The SSPX and True Catholicism

[bear06]

If the persons intent is to attend a Tridentine Mass just for the sake of attending one, there is ZERO sin. Even in receiving communion. That comes from the Vatican, and until the Pope instructs otherwise, it is the authoritative teaching.

I have not one friend that attends the chapel simply because they like the Tridentine Mass - not a one. So, if you’d like to promote that there is no danger in attending a chapel on a regular basis, I’d say that is, well, dangerous.

The Vatican has warned against attending the chapels. The Vatican has warned that supoort for the schism will result in ipso facto excommunication. sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

I have to wonder if people honestly think that a person attending a chapel, joining the community, being counseled by their priests, being supported by the community isn’t in danger of supporting that schism? I’ve also got to wonder if the people who think it’s just fine and dandy to attend the chapels on regular basis think that any of the faithful have been ipso facto excommunicated for supporting the schism? It seems to me, while I can’t go around and say “you are in schism and you are in schism” that one has got to come to the conclusion that there are, at the very least, some people attending those chapels that have been ipso facto excommunicated. How do you think they got to supporting the schism?

One last question. If everything is peachy at the chapels, why have Vatican officials, the very ones that have been quoted in this thread, say that they cannot recommend people attending the chapels?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

No…it…is…NOT.

Now you are making up “mortal sin” rules like the SSPX is doing. They say it is a grave matter to recieve in the hand or attend a New Mass.

When in fact you are both wrong.

If the persons intent is to attend a Tridentine Mass just for the sake of attending one, there is ZERO sin. Even in receiving communion. That comes from the Vatican, and until the Pope instructs otherwise, it is the authoritative teaching.

Show me the quote from the Holy See (including the curia) that addresses receiving communion. You’ve got a letter from Msgr. Perle that the PCED identifies as intended for a private situation that only addresses 1) Sunday obligation 2) attendance, and 3) contribution. It does not touch upon receiving communion.

I’m deferring to a) common sense and b) His Excellency Raymond Burke, Abp. of St. Louis, who, in excommunicating the board of St. Stanislaus parish also made it clear to anyone who would be attending Masses offerred by the suspended priest that to receive communion from him would be grave matter because of his suspension. *I *didn’t make it up, one of the most traditionalist-friendly bishops in the entire US “made it up.” Abp. Burke sits on the Apostolic Signatura - implying he is one of the best canonists in the church - and I have yet to see anything from the Tradition or Vatican to discount his teaching.

 

[Walking_Home]

I have not one friend that attends the chapel simply because they like the Tridentine Mass - not a one. So, if you’d like to promote that there is no danger in attending a chapel on a regular basis, I’d say that is, well, dangerous.

The Vatican has warned against attending the chapels. The Vatican has warned that supoort for the schism will result in ipso facto excommunication. sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

I have to wonder if people honestly think that a person attending a chapel, joining the community, being counseled by their priests, being supported by the community isn’t in danger of supporting that schism? I’ve also got to wonder if the people who think it’s just fine and dandy to attend the chapels on regular basis think that any of the faithful have been ipso facto excommunicated for supporting the schism? It seems to me, while I can’t go around and say “you are in schism and you are in schism” that one has got to come to the conclusion that there are, at the very least, some people attending those chapels that have been ipso facto excommunicated. How do you think they got to supporting the schism?

One last question. If everything is peachy at the chapels, why have Vatican officials, the very ones that have been quoted in this thread, say that they cannot recommend people attending the chapels?

---

It is not recommended—if the persons intent is to separate from the Church. If the intent is to attend the Mass for the sake of devotion–there is no sin.

 

[Unfinished]

I have not one friend that attends the chapel simply because they like the Tridentine Mass - not a one. So, if you’d like to promote that there is no danger in attending a chapel on a regular basis, I’d say that is, well, dangerous.

You are correct. However, if my priest went on vacation and there was no TLM for two weeks, I would consider going to the SSPX. I agree though, based on some of the things I have heard coming out of that church, it can lead you to a perverted way of thinking.
Andreas Hofer:

Show me the quote from the Holy See (including the curia) that addresses receiving communion.

Please show me one saying that communion from a SSPX is a grave matter.
Andreas Hofer:

I’m deferring to a) common sense and b) His Excellency Raymond Burke, Abp. of St. Louis, who, in excommunicating the board of St. Stanislaus parish also made it clear to anyone who would be attending Masses offerred by the suspended priest that to receive communion from him would be grave matter because of his suspension. I didn’t make it up, one of the most traditionalist-friendly bishops in the entire US “made it up.” Abp. Burke sits on the Apostolic Signatura - implying he is one of the best canonists in the church - and I have yet to see anything from the Tradition or Vatican to discount his teaching.

See, there is where you lose me. Because my “common sense” says that if you are allowed attend the Mass you can receive communion.

Also, I do not know all the details of the case you mentioned, but it appears the priest was excommunicated. Not each and every individual priest in the SSPX is excommunicated. This especially applies to the ones born and raised in the SSPX.

So the lines are a bit sticker, yes. But grave matter? No. (Not to say I would run off and recieve communion from Bishop Fellay, though).

 

[st_bernard]

I have not one friend that attends the chapel simply because they like the Tridentine Mass - not a one. So, if you’d like to promote that there is no danger in attending a chapel on a regular basis, I’d say that is, well, dangerous.

The Vatican has warned against attending the chapels. The Vatican has warned that supoort for the schism will result in ipso facto excommunication. sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html

I have to wonder if people honestly think that a person attending a chapel, joining the community, being counseled by their priests, being supported by the community isn’t in danger of supporting that schism? I’ve also got to wonder if the people who think it’s just fine and dandy to attend the chapels on regular basis think that any of the faithful have been ipso facto excommunicated for supporting the schism? It seems to me, while I can’t go around and say “you are in schism and you are in schism” that one has got to come to the conclusion that there are, at the very least, some people attending those chapels that have been ipso facto excommunicated. How do you think they got to supporting the schism?

One last question. If everything is peachy at the chapels, why have Vatican officials, the very ones that have been quoted in this thread, say that they cannot recommend people attending the chapels?

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

Have you visited a Eastern Orthodox Parish in the U.S. lately? Care to guess who makes a sizable and growing portion of their Laity? Yes, Roman Catholics.

Knowing these two fact, would you agree that communing with ‘either’ groups are ‘safe’? Yet we are allowed to commune with them… Why?

I’m sorry but your rationale does not make sense to me.

Anyone?

Gratias

 

[Walking_Home]

You are correct. However, if my priest went on vacation and there was no TLM for two weeks, I would consider going to the SSPX. I agree though, based on some of the things I have heard coming out of that church, it can lead you to a perverted way of thinking.

Please show me one saying that communion from a SSPX is a grave matter.

See, there is where you lose me. Because my “common sense” says that if you are allowed attend the Mass you can receive communion.

Also, I do not know all the details of the case you mentioned, but it appears the priest was excommunicated. Not each and every individual priest in the SSPX is excommunicated. This especially applies to the ones born and raised in the SSPX.

So the lines are a bit sticker, yes. But grave matter? No. (Not to say I would run off and recieve communion from Bishop Fellay, though).

---

Yes —it comes down to common sense. Those that attend the SSPX Mass for the sake of devotion—why would they be deprived of Holy Communion.

It just comes down to the deep prejudices that some people have developed against the SSPX. They can have a letter from the Pontifical Commission Ecclessia Dei—yet will do whatever it takes to keep the SSPX at the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Please show me one saying that communion from a SSPX is a grave matter.

See, there is where you lose me. Because my “common sense” says that if you are allowed attend the Mass you can receive communion.

Also, I do not know all the details of the case you mentioned, but it appears the priest was excommunicated. Not each and every individual priest in the SSPX is excommunicated. This especially applies to the ones born and raised in the SSPX.

So the lines are a bit sticker, yes. But grave matter? No. (Not to say I would run off and recieve communion from Bishop Fellay, though).

If we establish that receiving from a suspended priest is grave matter, we don’t need a document on the SSPX. If you would like me to back up my claim by finding a link to His Excellency’s letter I’ll try to do it for you, but what we have here is, on your side of the fence, no documentation whatsoever, and, on my side, the result of a very recent case in the Catholic Church. I’ll take those odds. BTW, IIRC the priest himself is not excommunicated, which I why I thought the example particularly apt.

Concerning common sense telling you, though, that permission to attend equals permission to receive, what would make you think this? Even attending a licit Catholic Mass this is not the case, as there are other conditions that must be met - has one fasted, is one in a state of mortal sin? Permission, even encouragement, even obligation(!) to attend is considered separately from permission to partake of the sacrament.

Moving beyond even these cases, though, we see that Catholics may attend the services of other communions without automatically being allowed to receive. We may receive from the Orthodox under only very limited circumstances. We may even attend churches without valid sacraments, in which case we are allowed to attend while beyond most seriously forbidden from receiving communion. The Church allows us to attend all sorts of things, and even if we drop out invalid sacraments, which I think would be fair, we are left with the precedent that, under normal circumstances of Catholic availability, we are both allowed to attend valid non-Catholic services while at the same time being forbidden to receive the sacrament.

 

[Walking_Home]

---

Yes —it comes down to common sense. Those that attend the SSPX Mass for the sake of devotion—why would they be deprived of Holy Communion.

It just comes down to the deep prejudices that some people have developed against the SSPX. They can have a letter from the Pontifical Commission Ecclessia Dei—yet will do whatever it takes to keep the SSPX at the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Having indirectly attacked my character, feel free to respond to my reasoning, as well.

 

[Ham1]

If we establish that receiving from a suspended priest is grave matter, we don’t need a document on the SSPX. If you would like me to back up my claim by finding a link to His Excellency’s letter I’ll try to do it for you, but what we have here is, on your side of the fence, no documentation whatsoever, and, on my side, the result of a very recent case in the Catholic Church. I’ll take those odds. BTW, IIRC the priest himself is not excommunicated, which I why I thought the example particularly apt.

Concerning common sense telling you, though, that permission to attend equals permission to receive, what would make you think this? Even attending a licit Catholic Mass this is not the case, as there are other conditions that must be met - has one fasted, is one in a state of mortal sin? Permission, even encouragement, even obligation(!) to attend is considered separately from permission to partake of the sacrament.

Moving beyond even these cases, though, we see that Catholics may attend the services of other communions without automatically being allowed to receive. We may receive from the Orthodox under only very limited circumstances. We may even attend churches without valid sacraments, in which case we are allowed to attend while beyond most seriously forbidden from receiving communion. The Church allows us to attend all sorts of things, and even if we drop out invalid sacraments, which I think would be fair, we are left with the precedent that, under normal circumstances of Catholic availability, we are both allowed to attend valid non-Catholic services while at the same time being forbidden to receive the sacrament.

Here is the passage:

The ordained priest who goes into schism, in addition to being bound by the above-listed prohibitions
is also rendered irregular for the exercise of Holy Orders (cf. can. 1044, §1, 2º). In other words, he
may not exercise the Sacrament of Holy Orders which he has received. Any Mass celebrated by a
suspended and excommunicated priest is valid, but illicit. To knowingly and willingly celebrate the
Holy Mass, when one is legitimately prohibited from doing so, is a most grave sin. A priest under the
penalty of excommunication does not give valid sacramental absolution (cf. can. 966, §1). Neither can
he validly officiate at a wedding (cf. can. 1108, §1).

And as for receiving communion from such a priest:

The faithful who approach a schismatic priest for the reception of the Sacraments, except in the case of
danger of death, commit a mortal sin.

archstl.org/commoffice/2005/articles/12-16-05-column.pdf

Archbishop Burke is very friendly to traditionalists and I believe has celebrated the TLM in St. Louis. As noted by Andreas he is one of greatest canonists and doesn’t throw around phrases that he doesn’t mean.

If you want to confirm, call the archdiocese of St. Louis and ask if it is okay to attend the SSPX sacrilege/mass.

 

[TNT]

Andreas Hofer,
Are you saying that the “infamous” Pontifical Commission Perle letter assumed all persons addressed as “could” join in the SSPX Liturgy, and at the same time the entire congregation is to BOYCOTT the Communion??​

Otherwise, I missed your point entirely.

 

[bear06]

---

Yes —it comes down to common sense. Those that attend the SSPX Mass for the sake of devotion—why would they be deprived of Holy Communion.

It just comes down to the deep prejudices that some people have developed against the SSPX. They can have a letter from the Pontifical Commission Ecclessia Dei—yet will do whatever it takes to keep the SSPX at the bottom of the barrel.

Come on Walking Home. If the topic is the SSPX shouldn’t we be talking about the SSPX? These types of arguments always crack me up. It’s the topic and yet we’re supposed to talk about every other schism under the sun or else we’re meanies with some “deep prejudice”. I have friends who attend the SSPX. I know this topic. If I ever find myself with EO friends, I’m sure I’ll learn this topic too.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Come on Walking Home. If the topic is the SSPX shouldn’t we be talking about the SSPX? These types of arguments always crack me up. It’s the topic and yet we’re supposed to talk about every other schism under the sun or else we’re meanies with some “deep prejudice”. I have friends who attend the SSPX. I know this topic. If I ever find myself with EO friends, I’m sure I’ll learn this topic too.

Not at all. It’s important to make comparisons in this argument, since it helps to clarify the issue.

In a court of law, a judge’s decision is often based on the previous outcome of another judge’s decision of a similar case.

 

[bear06]

Here is the passage:

And as for receiving communion from such a priest:

archstl.org/commoffice/2005/articles/12-16-05-column.pdf

Archbishop Burke is very friendly to traditionalists and I believe has celebrated the TLM in St. Louis. As noted by Andreas he is one of greatest canonists and doesn’t throw around phrases that he doesn’t mean.

If you want to confirm, call the archdiocese of St. Louis and ask if it is okay to attend the SSPX sacrilege/mass.

I can’t believe I’ve never seen this one before! Bookmarking now! Thanks a bunch!

 

[Walking_Home]

If we establish that receiving from a suspended priest is grave matter, we don’t need a document on the SSPX. If you would like me to back up my claim by finding a link to His Excellency’s letter I’ll try to do it for you, but what we have here is, on your side of the fence, no documentation whatsoever, and, on my side, the result of a very recent case in the Catholic Church. I’ll take those odds. BTW, IIRC the priest himself is not excommunicated, which I why I thought the example particularly apt.

Concerning common sense telling you, though, that permission to attend equals permission to receive, what would make you think this? Even attending a licit Catholic Mass this is not the case, as there are other conditions that must be met - has one fasted, is one in a state of mortal sin? Permission, even encouragement, even obligation(!) to attend is considered separately from permission to partake of the sacrament.
Moving beyond even these cases, though, we see that Catholics may attend the services of other communions without automatically being allowed to receive. We may receive from the Orthodox under only very limited circumstances. We may even attend churches without valid sacraments, in which case we are allowed to attend while beyond most seriously forbidden from receiving communion. The Church allows us to attend all sorts of things, and even if we drop out invalid sacraments, which I think would be fair, we are left with the precedent that, under normal circumstances of Catholic availability, we are both allowed to attend valid non-Catholic services while at the same time being forbidden to receive the sacrament.

---

To begin with—receiving Holy Communion is part of attending Mass—if one is in a state of grace. This goes without saying whether Holy Communion is receive in the SSPX or the Orthodox Church.

If the intent of Ecclesia Dei —was to say that receiving from an SSPX priest was grave matter—the commission would have said so. Yet —it did not. The commission did say—that if the intent is separate --then yes.

So anything else you can come up with—is just putting your own words—as coming from Ecclesia Dei.

 

[bear06]

Not at all. It’s important to make comparisons in this argument, since it helps to clarify the issue.

In a court of law, a judge’s decision is often based on the previous outcome of another judge’s decision of a similar case.

I’m not following. Probably need a shot of caffeine:whacky: I fail to understand why there is a declaration of “deep predjudice”.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Andreas Hofer,
Are you saying that the “infamous” Pontifical Commission Perle letter assumed all persons addressed as “could” join in the SSPX Liturgy, and at the same time the entire congregation is to BOYCOTT the Communion??​

Otherwise, I missed your point entirely.

Yes. If I want to go to an Orthodox Liturgy out of curiosity, even out of love for the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, I may do so, but may not receive. If i want to attend an SSPX Mass out of curiosity or even out of love for the TLM I may do so, but not receive.

You have identified one of the sticking points of the discussion, though, with the SSPX trying to have their cake and eat it, too. Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum is based upon the premise that everyone attending the SSPX Mass is Catholic. This would, indeed, disqualify the whole congregation from receiving, because regardless of schisms, Catholics may not receive from a suspended priest (which terminology probably really only applies to those who are in communion with Rome but in otherwise bad standing). I could see a way out of this by admitting a schism, in which case one might argue that a non-Catholic does no wrong by receiving from his own non-Catholic minister - but then, of course, the sin of schism would have to be acknowledged. Either route, there’s going to be some sin involved in receiving from them.

 

[Ham1]

---

If the intent of Ecclesia Dei —was to say that receiving from an SSPX priest was grave matter—the commission would have said so. Yet —it did not. The commission did say—that if the intent is separate --then yes.

So anything else you can come up with—is just putting your own words—as coming from Ecclesia Dei.

It didn’t need to. It stated the priests were suspended a divinis. Any canonist knows what that involves by law. All you have to do is look up what suspended means in canon law. It means you are forbidden to say mass. It means if you do say mass it is a mortal sin as noted by Archbishop Burke.

By detailing the consequences of suspended a divinis I am not putting my own words into Ecclesia Dei. That is ludicrous. Any canonist knows what being suspended means. It means you can’t lawfully celebrate the sacraments without commiting a grave sin of disobedience.

The SSPX priest who says mass is canonically in the same boat as a priest who has been suspended because he has left the Church or married.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

---

To begin with—receiving Holy Communion is part of attending Mass—if one is in a state of grace. This goes without saying whether Holy Communion is receive in the SSPX or the Orthodox Church.

If the intent of Ecclesia Dei —was to say that receiving from an SSPX priest was grave matter—the commission would have said so. Yet —it did not. The commission did say—that if the intent is separate --then yes.

So anything else you can come up with—is just putting your own words—as coming from Ecclesia Dei.

I have no intention of putting words in Ecclesai Dei’s mouth. In fact, a glance at post 115 will show that, in response to post 113 claiming the Vatican had spoken on the issue I pointed to the lack of any ruling from the Holy See on this particular matter. Now, which is closer to putting words in someone’s mouth, claiming he has said something, or claiming he hasn’t? My contention is that the commission has intended - to use your own terminology - to refrain from speaking on the matter at this time. Thus, I’m trying to turn to other parts of the Magisterium that are on record to form an opinion. Now Ham1 has been kind enough to link to my documentation of a source (Abp. Burke) highly regarded and highly favorable to traditionalists that teaches it is grave matter to receive from a suspended priest, irrespective of affiliation with any particular movement.

Regarding your assertion that receiving Holy Communion is part of attending Mass, I must say I am appalled that you, a traditionalist, would make such a theological error. For starters, a standard traditionalist critique of the modern Church is that communion lines are longer. Much more meaningfully, however, we need only look to Pope Pius XII’s Mediator Dei to learn that, while the celebrant must partake of the sacrafice in order to make it complete, neither the Mass itself nor any non-celebrant worshiper’s full participation in the Mass depends on the congregation’s sacramental reception of the Eucharist. It’s good ol’ pre-Vatican II Catholic theology.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I’m not following. Probably need a shot of caffeine:whacky: I fail to understand why there is a declaration of “deep predjudice”.

I’m afraid I don’t understand your reference to deep prejudice. You said that we shouldn’t bring up the Eastern Orthodox when discussing SSPX. I’m saying there is a comparison to be made, because their situations are similar. And I pointed out that the legal system uses these comparisons all the time when deciding a court case