The SSPX and True Catholicism

[Ham1]

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

It’s a bit different because the Orthodox are a Church that separated. As an eastern Church they have their own canon law and are not bound by the latin canon law. The SSPX are not a Church, have no patriarch and are bound by current canon law. Also, the SSPX priests have intentionally separated themselves from the Catholic Church. The orthodox priests did not personally commit such an act.

 

[bear06]

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

Here’s where that came from:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1830222&postcount=119

I don’t believe that I said we shouldn’t talk about them. I simply said that if the topic is the SSPX, why should we be expected to talk about something else. One can if they want but why is it we have a “deep prejudice” for talking about the topic of the thread?

The OP is a Traditionalist. We are simply discussing the topic he brought up.

 

[Walking_Home]

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.

---

You forgot—that I said if one is in a state of grace. Yes—I agree --the Mass is not depended if the congregation receives Holy Communion—but the Church within the last years has put much emphasis in receiving Holy Communion when attending Mass.

By the way—what Ecclesia Dei says has more authority than what a bishop says.

Until our Pope or Ecclesia Dei specifically states —that it is grave matter—immoral—to receive from an SSPX priest --then receiving Holy Communion is part of attending an SSPX Mass.

 

[bear06]

---

You forgot—that I said if one is in a state of grace. Yes—I agree --the Mass is not depended if the congregation receives Holy Communion—but the Church within the last years has put much emphasis in receiving Holy Communion when attending Mass.

By the way—what Ecclesia Dei says has more authority than what a bishop says.

Until our Pope or Ecclesia Dei specifically states —that it is grave matter—immoral—to receive from an SSPX priest --then receiving Holy Communion is part of attending an SSPX Mass.

What has Ecclesia Dei said that has contradicted Archbishop Burke?

 

[TNT]

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 …

I’m getting convinced to just stay home & pout …err pray.http://bestsmileys.com/sad/8.gif

 

[st_bernard]

It’s a bit different because the Orthodox are a Church that separated. As an eastern Church they have their own canon law and are not bound by the latin canon law. The SSPX are not a Church, have no patriarch and are bound by current canon law. Also, the SSPX priests have intentionally separated themselves from the Catholic Church. The orthodox priests did not personally commit such an act.

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

I’m interested in asking the question, does it really matter if ‘one’ or ‘700’ schism? I don’t see the logic in there being a distinction. Wither ‘one’ or ‘700’ schism aren’t their sacraments technically suspended? I understand that this is your rationale for grasping the apparent paradox but I’m not sure that such is actually valid logically for me. It sounds a little fishy.

Clearly if the Pope asked the Eastern Church to enter into full obedience with the Roman See we would hear a very clear ‘No’. I’ve spoken with enough Orthodox to know that they continue to believe it is the Western Church which is in Schism and frankly Heretical in their views regardless if we are Tridentine Mass or Novus Ordo. There are clear breaks in our teaching of dogma with the Eastern Orthodox and yet far more in common with our own Latin brothers and sisters and yet we court the East and ignore the West. Why?

Why is it wrong to observe the same Traditions which we have observed in the West for a 1000 years? I just don’t see why such can even be seen as unacceptable. Any ideas?

Gratias

 

[Walking_Home]

What has Ecclesia Dei said that has contradicted Archbishop Burke?

---

It comes down to the function of Ecclesia Dei. Their function is specific to matters of the indult TLM and the SSPX. What Arch. Burke did in his diocese–does not have anything to do with over-riding the function of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

How could Msgr. Perl say that attendance at an SSPX Mass for the sake of devotion is not a sin—if it is grave matter to attent and receive Holy Communion.

We have access to information concerning the SSPX thru the commission.

 

[bear06]

---

It comes down to the function of Ecclesia Dei. Their function is specific to matters of the indult TLM and the SSPX. What Arch. Burke did in his diocese–does not have anything to do with over-riding the function of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

How could Msgr. Perl say that attendance at an SSPX Mass for the sake of devotion is not a sin—if it is grave matter to attent and receive Holy Communion.

We have access to information concerning the SSPX thru the commission.

How could Archbishop Burke contradict the Magisterium if it is, indeed, just fine to receive the sacraments from a suspended priest? His statement and punishments have not been overturned by Rome. Archbishop Burke said nothing about it only being a sin if the person adhered to the schism. He said it was a mortal sin to receive the sacraments from a schismatic priest. Heck, he didn’t even mention the SSPX.

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.

One either has to make a case that he has contradicted the Magisterium or agree with him.

 

[JackQ]

The SSPX profess a loyalty to the Holy Father. They just refuse the New Mass, and consequently anything the Holy Father does in support of the New Mass.

The SSPV might be what your talking about. They completly disregard the Holy Father in that respect.

Thank you for your words of understanding.

I do recognize there is some disobedience in the SSPX towards Rome, but what I find appalling is the fact that they are treated with less respect than other Christians who are openly schismatic with the Church. Such as the Orthodox.
Or profess a different religion alltogether, like the Muslims or Jews.

Hopefully Pope Benedict will help smooth out these problems with his efforts.

Prayer is the true medicine in this situation.

I want to be reunited with the SSPX, but they don’t want to be reunited with me. The problem isn’t the Novus Ordo versus the Tridentine mass. The problem is that they demand a renunciation of Vatican II. That, of course, isn’t going to happen. So we will remain divided until the SSPX comes off that point. If they agreed to accept Vatican II, reunion would happen tomorrow.

 

[JackQ]

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

I’m interested in asking the question, does it really matter if ‘one’ or ‘700’ schism? I don’t see the logic in there being a distinction. Wither ‘one’ or ‘700’ schism aren’t their sacraments technically suspended? I understand that this is your rationale for grasping the apparent paradox but I’m not sure that such is actually valid logically for me. It sounds a little fishy.

Clearly if the Pope asked the Eastern Church to enter into full obedience with the Roman See we would hear a very clear ‘No’. I’ve spoken with enough Orthodox to know that they continue to believe it is the Western Church which is in Schism and frankly Heretical in their views regardless if we are Tridentine Mass or Novus Ordo. There are clear breaks in our teaching of dogma with the Eastern Orthodox and yet far more in common with our own Latin brothers and sisters and yet we court the East and ignore the West. Why?

Why is it wrong to observe the same Traditions which we have observed in the West for a 1000 years? I just don’t see why such can even be seen as unacceptable. Any ideas?

Gratias

The problem isn’t the traditional mass. THe problem is the rejection of Vatican II.

 

[Walking_Home]

How could Archbishop Burke contradict the Magisterium if it is, indeed, just fine to receive the sacraments from a suspended priest? His statement and punishments have not been overturned by Rome. Archbishop Burke said nothing about it only being a sin if the person adhered to the schism. He said it was a mortal sin to receive the sacraments from a schismatic priest. Heck, he didn’t even mention the SSPX.

One either has to make a case that he has contradicted the Magisterium or agree with him.

---

The confusion comes in when trying to apply one situation to another. What Arch. Burke did is specific to that situation—and you are right—there is no mention of the SSPX.

In matters pertaining to the relationship between the Church and the SSPX —we rely on statements from the Commission whose function is to determine this matters in accordance with the Pope . The Commission relays information with the authority of the Pope.

 

[bear06]

---

The confusion comes in when trying to apply one situation to another. What Arch. Burke did is specific to that situation—and you are right—there is no mention of the SSPX.

In matters pertaining to the relationship between the Church and the SSPX —we rely on statements from the Commission whose function is to determine this matters in accordance with the Pope . The Commission relays information with the authority of the Pope.

I don’t totally agree here. Sometimes the Commission doesn’t speak. It did speak in the Honolulu Six case and it didn’t speak in the Bishop Bruskewitz case. In the case of Holy Communion, they haven’t spoken. It is wrong to assume because they haven’t spoken on a specific issue that it’s just peachy. The only person who has spoken to the matter of receiving sacraments from ANY schismatic priest is Archbishop Bruskewitz.

Again, his statement:

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.

His teachings in the letter apply to any schismatic priest, not just the SSPX or the Saint Stanislaus Kostka Parish. Again, it’s a dangerous to assume it to be otherwise.

The funny thing is that it would seem that any appeals could end up in the good Archbishops lap since he’s a member of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signitura.

Incidently, there is more than one commission that deals with the SSPX.

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t totally agree here. Sometimes the Commission doesn’t speak. It did speak in the Honolulu Six case and it didn’t speak in the Bishop Bruskewitz case. In the case of Holy Communion, they haven’t spoken. It is wrong to assume because they haven’t spoken on a specific issue that it’s just peachy. The only person who has spoken to the matter of receiving sacraments from ANY schismatic priest is Archbishop Bruskewitz.

Again, his statement:

His teachings in the letter apply to any schismatic priest, not just the SSPX or the Saint Stanislaus Kostka Parish. Again, it’s a dangerous to assume it to be otherwise.

The funny thing is that it would seem that any appeals could end up in the good Archbishops lap since he’s a member of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signitura.

Incidently, there is more than one commission that deals with the SSPX.

---

Ecclesia Dei did not specifically mention Holy Communion—but did clarify on the Mass. Are we then–suppose to assume the worse because Holy Communion was not specifically mention. Make a judgement that it is grave matter on what is percieved to be not known when Msgr. Perl spoke. Be my guest.

Archbishop Burke’s–excommunication was specific to what happen there—and not to the relationship between the Church and the SSPX.

As to other commissions could well be—but the only one specifically set up to deal with the SSPX is Ecclesia Dei.

 

[bear06]

---

Ecclesia Dei did not specifically mention Holy Communion—but did clarify on the Mass. Are we then–suppose to assume the worse because Holy Communion was not specifically mention. Make a judgement that it is grave matter on what is percieved to be not known when Msgr. Perl spoke. Be my guest.

Archbishop Burke’s–excommunication was specific to what happen there—and not to the relationship between the Church and the SSPX.

As to other commissions could well be—but the only one specifically set up to deal with the SSPX is Ecclesia Dei.

We should assume that they are treated like the other schismatics. Better to err on the side of caution than to risk a mortal sin.

Archbishop Burkes excommunication was specific but the teaching in his letter was not. The canons and teachings are consistant with all schismatics.

 

[Walking_Home]

We should assume that they are treated like the other schismatics. Better to err on the side of caution than to risk a mortal sin.

Archbishop Burkes excommunication was specific but the teaching in his letter was not. The canons and teachings are consistant with all schismatics.

---

I would rather go with Msgr. Perl. Holy Communion is ordinarily receive within Mass. So If attending the Mass —with no intent to separate is not a sin—it goes for Holy Communion.

 

[st_bernard]

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

There is always a grave concern when one through his own convictions strikes out on one’s own to establish one’s point of contention with the See of Rome.

I understand the gravity of the acts commited by those of the SSPX…

Pope Pelagius II 579-590

From the epistle "Quod ad dilectionem to the schismatic bishops of Istria, about 585:

(For) you know that the Lord proclaims in the Gospel: Simon, Simon, behold Satan has desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat; but I have asked the Father for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren [Luke 22:31].

Consider, most dear ones, that the Truth could not have lied, nor will the faith of PETER be able to be shaken or changed forever. For although the devil desired to sift all the disciplines, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for PETER alone and wished the others to be confirmed by him; and to him also, in consideration of a greater love which he showed the Lord before the rest, was committed the care of feeding the sheep [cf. John 21:15]; and to him also He handed over the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and upon him He promised to build his Church, and He testified that the gates of hell would not prevail against it [cf. Matt. 16:16]/ But, because the enemy of the human race even until the end of the world does not abstain from sowing cockle [Matt. 13:25] over the good seed in the Church of the Lord, and therefore, lest perchance anyone with malignant zeal should by the instigation of the garding of integrity of the faith; and (lest) by reason of this your minds perhaps may seem to be disturbed, we have judged it necessary through our present epistle to exhort with tears that you should return to the heart of your mother the Church, and to send you satisfaction with regard to the intergrity of faith…

[The faith of the Synods of NICEA, CONSTANTINOPLE I, EPHESUS I, and especially of CHACEDON, and likewise of the dogmatic epistle of LEO to Flavean having been confirmed, he proceeds thus:]

If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this fiath, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized according to the opinion of the same Fathers… Consider (therefore) the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church, cannot have the Lord [Gal. 3:7]…

Taken from The Sources of Catholic Dogma by Denzinger pg. 94-95

I can only say that I am ever hopeful that the integrity of the faith might once again be established to the satisfaction of both the those in the East and those close to use in the West who find themselves in doubt.

Ecce quam bonum et quam iucundum habitare fratres in unum sicut ros Hermon qui descendit in montes Sion quoniam illic mandavit Dominus benedictionem et vitam usque in saeculum.

Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity, as the dew of Hermon, which descendeth upon Mount Sion. For there the Lord harth commanded blessing, and life for evermore. [Ps. 132:1, 3.]

Gratias

 

[bear06]

---

I would rather go with Msgr. Perl.

 

[Walking_Home]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where? I’d rather Msgr. Perl just add a little clarity to the muddled situation. It would seem that the good Archbishop tries to do so. Alas, I fear there won’t be agreement on this.

---

What the Archbishop did --was for his situation in his diocese

As for Msgr. Perl and the letter—only those that want it muddled—will muddle it.

 

[Ham1]

Remember Msgr. Perl does state that “we cannot recommend” attending a SSPX mass. Period. I guess he says it’s not a sin…peculiar. But he does say it is not recommended. Insteresting how some take part of his letter as “official” teaching and other parts as, well, friendly advice.

These are the facts:

SSPX Priests are suspended.

As such, their consecrations are sacriligious acts of serious disobedience. And that’s per Canon law, not me.

You might want to consider that canonically the SSPX priests are in the same boat as these two priests: www.cliffandjon.com who just got married in Canada. Is it permissible in your book to attend one of their masses? No, because they are suspended.

All the prohibitions and definitions in canon law for suspended priests apply to the SSPX priests.

 

[Walking_Home]

Remember Msgr. Perl does state that “we cannot recommend” attending a SSPX mass. Period. I guess he says it’s not a sin…peculiar. But he does say it is not recommended. Insteresting how some take part of his letter as “official” teaching and other parts as, well, friendly advice.

These are the facts:

SSPX Priests are suspended.

As such, their consecrations are sacriligious acts of serious disobedience. And that’s per Canon law, not me.

You might want to consider that canonically the SSPX priests are in the same boat as these two priests: www.cliffandjon.com who just got married in Canada. Is it permissible in your book to attend one of their masses? No, because they are suspended.

All the prohibitions and definitions in canon law for suspended priests apply to the SSPX priests.

---

Yea, yea— twist it to your convenience. You are do nothing here— that you haven’t done before.