why condemn the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter latinmasslover
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure said:
So, here we have a very succinct and well reasoned explanation of excommunications and the effect upon both the priest as well as those who approach him for the Sacraments. It is this line of reasoning and these facts that I use to “condemn” or speak out against the SSPX.
Click to expand...
Again, if it’s so serious, why does Rome allow the laity to receive from schismatic groups? Why are “we” condemned for doing something Rome permits? If this schism is a true schism, wouldn’t the laity be “condemned” for supporting it in any way, shape, or form? The orginal question, in more detail, why are we -the laity - condemned by Roman Catholics but not Rome?
 
stmaria said:
I didn’t make up Canon Law 1324. It is there for a reason.
In your hypothetical example if Cardinal Mahoney truly believed with all his heart and soul and had “grave fear” and “necessity” then I believe it is possible that the following canon would apply.

Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:
/ by a person who was coerced by grave fear,** even if only relatively grave**, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience if the delict is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;

There would be a penalty but it would be tempered. It will be interesting to see how Pope Benedict handles this. I do not see the SSPX backing down from their rejection of the teachings on Religious Liberty, Collegiality, and false ecumenism.
Click to expand...
If the Pope, as Supreme Legislator, declares that there is no grave reason or necessity, then objectively there is no grave reason or necessity. The Servant of God Pope John Paul II did so. And remember, the Archbishop signed an agreement in which he was going to get largely what he wanted…but he reneged on it.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Sorry, but are you comparing the OF of the Mass to the Anglican service? I see a back handed slam at this form of the Holy Sacrifice, I hope I’m mistaken.
Click to expand...
Truth be told, former Anglicans have said that they don’t see much difference.
 
Walking_Home said:
No it hasn’t — It was by Ecclesia Dei’s request that that Msgr. Perl’s statements be published. So this takes it outside the realm of addressing a specific situation.
Click to expand...
PUBLISHED TO CLARIFY IT’S CONTEXT! The Holy See CLEARLY stated that it could not condone or rec. attendance at SSPX masses.

Be VERY careful, my brother, you’re dangerously close to DELIBERATELY misleading the faithful.
 
latinmasslover said:
Again, if it’s so serious, why does Rome allow the laity to receive from schismatic groups? Why are “we” condemned for doing something Rome permits? If this schism is a true schism, wouldn’t the laity be “condemned” for supporting it in any way, shape, or form? The orginal question, in more detail, why are we -the laity - condemned by Roman Catholics but not Rome?
Click to expand...
They don’t allow it.
 
latinmasslover said:
Truth be told, former Anglicans have said that they don’t see much difference.
Click to expand...
I’m a former Anglican. Both liturgies have the same antecedents in western liturgies, indeed, both have things in common with the Tridentine.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
PUBLISHED TO CLARIFY IT’S CONTEXT! The Holy See CLEARLY stated that it could not condone or rec. attendance at SSPX masses.

Be VERY careful, my brother, you’re dangerously close to DELIBERATELY misleading the faithful.
Click to expand...
Spin it any way you want JKirkLVNV—but I am not misleading anyone. Msgr. Perl’s statements are in print—for anyone to read.
 
latinmasslover said:
Again, if it’s so serious, why does Rome allow the laity to receive from schismatic groups? Why are “we” condemned for doing something Rome permits? If this schism is a true schism, wouldn’t the laity be “condemned” for supporting it in any way, shape, or form? The orginal question, in more detail, why are we -the laity - condemned by Roman Catholics but not Rome?
Click to expand...
This is a very good question. We have seemingly two conflictiing opinions one contained in a public document issued by Archbishop Burke, member of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (the high court of the Church) and one contained in a private letter to an individual from Msgr. Perl of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. There is definitely tension between the two. It’s my opinion that since we are speaking of a serious matter as it affects sanctity, I would tend to follow the wisdom of Archbishop Burke in this matter. At the very least, it is the safest route morally for there is no risk in refraining to attend an SSPX Mass, but there is potentially great risk in deciding to attend such a Mass.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
If the Pope, as Supreme Legislator, declares that there is no grave reason or necessity, then objectively there is no grave reason or necessity.
Click to expand...
Canon Law, approved by the Pope, says otherwise.
 
latinmasslover said:
Canon Law, approved by the Pope, says otherwise.
Click to expand...
Not to bicker, but Canon Law does specify the Pope as Supreme Legislator and the Pope declared the act of consecration a “schismatic act” in a Motu Proprio which carries the full force of Canon Law. That means his judgement in that Motu Proprio is as powerful as any canon contained in the code.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
PUBLISHED TO CLARIFY IT’S CONTEXT! The Holy See CLEARLY stated that it could not condone or rec. attendance at SSPX masses.

Be VERY careful, my brother, you’re dangerously close to DELIBERATELY misleading the faithful.
Click to expand...
How is it misleading? We’re referring to being condemned by Rome for supporting the SSPX, not to whether or not it is recommended. The Popes don’t recommend receiving Holy Communion in the hand, but that doesn’t stop anybody from doing it.
 
Sure said:
Not to bicker, but Canon Law does specify the Pope as Supreme Legislator and the Pope declared the act of consecration a “schismatic act” in a Motu Proprio which carries the full force of Canon Law. That means his judgement in that Motu Proprio is as powerful as any canon contained in the code.
Click to expand...
So the Pope can override the law whenever it’s convenient? Sounds a little like tyranny. Even still, the laity aren’t condemned…why? Weren’t the followers of Luther, Calvin, etc. condemned for being their followers? Canon Law allows, for moral reasons, for people to attend Masses at the SSPX chapels…Why are we condemned for doing it? Why are we allowed if it’s wrong.
 
latinmasslover said:
So the Pope can override the law whenever it’s convenient? Sounds a little like tyranny. Even still, the laity aren’t condemned…why? Weren’t the followers of Luther, Calvin, etc. condemned for being their followers? Canon Law allows, for moral reasons, for people to attend Masses at the SSPX chapels…Why are we condemned for doing it? Why are we allowed if it’s wrong.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, in a Motu Proprio a Pope can change Canon Law at his discretion.

You are correct the laity of SSPX are not formally excommunicated in any way. However, canon law says that anyone who holds to schism is excommunciated latae sentatiae (sp?). Canon Law would seem, at least according to Archbishop Burke, to not allow people to attend SSPX chapels even for moral reasons.

There is definitely a tension here between the public document by Archbishop Burke and the private letter by Msgr. Perle. That is why I said before, we must make a prudential judgement between the two. I would hope that Rome would speak authoritatively on the subject soon. Really the safest choice is to seek out an approved extraordinary form Mass. God willing there will be many more in the coming years.
 
latinmasslover said:
God willing.🙂
Click to expand...
Amen.

Did you get a chance to read the quotations and text from Archbishop Burke? I am curious as to your opinion on them. It had been sometime since I read them and I was frankly rather surprised at how strong his wording was. He definitely makes a strong case based on Canon Law. It is men like Archbishop Burke and Bishop Bruskewitz that make me think the prudent move for any Catholic is to avoid the SSPX at all costs and seek out approved extraordinary Masses.
 
Walking_Home said:
Spin it any way you want JKirkLVNV—but I am not misleading anyone. Msgr. Perl’s statements are in print—for anyone to read.
Click to expand...
That’s NOT spin, WH, if anyone is spinning, it’s YOU. You apparently take very lightly the idea of reccomending disobedience, to leading the faithful down a path away from obedience to the Church. We all face a Dread Judge someday.
Let’s hope we aren’t charged with the sin of misleading others.
 
latinmasslover said:
How is it misleading? We’re referring to being condemned by Rome for supporting the SSPX, not to whether or not it is recommended. The Popes don’t recommend receiving Holy Communion in the hand, but that doesn’t stop anybody from doing it.
Click to expand...
But the Pope juridicialy expanded the indult. No matter what his personal feeling on the matter was, he permitted it. The same pope ruled the SSPX’s bishops are excommunicate, their priests are suspended ad divinis and the faithful are warned against the sin of schism attendance upon their masses. Different scenario and no disobedience is involved in the former.
 
latinmasslover said:
So the Pope can override the law whenever it’s convenient? Sounds a little like tyranny. Even still, the laity aren’t condemned…why? Weren’t the followers of Luther, Calvin, etc. condemned for being their followers? Canon Law allows, for moral reasons, for people to attend Masses at the SSPX chapels…Why are we condemned for doing it? Why are we allowed if it’s wrong.
Click to expand...
That’s just it, you aren’t allowed, Walking Home’s blatant disregard for the truth notwithstanding.

And as for your remark re: canon law, that’s basic Catholic teaching, it’s “traditional!” The pope is, in canon law, the Supreme Legislator and interpreter. Canon law means what he says. He can abrogate it, promulgate it, modify it, dispense with it, give a license around it, make an exception. He’s makes it and he is not bound BY it.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
That’s NOT spin, WH, if anyone is spinning, it’s YOU. You apparently take very lightly the idea of reccomending disobedience, to leading the faithful down a path away from obedience to the Church. We all face a Dread Judge someday.
Let’s hope we aren’t charged with the sin of misleading others.
Click to expand...
I don’t spin JKirkLVNV— I take Msgr. Perl’s statements for what they are. It was the Msgrs own words —that stated if the intent of person was not to separate themselves from the Church —there is no sin. That JKirkLVNV-- is in print. So enough with your implications concerning the judgement of my soul—for it is only reflecting that when push comes to shove—you will use any method --even that—to continue your spin.
 
Walking_Home said:
I don’t spin JKirkLVNV— I take Msgr. Perl’s statements for what they are. It was the Msgrs own words —that stated if the intent of person was not to separate themselves from the Church —there is no sin. That JKirkLVNV-- is in print. So enough with your implications concerning the judgement of my soul—for it is only reflecting that when push comes to shove—you will use any method --even that—to continue your spin.
Click to expand...
Not so, WH, not so. I’m as concerned about your soul as those whom you might mislead. It clearly states that the Holy See does not recommend attendance. It clearly does NOT replace Ecclesia Dei. Any reasonable person reading that document, not already looking for an excuse to rebel, would come away from it with the opinion that it addressed a specific situation and was not a blanket permission.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top