Too many Sympathetic for SSPX

[TrueLight]

It is not always just a matter of preference, but when abuses are not occuring and both forms are celbrated licitly and reverently, how is which form you attend anything more than a matter of preference?

I would recommend reading a little bit about how the SSPX views the issues that exist. You will probably disagree but it will give you a better idea.

 

[thewanderer]

I would recommend reading a little bit about how the SSPX views the issues that exist. You will probably disagree but it will give you a better idea.

My understanding is that the Church teaches that both forms are valid and that one is not intrinsically better than the other. Because of this I fail to see how a society, or even individuals, can claim that one form is better than another, they are different expressions of the same sacrifice.

 

[white_sheep]

So there is no difference between a mass that is both valid and licit and one that is valid but illicit (ie illegal)? This position is confusing to me, it is clearly better to have a mass that is both valid and licit, even if it is not in accordance with ones preferences than to have an illicit mass that is more like what we would prefer.

I said I wasn’t indifferent to it. Aside from that I see no more wrong there than at the parish down the street. Hopefully that clears it up.

 

[thewanderer]

I said I wasn’t indifferent to it. Aside from that I see no more wrong there than at the parish down the street. Hopefully that clears it up.

I was not saying anything about not being indifferent to it. I am not indifferent to the plight of the SSPX, I sincerely desire that they can be joined to Rome in full communion. I was not sure why you claimed that it was no more wrong than the parish down the street… to me that made it sound as if you were claiming that whether or not a mass is licit makes no difference, which is clearly not true.

 

[JReducation]

I would recommend reading a little bit about how the SSPX views the issues that exist. You will probably disagree but it will give you a better idea.

For the purpose of understanding their argument, this is a good suggestion; but it must come with a warning. Catholics are not allowed to agree with them. Pope Benedict actually says this many times, even in his writings on the EF. No one who is in that camp has the right to ask for the EF. That’s how seriously he takes agreement with their positions.

We have to clarify here too. They have positions and they have questions. Their questions we can share in. There is nothing wrong with asking questions. If you don’t ask, you’re not going to get an answer.

Their positions are not questions. They’re assertions and they often contradict what the current Magisterium asserts. That’s when we are not allowed to agree with them, because they are not a second Magisterium.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

Can you explain that? It was my understanding that the priests are suspended because they were illicitly ordained and that they lack jurisdiction (as in they’re not incardinated or under the authority or a recognized Ordinary). Why were they suspended in 1975?

You can read the history here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X

I also ran across an interesting 1977 article on this as well.

archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/15th-july-1977/3/the-choices-facing-pope-paul-on-archbishop-lefebvr

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

The SSPX are baptized. It has apostolic succession. It has five sacraments that the Church acknowledges as valid. However, the ordinations are all illegal, beginning with those of the bishops and every cleric they have ordained. Because they ordained against the wishes of the pope, they have broken with the primacy. Therefore, there is one more thing that they need for full communion. Peter, must welcome them back. As long as Peter sustains that they have broken with the primacy, they are not in full communion. They are in communion in most things, but are lacking. Pope Benedict explained this several times. If you go the book, Light of The World, Pope Benedict speaks about not being in communion with the primacy and how the primacy will not welcome them until they meet certain requirements, which are in the Preamble and which we don’t know exactly what they are.

As you can see, communion is not always about heresy. One can harm communion by other actions, in the case of the SSPX, it was breaking with the Primacy, even though they maintain all of the other necessary elements for communion.

How do the Orthodox have licit sacraments when they, too, have broken with the Primacy. In fact, they don’t even recognize it, which means they are steps beyond the SSPX. I spoke with a Ukrainian Orthodox bishop a few months back and he said that he cannot accept that the Pope has primacy and supremacy and is the Vicar of Christ. From his point of view, the Patriarch of the West has fallen into error and has separated himself and his churches from the Church. This is not his ancestors, or an uneducated laity. This is a Bishop who ordains clergy (he runs a seminary in New Jersey). His sacraments are obviously valid because of succession, but how could they be licit? And if they are licit, then why are Catholics not ordinarily allowed to receive sacraments from the Orthodox?

I suppose the answer is that the Orthodox don’t have to follow our rules, but how can we say everything is fine and dandy over there in Orthodox land when they deny the visible head of the Christ’s Mystical Body? Shouldn’t there be some sort of consequence for doing that? If their sacraments are all valid and licit, then they have equal access to sanctifying grace and therefore equal access to heaven. It makes being Roman Catholic just another option, not the ONLY option.

This is probably a major thread derail. My apologies.

• PAX

 

[curlycool89]

You can read the history here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X

I don’t see anything unjust.

It’s the same thing I was saying. The priests were ordained after Archbishop Lefebvre was told not to. That’s disobedience on the part of Archbishop Lefebvre and participation in an act of disobedience (so basically also disobedience) by those who were ordained. There is no right to be ordained in the Catholic Church, not even after completing Seminary. If Rome says “you may not ordain”, then you may not ordain. It’s not rocket science.

The permission for the society was also not renewed, which is the imperative of the diocesan bishop. It does not matter whether you like it or not or whether you agree with it or not because he is a Bishop and he can make such a decision.

The whole issue of “it was not fair” or any other BS is immaterial to the discussion. When you are told “don’t do X” then the proper response is to not do X. Nobody gets a vote on discipline except for the Pope.

 

[thewanderer]

How do the Orthodox have licit sacraments when they, too, have broken with the Primacy. In fact, they don’t even recognize it, which means they are steps beyond the SSPX. I spoke with a Ukrainian Orthodox bishop a few months back and he said that he cannot accept that the Pope has primacy and supremacy and is the Vicar of Christ. From his point of view, the Patriarch of the West has fallen into error and has separated himself and his churches from the Church. This is not his ancestors, or an uneducated laity. This is a Bishop who ordains clergy (he runs a seminary in New Jersey). His sacraments are obviously valid because of succession, but how could they be licit? And if they are licit, then why are Catholics not ordinarily allowed to receive sacraments from the Orthodox?

I suppose the answer is that the Orthodox don’t have to follow our rules, but how can we say everything is fine and dandy over there in Orthodox land when they deny the visible head of the Christ’s Mystical Body? Shouldn’t there be some sort of consequence for doing that? If their sacraments are all valid and licit, then they have equal access to sanctifying grace and therefore equal access to heaven. It makes being Roman Catholic just another option, not the ONLY option.

This is probably a major thread derail. My apologies.

• PAX

It is off topic, but I think it would make an interesting thread, so please feel free to start one! I was not aware that anyone considered the Orthodox Liturgies as being licit…

 

[JReducation]

How do the Orthodox have licit sacraments when they, too, have broken with the Primacy. In fact, they don’t even recognize it, which means they are steps beyond the SSPX. I spoke with a Ukrainian Orthodox bishop a few months back and he said that he cannot accept that the Pope has primacy and supremacy and is the Vicar of Christ. From his point of view, the Patriarch of the West has fallen into error and has separated himself and his churches from the Church. This is not his ancestors, or an uneducated laity. This is a Bishop who ordains clergy (he runs a seminary in New Jersey). His sacraments are obviously valid because of succession, but how could they be licit? And if they are licit, then why are Catholics not ordinarily allowed to receive sacraments from the Orthodox?

I suppose the answer is that the Orthodox don’t have to follow our rules, but how can we say everything is fine and dandy over there in Orthodox land when they deny the visible head of the Christ’s Mystical Body? Shouldn’t there be some sort of consequence for doing that? If their sacraments are all valid and licit, then they have equal access to sanctifying grace and therefore equal access to heaven. It makes being Roman Catholic just another option, not the ONLY option.

This is probably a major thread derail. My apologies.

• PAX

The difference between them and the SSPX is a canonical difference. The SSPX is Catholic. And as long as it’s Catholic, it must comply with our code of law. The Orthodox are not Catholic. The Catholic Church has no jurisdiction over them. Therefore, we cannot impose consequences on them. They guide themselves by their own code of law. The Catholic Church recognizes than non-Catholics have a right to their own legal code. This does not apply to the SSPX. Legally, they can deny the Primacy of Peter without canonical consequences.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[JReducation]

How do the Orthodox have licit sacraments when they, too, have broken with the Primacy. In fact, they don’t even recognize it, which means they are steps beyond the SSPX. I spoke with a Ukrainian Orthodox bishop a few months back and he said that he cannot accept that the Pope has primacy and supremacy and is the Vicar of Christ. From his point of view, the Patriarch of the West has fallen into error and has separated himself and his churches from the Church. This is not his ancestors, or an uneducated laity. This is a Bishop who ordains clergy (he runs a seminary in New Jersey). His sacraments are obviously valid because of succession, but how could they be licit? And if they are licit, then why are Catholics not ordinarily allowed to receive sacraments from the Orthodox?

I suppose the answer is that the Orthodox don’t have to follow our rules, but how can we say everything is fine and dandy over there in Orthodox land when they deny the visible head of the Christ’s Mystical Body? Shouldn’t there be some sort of consequence for doing that? If their sacraments are all valid and licit, then they have equal access to sanctifying grace and therefore equal access to heaven. It makes being Roman Catholic just another option, not the ONLY option.

This is probably a major thread derail. My apologies.

• PAX

The difference between them and the SSPX is a canonical difference. The SSPX is Catholic. And as long as it’s Catholic, it must comply with our code of law. The Orthodox are not Catholic. The Catholic Church has no jurisdiction over them. Therefore, we cannot impose consequences on them. They guide themselves by their own code of law. The Catholic Church recognizes than non-Catholics have a right to their own legal code. This does not apply to the SSPX. Legally, they can deny the Primacy of Peter without canonical consequences.

We have two codes of Canon Law. If you open them to the fist page, one will say: Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church. The other will say, Code of Canon law for the Oriental Churches in Union with Rome. The codes were written for very specific populations, not for the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[roadsend]

…

There is a major difference. Let’s take the example of medicine. Let’s say that I went to school to become a brain surgeon and I’m very good at it. I move to a new state and never get a license in that state. The brain surgeon down the street may not be as talented as I am, but he has a license to practice in that state. In law, this is very grave matter. No matter how good I cam, I can go to jail for practicing without a license.

This is the difference between the SSPX priest and the parish priest down the street. The parish priest down the street has a license.
…
Fraternally,

Br.JR, FFV

Interesting parallel. But if you or your family member needed surgery, whom would you choose, the highly skilled surgeon, who was missing his license paperwork or the surgeon down the road who had 80% of his patients leave him and who was known to laugh and joke while doing his work and deliberately ignored the surgical procedures and standards set up in his profession?

 

[thewanderer]

Interesting parallel. But if you or your family member needed surgery, whom would you choose, the highly skilled surgeon, who was missing his license paperwork or the surgeon down the road who had 80% of his patients leave him and who was known to laugh and joke while doing his work and deliberately ignored the surgical procedures and standards set up in his profession?

I know you didn’t ask me, but personally I would find one that was licenced even if they were not as well trained as the unlicenced surgeon, sure I wouldn’t go to a surgeon that obviously had no idea what they are doing, but*following the law is a very important thing. *I have yet to actually attend an OF mass that would justify me attending an illicit mass if they were the only two around.

 

[ProVobis]

Interesting parallel. But if you or your family member needed surgery, whom would you choose, the highly skilled surgeon, who was missing his license paperwork or the surgeon down the road who had 80% of his patients leave him and who was known to laugh and joke while doing his work and deliberately ignored the surgical procedures and standards set up in his profession?

Good point. I believe there is something in canon law about attending where it’s to your spiritual advantage.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

The difference between them and the SSPX is a canonical difference. The SSPX is Catholic. And as long as it’s Catholic, it must comply with our code of law. The Orthodox are not Catholic. The Catholic Church has no jurisdiction over them. Therefore, we cannot impose consequences on them. They guide themselves by their own code of law. The Catholic Church recognizes than non-Catholics have a right to their own legal code. This does not apply to the SSPX. Legally, they can deny the Primacy of Peter without canonical consequences.

We have two codes of Canon Law. If you open them to the fist page, one will say: Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church. The other will say, Code of Canon law for the Oriental Churches in Union with Rome. The codes were written for very specific populations, not for the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

So, what are the consequences for the Orthodox Churches for denying the Primacy of Peter? They have valid sacraments. They have licit sacraments. They have access to sanctifying grace. They have their own code of law. The Pope has no jurisdiction over them. Why do they need Peter? Why would they want Peter?

And if there is no consequence, why should anyone who disagrees with the Pope (as the Orthodox most certainly do) want to remain in communion with him or regain communion with him?

What am I missing here? It seems like schism is of little consequence in the long run.

• PAX

 

[roadsend]

Good point. I believe there is something in canon law about attending where it’s to your spiritual advantage.

There is. It even allows one to attend Liturgy an an Orthodox Church.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t see anything unjust.

It’s the same thing I was saying. The priests were ordained after Archbishop Lefebvre was told not to. That’s disobedience on the part of Archbishop Lefebvre and participation in an act of disobedience (so basically also disobedience) by those who were ordained. There is no right to be ordained in the Catholic Church, not even after completing Seminary. If Rome says “you may not ordain”, then you may not ordain. It’s not rocket science.

Yes, but what has AL’s disobedience have to do with now, two or three generations later? As Br JR has I believe stated once or twice, even if you go to a schismatic or preach heresy, are your kids going to be schismatic or heretics as well? Correct me, Br JR, if this is not what you said or implied.

 

[thewanderer]

There is. It even allows one to attend Liturgy an an Orthodox Church.

Wait, I thought you aren’t allowed to attend an Orthodox sevice to fulfill your Sunday obligation unless you have no other options? I know you’re allowed to attend Eastern Catholic Liturgies, but that is different. Do you have a source for this?

 

[1AugustSon7]

If you could see their forums then you’d be sympathetic for them too. It is all chaos, confusion and fear.

 

[roadsend]

I know you didn’t ask me, but personally I would find one that was licenced even if they were not as well trained as the unlicenced surgeon, sure I wouldn’t go to a surgeon that obviously had no idea what they are doing, but*following the law is a very important thing. *I have yet to actually attend an OF mass that would justify me attending an illicit mass if they were the only two around.

I have, but thank God it doesn’t happen very often. As banal and irreverent as our music and extraneous rituals are, they only occasionally cross the line into the sacrilegious. Our young pastor is a holy and reverent man, but the way he was raised and trained do not allow him to recognize liturgical abuse for what it is. He does the best he can, with what he has to work with.