The SSPX (without a flamewar)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Popes do not always speak with “infallibility”.
In fact, I believe there are only a few teachings that have actually fallen under the “infallible” teaching.
 
Like in the link above, Pope Pius XII said consecrating a Bishop without the approval of the Pope is “gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious” in June 1958, before Vatican II even began.
 
Peter, the first and greatest Pope, denied Jesus 3 times.

The Pope is human, like all of us.
 
Seems like every thread that attracts the attention of the Rad Trads inevitably get locked…
 
It’s off topic.

Please, just let it be. Ignore her, if nessecary.
 
Technically, it has only been used once since Vatican I, where it was formally declared—the Dogma of the Assumption in 1950 by Pope Pius XII. Pius IX’s declaration of Mary as Immaculately Conceived in 1854 is often called an “ex cathedra” proclamation, but it pre-dates the First Vatican Council.
 
Thanks for that.
I knew it was once or twice, but wasn’t sure enough to say so without checking my old college notes.
 
I suppose I will go elsewhere. I don’t know everything about the SSPX, so I see there’s no point in talking about it. If you want someone who knows about the SSPX get (name removed by moderator)…

BridgetN…over and out.
 
In an interview on Vatican Radio, the then Cardinal President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei Darío Castrillón Hoyos commented that "priests can decide, without permission from the Holy See or the bishop, to celebrate the Mass in the ancient rite. And this holds true for all priests. It is the parish priests who must open the doors to those priests that, having the faculty [to do so], go to celebrate. It is not therefore necessary to ask any other permission."[17]

From SP’s Wikipedia
 
Privately. A public Mass needs permission or the Ordinary. And a priest, who can usually only say one Mass per day, cannot replace a scheduled OF with an EF.

This was gone over ad nauseum on the old CAF. You should search for some of Br.JREducations post about it.
 
Okay. Thank you, (name removed by moderator). Do you have a further source for me?
 
In parishes where a group of the faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition stably exists, the parish priest should willingly accede to their requests to celebrate Holy Mass according to the rite of the 1962 Roman Missal. He should ensure that the good of these members of the faithful is harmonized with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the governance of the bishop in accordance with Canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church. In churches other than parish or conventual churches, it is for the rector of the church to grant the above permission." (Article 5 §1 and §5)

?
Or is that not a public Mass?
 
I just read SP and it does not say anything about asking a bishop for the permission to say a public Latin Mass. However, it does say that the bishop is the ultimate authority on liturgy in his diocese. Thus, he can intervene doing whatever he wants in regards to liturgy. But no permission at the start is needed.
 
If the Pastor allows it, yes it can happen. But an EF cannot replace a scheduled OF.
A priest can add another Mass and celebrate in the EF.
The OF is the ordinary, and everyone has the right to that.
 
The Ordinary is in chage of the liturgical practices in his diocese.

In my diocese, a priest is allowed to say the EF privately (not meaning alone, others can join him, it is just not a “scheduled” Mass) anytime he wants, so long as he is following the rules regarding Masses per day.

I will say it again. A priest cannot wake up one Sunday and decide, I want to say the EF at 7:30 this morning instead of the OF. That cannot be done.
 
1: currently they don’t exercise legitimate ministry within the Church, other than hearing confessions. It is clear that they are definitely an internal Church matter. There are good arguments for both sides of the debate of whether or not they are truly in schism.

2: They don’t join the FSSP, because (I believe) the FSSP accept all of Vatican II. The SSPX don’t want to accept certain parts of Vatican II. I don’t understand why Rome wants them to accept ALL of Vatican II, given that it was a Council of Pastoral nature.
 
semper_catholicus said:
I don’t understand why Rome wants them to accept ALL of Vatican II,
Click to expand...
Uh? Vatican II is the legitimate teaching of the Church. You either accept it or you don’t.
And if you don’t, you have separated yourself from the Church.
 
But that is not what is said in SP. It says that any priest can say the EF. Of course a priest won’t wake up and say, “hey, I"m going to say the EF today.” Just like a priest wouldn’t wake up and say, “Hey, I’m going to say Mass in Spanish today.” That would mess up schedules. But he can start a new Mass time for the EF.

The EF was never abrogated. It remains an equal Mass just like a Spanish Mass, English Mass, Polish Mass, German Mass is equal. And any priest can say any of these if he knows the language.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top