SSPX

[newyorkcatholic]

Br. JR, I understand your points about obedience and unity and catechesis.

But when Cardinal Kaspar writes something approving of homosexual civil unions and an SSPX priest criticizes it, the SSPX priest is right. Not because of any magical special authority from the SSPX, but simply because truth is truth no matter who says it.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Interesting. So I suppose I could start a group and say that “I’m not sold on the priest’s intentions when they use the missal of 1962 (or earlier)” and that’d be totally fine.

Also, considering the intentions of some members of the SSPX, using their own logic on their own website that you just listed it’s possible their own Masses are invalid due to intention.

Intention, when it comes to validity, refers to the priest’s intention to confect the sacrament. Nothing on the SSPX website could even suggest, even if with the greatest spin, that the SSPX denies the Real Presence in the Eucharist, so your argument doesn’t hold.

One of the arguments of the SSPX is that the downplaying of the Real Presence in the OF, both in rubrics and actual practice, could lead to a priest not believing in the Real Presence, which would then invalidate his masses as that priest would not have the intention to confect the Eucharist, but is instead just blessing bread, or creating communion, or whatever.

The EF places a very high focus on the Real Presence, reiterating both to the laity and to the priest that the Host is indeed the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. This actually helps reinforce the priest’s intention and therefore helps increase the chance for validity, so there would be very strong arguments against your hypothetical group’s position.

As an example, if you had to keep your index finger and thumb together from the moment of consecration until the ablutions, this would heavily reinforce the belief in the dogma that every particle in that Host is Our Lord. This is but one of many examples in the EF that reinforce the belief in the Real Presence and the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

• PAX

 

[Melchior_1]

Intention, when it comes to validity, refers to the priest’s intention to confect the sacrament. Nothing on the SSPX website could even suggest, even if with the greatest spin, that the SSPX denies the Real Presence in the Eucharist, so your argument doesn’t hold.

Nothing on the Vatican’s website, even with the greatest spins, shows that anyone denies the Real Presence in the Eucharist. So the SSPX argument doesn’t hold.

One of the arguments of the SSPX is that the downplaying of the Real Presence in the OF, both in rubrics and actual practice, could lead to a priest not believing in the Real Presence, which would then invalidate his masses as that priest would not have the intention to confect the Eucharist, but is instead just blessing bread, or creating communion, or whatever.

You know what else causes people to downplay the Real Presence? Disobedience. And the spirit of disobedience causes strange things to happen, like illicit Masses and invalid confessions.

The EF places a very high focus on the Real Presence, reiterating both to the laity and to the priest that the Host is indeed the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. This actually helps reinforce the priest’s intention and therefore helps increase the chance for validity, so there would be very strong arguments against your hypothetical group’s position.

As an example, if you had to keep your index finger and thumb together from the moment of consecration until the ablutions, this would heavily reinforce the belief in the dogma that every particle in that Host is Our Lord. This is but one of many examples in the EF that reinforce the belief in the Real Presence and the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

• PAX

My hypothetical group would have licit Masses and valid confessions due to having actual canonical status, which would certainly help reinforce the belief of the Eucharist and the primacy of the Pope.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Nothing on the Vatican’s website, even with the greatest spins, shows that anyone denies the Real Presence in the Eucharist. So the SSPX argument doesn’t hold.

I didn’t refer to the Vatican’s website. You, however, did refer to the SSPX’s website.

You know what else causes people to downplay the Real Presence? Disobedience. And the spirit of disobedience causes strange things to happen, like illicit Masses and invalid confessions.

How does disobedience over canonical status affect the belief in the Real Presence? Also, there is a vast difference between illicit and invalid Masses. We are discussing a Mass’s validity, not its licitness. Please don’t confuse or conflate the two.

My hypothetical group would have licit Masses and valid confessions due to having actual canonical status, which would certainly help reinforce the belief of the Eucharist and the primacy of the Pope.

Again, we are discussing valid Masses based on intention, not licitness nor confessions.

• PAX

 

[Melchior_1]

I didn’t refer to the Vatican’s website. You, however, did refer to the SSPX’s website.

I’m using this as a parallel.

How does disobedience over canonical status affect the belief in the Real Presence? Also, there is a vast difference between illicit and invalid Masses. We are discussing a Mass’s validity, not its licitness. Please don’t confuse or conflate the two.

Easily. If you have tasted the fruit of disobedience, then it could become disobedience over doctrine. We’re seeing that with their rejection of the preamble, and certain attitudes.

Again, we are discussing valid Masses based on intention, not licitness nor confessions.

• PAX

I won’t begin to question people’s intent, however when you know you’ve been grounded and you continue to act out anyway, questions are going to arise, won’t they?

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I won’t begin to question people’s intent, however when you know you’ve been grounded and you continue to act out anyway, questions are going to arise, won’t they?

The question of intent and validity is a VERY specific one: does the priest intend to do what the Church intends, which is to confect the sacrament? Other questions do indeed arise, but validity is based on that question. Hence, as an example from a different sacrament, a non-Catholic can validly administer baptism as long as he intends to do what the Church intends (cleanse original sin, etc). So SSPX priests, despite their canonical status, can validly confect the Eucharist, if they intend to do as the Church intends, which is to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Savior. And since one of the SSPX’s core emphases on the Mass is that it is a sacrifice that requires a Victim, I highly doubt that their irregular status is going to affect the validity of their Masses because of a defect in intention.

I suppose that is the point I wanted to make. Perhaps I came on too strong. I don’t want to be battling with you, Melchior, across multiple threads (as we seem to be doing), so please forgive my tone if it was aggressive. Pax Christi tecum sit.

• PAX

 

[newyorkcatholic]

If you were obedient you wouldn’t question the validity of Masses said by the SSPX, or the SSPV, or the Orthodox. The Vatican doesn’t question their validity.

Be real. Any disobedience on the part of the SSPX, even if not justifiable, is more related to zealously guarding traditional expressions of Church teaching like the Real Presence, rather than denying such teachings.

 

[Melchior_1]

The question of intent and validity is a VERY specific one: does the priest intend to do what the Church intends, which is to confect the sacrament? Other questions do indeed arise, but validity is based on that question. Hence, as an example from a different sacrament, a non-Catholic can validly administer baptism as long as he intends to do what the Church intends (cleanse original sin, etc).

The question of intention vs canonical status comes from this; if the priest has zero intention of reconciling with Rome, how can we be sure of their intent in other areas, such as the Real Presence?

So SSPX priests, despite their canonical status, can validly confect the Eucharist, if they intend to do as the Church intends, which is to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Savior. And since one of the SSPX’s core emphases on the Mass is that it is a sacrifice that requires a Victim, I highly doubt that their irregular status is going to affect the validity of their Masses because of a defect in intention.

I’m not doubting their validity confecting the Eucharist. What I am saying is that their rhetoric can be applied against themselves quite easily due to the subjective nature of it.

I suppose that is the point I wanted to make. Perhaps I came on too strong. I don’t want to be battling with you, Melchior, across multiple threads (as we seem to be doing), so please forgive my tone if it was aggressive. Pax Christi tecum sit.

• PAX

You’re not coming on strong at all, you’re voicing your opinion on an issue you feel strongly about, nothing wrong with that at all.

I’m enjoying the dialogue. I post and read this forum to get a handle on different perspectives within the Church, and to share the viewpoint of a married layman who is starting formation soon.

The Church is like any family, diverse with many differences. My traditions will be different than my mother’s, yet some will remain the same. Regardless, there is commonality and unity still, and the differences we have enriches our relationship.

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR, I understand your points about obedience and unity and catechesis.

But when Cardinal Kaspar writes something approving of homosexual civil unions and an SSPX priest criticizes it, the SSPX priest is right. Not because of any magical special authority from the SSPX, but simply because truth is truth no matter who says it.

That’s why I said that when they say what the Church says there is no problem. The problem is when they say what the Church does not say or when they refuse to say what the Church wants them to say.

The difference between them and the Cardinal is that the Cardinal has canonical authority. Even though he may be wrong on this issue, in which case we don’t have to comply or support his position, on anything that is not in conflict with the Church, he speaks with authority. It’s not just an opinion. It’s the voice of a bishop. When Bishop Felay speaks, it’s not the voice of a bishop. Although he is an ordained bishop, he is a suspended bishop who does not have the right to speak as a bishop.

There are two very important considerations here. The bishop must speak as the Church speaks and the bishop must have the authority to speak. Obviously, if he’s an Ordinary, he has the authority to speak. If he’s an auxiliary or a retired bishop, he gets his authority from his Ordinary. If you’re suspended, not matter how valid your ordination, your voice has not authority. Catholics are to respect your right to have an opinion and respond respectfully to your opinion; but we do not have a duty to comply with your position, because you’re not an Ordinary with canonical authority over the rest of us.

The question of intent and validity is a VERY specific one: does the priest intend to do what the Church intends, which is to confect the sacrament? Other questions do indeed arise, but validity is based on that question. Hence, as an example from a different sacrament, a non-Catholic can validly administer baptism as long as he intends to do what the Church intends (cleanse original sin, etc). So SSPX priests, despite their canonical status, can validly confect the Eucharist, if they intend to do as the Church intends, which is to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Savior. And since one of the SSPX’s core emphases on the Mass is that it is a sacrifice that requires a Victim, I highly doubt that their irregular status is going to affect the validity of their Masses because of a defect in intention.

I suppose that is the point I wanted to make. Perhaps I came on too strong. I don’t want to be battling with you, Melchior, across multiple threads (as we seem to be doing), so please forgive my tone if it was aggressive. Pax Christi tecum sit.

• PAX

The question of intent is one that is not really worth arguing about. No matter how many times the Eucharistic prayer mentions the words sacrifice and victim, that does not guarantee intent. That question was answered by Cardinal Arinze years ago. Unless the priest tells you something to the contrary, you assume that it is his intent to do as the Church believes, which is to consecrate. The words don’t have to be there for that. Look at the Eastern Church that has an anaphora without the words of consecration and it’s valid. There is no question about intent. The words sacrifice and victim are not mentioned in that anaphora nor are the words of consecration. But the intent has been there since the time of the Apostles. Unless the priest says something to the contrary, the Church has ruled that the anaphora is valid and licit and so is the consecration.

If one looks at the bigger picture, the universal Church, not just the Latin Church, one finds that there words are not what makes for intent. To argue that it does, is a waste of time. The Church already believes that this is not the case. I’ve always made it a policy never to argue with the Holy See. It always wins. It can’t lose, because all the cards are in its favor. The simple fact that a pope cannot be judged by anyone gives the Holy See an advantage over me. It would be a fool to argue with the See of Peter. What am I going to say, “You’re wrong and I’m right”? He can say, “Yeah and there’s the door, don’t let it hit you on the way out.” No thanks.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If you were obedient you wouldn’t question the validity of Masses said by the SSPX, or the SSPV, or the Orthodox. The Vatican doesn’t question their validity.

Be real. Any disobedience on the part of the SSPX, even if not justifiable, is more related to zealously guarding traditional expressions of Church teaching like the Real Presence, rather than denying such teachings.

Wow. This says a lot.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Wow. This says a lot.

What exactly. For their flaws, it’s divorced from reality to think the SSPX could question the doctrine of the Real Presence. They see themselves as guardians of such teachings in a world when even many Catholics deny Church teachings.

It sounds like you are getting something else out of what I wrote. I’d like to know what that is, lol.

 

[Melchior_1]

If you were obedient you wouldn’t question the validity of Masses said by the SSPX, or the SSPV, or the Orthodox. The Vatican doesn’t question their validity.

Have I questioned them? Of course I haven’t. In fact, I said “I won’t begin to question people’s intent”. Every Mass I give the priest the benefit of the doubt as it pertains to validity. In fact, while at Mass the thought of the priest’s intention never crosses my mind.

Be real. Any disobedience on the part of the SSPX, even if not justifiable, is more related to zealously guarding traditional expressions of Church teaching like the Real Presence, rather than denying such teachings.

A question of optics, as always. Picking things apart such as how the Eucharist is held in the OF or the language used to deny intent to confect, when those criticizing can’t hear valid confessions and whatnot.

I’m merely pointing out how the situation looks from my perspective, that’s all.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

Have I questioned them? Of course I haven’t. In fact, I said “I won’t begin to question people’s intent”. Every Mass I give the priest the benefit of the doubt as it pertains to validity. In fact, while at Mass the thought of the priest’s intention never crosses my mind.

A question of optics, as always. Picking things apart such as how the Eucharist is held in the OF or the language used to deny intent to confect, when those criticizing can’t hear valid confessions and whatnot.

I’m merely pointing out how the situation looks from my perspective, that’s all.

Ok, but SSPX makes arguments about OF and intent not just statements from authority. critiquing their authority is easy, but we need to understand and refute or accept their statements case-by-case.

 

[JReducation]

At the end of the day, let’s go back to the original question. Are we going to be saints for being in communion with the SSPX or with the Holy See?

If on April 15, the SSPX does not satisfy the Holy See and if the Holy See declares it to be in schism, are we going to continue to argue their case or stand by the See of Peter?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TrueLight]

At the end of the day, let’s go back to the original question. Are we going to be saints for being in communion with the SSPX or with the Holy See?

If on April 15, the SSPX does not satisfy the Holy See and if the Holy See declares it to be in schism, are we going to continue to argue their case or stand by the See of Peter?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Very good question and one I have been thinking about since I do attend their masses every now and then. Sobering thought.

 

[JReducation]

Very good question and one I have been thinking about since I do attend their masses every now and then. Sobering thought.

Let’s pray that we don’t have to answer it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Let’s pray that we don’t have to answer it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I will join in that prayer with my whole heart.

• PAX

 

[ProVobis]

If on April 15, the SSPX does not satisfy the Holy See and if the Holy See declares it to be in schism, are we going to continue to argue their case or stand by the See of Peter?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

If I were a betting person, I’d bet on another split, within the FSSPX. But I’ll pray that I’m wrong and there will be 100% reconciliation. If St. Peter and St. Paul could resolve their differences, any two groups can.

 

[Exsilivm]

Nothing on the Vatican’s website, even with the greatest spins, shows that anyone denies the Real Presence in the Eucharist. So the SSPX argument doesn’t hold.

In Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, Pope Benedict wrote that the question of the saving power of the eucharist cannot be restricted to questions about its validity. This was in the context of discussing Protestant, and specifically evengelical, communion servives. This echoes the writings of Rahner and Cardinal Martini, who have serious questions about the doctrine of transubstantiation. If these feelings are expressed at the highest levels of the Church, people are apt to challenge the orthodoxy of all the clergy.

 

[JReducation]

In Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith, Pope Benedict wrote that the question of the saving power of the eucharist cannot be restricted to questions about its validity. This was in the context of discussing Protestant, and specifically evengelical, communion servives. This echoes the writings of Rahner and Cardinal Martini, who have serious questions about the doctrine of transubstantiation. If these feelings are expressed at the highest levels of the Church, people are apt to challenge the orthodoxy of all the clergy.

Wait wait, slow down a bit. I’m very familiar with Rahner, Martini and Pope Benedict’s writings. None of them have questions about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The questions are deeper than that. The questions are eschatalogical questions. What they’re saying is that if you reduce the dogma of the Eucharist to the change from one substance to another, you miss the bigger picture. Not only does Christ becomes substantially present in the Eucharist, but there is an intimate relationship between the present moment and eternity. In other words, Christ becomes present, because he is eternally present. Their position is tied into John’s pre-existent Logos. Christ is potentially present even before the sacrament is confected. He doesn’t magically appear and disappear.

The Holy Father’s point is that Christ is present in our time and space to save, through both the sacrament and through faith. The sacrament without faith will do you little good. Our lack of faith does not prevent Christ from making himself present, but it interferes with Christ’s desire to transform us. It’s really the old saying from Augustine, “The God who made you without your help, cannot save your without your cooperation.” In speaking about non-Catholic Christians and their communion services, he’s saying that even though it’s not sacramental, it does not mean that Christ is absent. Christ wants to be present to all people of faith. In that situation, to put it simply, Christ is present in the faith of the community, even though the bread and wine remain bread and wine.

It’s a little more complex than this, but I’m trying to reduce the whole concept to a few sentences and to simplify it so that others can understand where these three men are going with this. They’re trying to say that all is not lost, because there is no transubstantiation. This is what Bl. John Paul meant when he said that we can’t limit Christ to the sacraments, because God cannot be limited. The sacraments are the surest means to grace, but not the only means. Without faith, their effect is obstructed. The sacrament still happens, but there are good reasons to wonder if the person without faith benefits. Back to Augustine.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF