The SSPX and True Catholicism

[paramedicgirl]

I still have a few questions so I’ll repost this. Thanks to the one who responded to them! How about the rest of you?

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?

I agree there is a danger in becoming caught up in supporting the “schism” if one were to attend the SSPX Mass exclusively. I think it’s fine to attend it out of love for the TLM, and I have done that four times in six years. It’s a very attractive and reverent Mass, and I think if I lived next door to the SSPX chapel, I would have to be on guard about joining them. Their Mass is that appealing. But then, I’ve never heard the NO bashing homilies in my limited experience there. Out of obedience to Rome, I think it’s much better to attend the indult Masses than to go regularly to SSPX.

 

[Ecce_homo_1]

How large is SSPX? Does anyoen have any numbers?

 

[Unfinished]

How large is SSPX? Does anyoen have any numbers?

Well, in the US alone they have 103 churches. Not sure about laypeople, but someone is putting money in the collection plates to keep them open.

64 priests and 63 seminarians. Amazing. For a mere 103 churches.

(www.sspx.org)

And that is just in the USA. It would do a WHOLE lot of souls good if the SSPX was reunited.

 

[MariaG]

I agree there is a danger in becoming caught up in supporting the “schism” if one were to attend the SSPX Mass exclusively. I think it’s fine to attend it out of love for the TLM, and I have done that four times in six years. It’s a very attractive and reverent Mass, and I think if I lived next door to the SSPX chapel, I would have to be on guard about joining them. Their Mass is that appealing. But then, I’ve never heard the NO bashing homilies in my limited experience there. Out of obedience to Rome, I think it’s much better to attend the indult Masses than to go regularly to SSPX.

And in your case, you sought out the authority over you, your priest, and asked him first if it was okay.

You do not attend in defiance of authority, but truly from a humble heart wishing to be in obedience to Rome with a love of the TLM:heart:

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

---

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.

The tradition simply doesn’t support a theological expectation that those in a state of grace will receive every Mass. Many of our holiest saints had to receive permission from their confessors to receive monthly, let alone weekly. So I saw the state of grace, I just didn’t think it was relevant.

As far as demanding an explicit statment from the papal magisterium, though, that seems much more modern conservative than traditionalist. A traditionalist doesn’t need to wait for the latest pope to speak in order to start discenring the mind of the Church.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

bear06;1831424:

---

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.

So when my bishop teaches that homosexual acts constitute grave matter, that just affects his diocese. The only articulation of Catholic teaching that affects the whole Church is that of the pope and his curia. Or so your opinion could lead one to believe. Abp. Burke is teaching as a successor of the apostles. Teaching on the morality of receiving the sacrament from a general category of people is not like Bp. Bruskiewicz excommunicating members of his flock who belong to anti-Catholic organizations.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

How large is SSPX? Does anyoen have any numbers?

The SSPX has at present roughly 400 priests worldwide. If they were to reconcile with the Catholic Church that would more than double the number of traditionalist priests in union with Peter.

 

[Irish_High_King]

Being 12 years old, and more occupied with chewing gum during the Mass then understanding the liturgy (provided it was Trident gum…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Unfinished]

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/images/misc/tridentine-rite.jpg

LOL.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

LOL.

rofl

 

[Triumpha]

as much as I agree with lots of what sspx stands for, one big part true Catholiscm for me is my alegiance to the pope. staying inline with Rome. true Catholics believe in papal infallebility.

The SSPX are true Catholics.

They believe in papal infallibility.

They know the limits of that infallibility though.

The Pope is not infallible, for example, when he unjustly pronounces someone excommunicated…

Triumpha.

 

[bear06]

The SSPX are true Catholics.

They believe in papal infallibility.

They know the limits of that infallibility though.

The Pope is not infallible, for example, when he unjustly pronounces someone excommunicated…

Triumpha.

It’s not about Papal infallibility. It’s about obedience. While I wouldn’t say they aren’t Catholic, I wouldn’t say they are correct.

Nobody has been unjustly excommunicated in the SSPX. They ordained bishops without permission. That is a schismatic act. They will claim necessity. The Pope is the arbiter of necessity so they lose there too. Read Pastor Aeternus.

 

[Indyann]

Originally Posted by Triumpha

The SSPX are true Catholics.

They believe in papal infallibility.

They know the limits of that infallibility though.

The Pope is not infallible, for example, when he unjustly pronounces someone excommunicated…

Just curious. What are the “limits of infallibility”?

 

[Triumpha]

It’s not about Papal infallibility. It’s about obedience. While I wouldn’t say they aren’t Catholic, I wouldn’t say they are correct.

I was responding to aspawloski4th who distinguished the SSPX from “true Catholics” by saying that true Catholics believe in Papal infallibility. As if the SSPX don’t!

Nobody has been unjustly excommunicated in the SSPX. They ordained bishops without permission. That is a schismatic act. They will claim necessity. The Pope is the arbiter of necessity so they lose there too. Read Pastor Aeternus.

The Pope cannot read people’s hearts and minds. Canon Law clearly exonerates anyone who performs such a disobedient act out of necessity, even if the necessity is only in the individual’s mind!

To condemn Lefebvre is to suggest he acted out of malice. A rash judgment. Charity demands we assume he meant well!

And therefore the penalty does not apply. Because he perceived a state of necessity.

Triumpha.

 

[Ecce_homo_1]

The Pope cannot read people’s hearts and minds. Canon Law clearly exonerates anyone who performs such a disobedient act out of necessity, even if the necessity is only in the individual’s mind!

To condemn Lefebvre is to suggest he acted out of malice. A rash judgment. Charity demands we assume he meant well!

And therefore the penalty does not apply. Because he perceived a state of necessity.

Triumpha.

But then don’t we have to accept the Bishops who ordain women and married priests without getting the O.K. from the Vatican too? If the Pope has no authority to excommunicate who does? And where does that leave our Church if every renegade Bishop with crazy ideas is above ex-communication?

I sympathize with SSPX but my loyalty has to lie with the Church and the Holy Father on this one. It seems a pretty clear cut case of warranted excommunication. Although it pains me to see so many good Catholics in schism while Catholics like Nancy Pelosi are proudly displayed in line for Holy Communion, it seems to defy justice, but that is the state of the Church.

 

[Irish_High_King]

They ordained bishops without permission. That is a schismatic act. They will claim necessity. The Pope is the arbiter of necessity so they lose there too. Read Pastor Aeternus.

Oops! You’ve got that wrong, but hey, it’s a common mistake…

Disobedience is not an act of schism. The grave necessity as in:

“No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: 4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls.”
**

means that the person who acts by reason of grave necessity, or believed that such a state exists, is the judge of that state - and that the penalty of a latae sententiae excommunication does not apply in Lefebvre’s case.

That is the law, and remains so.

 

[bear06]

Sorry, the Pope told them not to do it. They may have thought there was a need but the Pope clearly did not.

You are forgetting that the Pope is the arbiter of necessity, of whether on not a person should be excommuncated, etc. He is the supreme judge of the laity and there is no higher recourse.

1. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

Excommunication is his jurisdiction. There is not higher authority. They were excommunicated and they are. He wasn’t under diress when he did it. If we used your standard than most of the excommunications of the Church would be invalid because most of those people thought they had necessity too. So is the case with most schismatics.

 

[bear06]

Oops! You’ve got that wrong, but hey, it’s a common mistake…

Disobedience is not an act of schism. The grave necessity as in:

“No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: 4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls.”
**

means that the person who acts by reason of grave necessity, or believed that such a state exists, is the judge of that state - and that the penalty of a latae sententiae excommunication does not apply in Lefebvre’s case.

That is the law, and remains so.

Oops! When you fail to submit to the authority of the Holy Father in the matter of ordaining bishops you are doing more than simply disobeying, it constitutes not submitting to papal authority. A bishop doesn’t have the authority to ordain bishops without papal authority.

 

[Irish_High_King]

Sorry, the Pope told them not to do it. They may have thought there was a need but the Pope clearly did not.

You are forgetting that the Pope is the arbiter of necessity, of whether on not a person should be excommuncated, etc. He is the supreme judge of the laity and there is no higher recourse.

Excommunication is his jurisdiction. There is not higher authority. They were excommunicated and they are. He wasn’t under diress when he did it. If we used your standard than most of the excommunications of the Church would be invalid because most of those people thought they had necessity too. So is the case with most schismatics.

Oh well, His Eminence, Dario Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos must be a liar then when he said that there was no excommunication - but an ‘imperfect’ communion…

Add to that other prominent Catholic Canon Lawyers…

 

[bear06]

Excommunication is his jurisdiction. There is not higher authority. They were excommunicated and they are. He wasn’t under diress when he did it. If we used your standard than most of the excommunications of the Church would be invalid because most of those people thought they had necessity too. So is the case with most schismatics.

Oh well, His Eminence, Dario Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos must be a liar then when he said that there was no excommunication - but an ‘imperfect’ communion…

Add to that other prominent Catholic Canon Lawyers…

That’s a little quoting out of context. You seemed to forget the "even if"and “formal” in the news article. BTW, even if he did make the statement the way you said it, would his authority be higher than the Pope?