mass is justified.

Also, Cardinal Hoyos has made statements as a private individual pertaining to his belief of the standing of the sspx.

Ok, so let’s ignore the statements of the Cardinal who is the President of Ecclesia Dei personally appointed by the Pope, as if he has no authority. Why bring up Cardinal Hoyos in the first place if you think his opinion doesn’t matter

As of now, the Holy See has not determined whether or not if the sspx is in schism.

That’s a very disingenuous comment to make. The Holy See does not claim that the SSPX are in schism, and Vatican officials have said the opposite on numerous occasions. We don’t assume that people are in schism just because Rome hasn’t made an official statement that they aren’t; it works the other way around.

But the Church has never said that it’s “ok” to go to a sspx Mass.

The Church has officially said that the Sunday obligation can be fulfilled at the SSPX, that it is not a sin to attend the SSPX for devotion to the traditional Mass, and that it is ok to donate money to the SSPX. What more do you want

Furthermore, one does not fulfill the Sunday obligation by going to a Mass where the clergy are not in full communion with the Pope.

You are in disagreement with the Code of Canon Law and the official statements of the Church’s Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. Although the Church strongly discourages attendance at the SSPX, it is wrong to claim that they don’t fulfill the Sunday obligation (or that one sins simply by attending the SSPX, or is schismatic, etc.)

The double standard that I will never get is how the (so called) traditionalists lambast liberal Catholics for their practices, yet practice the same cafeteria-style Catholicism themselves. As Catholics, we don’t get to take what we like and leave the rest.

Who exactly are you accusing, and of what? If you’re implying that I’m a so-called traditionalist cafeteria-Catholic, you should make it clear so I can defend myself.

 

[DAPDN]

However, if you get into the “SSPX-only” mindset, you commit a mortal sin. And by attending an SSPX chapel it may be easy for you to fall into that- if it is, I don’t recommend going.

I felt the same “temptation” to go to a SSPX Mass in Fatima, a week ago, since there is not a single Tridentine Latin Mass here in Portugal. I understand you, but it is precisely because of what JuanCarlos said that I chose not to go, in the end. It would almost be comparable to an occasion of sin, if you put yourself in that situation, knowing that you may be vulnerable to the heresy of rejecting Vatican II, thus, rejecting Papal authority. That disbelief is what puts you, actually, in a state of “schism”, if one may call it so, in what concerns to the SSPX’s positions on certain matters.

Remember, dear friend; when doubt storms your soul, you’ll be always safer if you are with Peter, because it was to Peter that Our Lord gave the Keys to the Kingdom. This way, we know, for sure, that we are right.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Listen up, everyone!

The admin staff has just deleted a slew of posts advising the OP to go ahead and give into a temptation that the OP specifically said he was struggling to overcome.

No matter where you are on the Traditionalist spectrum, keep this dictum in mind when participating on this forum:

Thou shalt not advise any Catholic to violate his conscience and give into what he considers to be an obvious temptation.

Your arguments for or against the SSPX matter not one iota. Whether or not your conscience is troubled by attending an SSPX Mass matters not one iota. What matters is that the OP considers it a temptation he is struggling against and a Catholic, no matter his personal inclinations, does not encourage anyone to give into temptation (cf. Rom. 14).