Would I be sinning by being ordained SSPX

[AllenSmith]

I had a friend ask me this question and I don’t know the answer to it? Could you guys help me with this please?

 

[mwncheesehead]

No it’s not sinful. Smh.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

No. (10 characters)

 

[commenter]

I don’t foresee any controversy or disagreement coming in this thread.

 

[Mac]

seems to me it would be better to go to a traditional order within the structure of the Church like the fertunity of st Peter.

Wouldn’t hurt to advise your freind to reach out to one of the st Peter preists for some councle on the matter.

 

[JHFamily]

Technically, I think, no, it would not be a sin. However, I know priests of traditional orders that grew up with the SSPX or were priests with the SSPX, and they say the attitude of disobedience in the SSPX proper (not the parishes or whatnot) is very pervasive and dissuade anyone from attending their chapels. These are priests who have a deep knowledge of the SSPX.

I really hate to say what I did because the day they are regularized will be a day of great rejoicing for me; I want to see this day soon.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I don’t foresee any controversy or disagreement coming in this thread.

Yes, I feel the discussion will be laid back and relaxed. Not heated or hysterical at all.

I detect irony here. Please be aware that some people cannot comprehend this.

The Church has allowed the SSPX to ordain priests at their own discretion. The SSPX is neither fully disapproved nor fully approved. The big “sticking point” seems to be with the SSPX going into the territory of a diocese and establishing chapels (and even seminaries and other entities) without the permission of the local bishop.

 

[Irishmom2]

I detect irony here. Please be aware that some people cannot comprehend this.

Well, so far, 5 people comprehend what she said.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I detect irony here. Please be aware that some people cannot comprehend this.

True, but many people don’t. In my part of the US, attempts at irony (or what some people call sarcasm), deadpan delivery, and British-style understatement, fall completely flat. They just don’t get it. You have to say exactly what’s on your mind, to be understood correctly.

I am not an “Aspie”, but I find it similar to the communication style of people with Asperger syndrome. I tend more to think of Asperger as a special gift, an ability to give laser-like attention to the matter at hand, “cut to the chase”, and tell the bald truth without all this recourse to “cues”, “hints”, and watching for facial expressions and body language, to have to try and divine what the non-Asperger person is too reticent or sheepish just to come out and say.

 

[nunsuch]

Here is a 2014 Catholic Answers article on the SSPX and its relationship to the Magisterium. It is nuanced and I recommend that it be read in its entirety, especially through to the end from the “Schism or Heresy?” Subheader.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/p...ety-of-st-pius-x-and-dissident-traditionalism

 

[commenter]

The big “sticking point” seems to be with the SSPX going into the territory of a diocese and establishing chapels (and even seminaries and other entities) without the permission of the local bishop.

The other sticking point is the role of the Laity. In theory SSPX is just a religious order. Officially the laity who happen to come on a given Sunday are just visitors, who of course still belong to a parish, and their diocese.

Officially.

 

[godisgood77]

Question… why would you want to join an organization that is not in full communion with the Catholic Church?

 

[commenter]

I detect irony here. Please be aware that some people cannot comprehend this.
[/quite]

Sometimes a little irony helps people on both sides to lighten up. I admit some of my posts on this and other topics at times are a bit polemical, stir up more heat than light.

 

[TheMortenBay]

why would you want to join an organization that is not in full communion with the Catholic Church?

Setting aside for the moment the theological issues related to “partial communion” within the Catholic Church, I’ve been trying to come up with a good explanation for why this question is so unhelpful.
Obviously no Catholic in their right mind would align themselves with a non-Catholic group. Imagine if every time you mentioned you go to the Novus Ordo I’d say “why would you want to be in communion with the Pope?”
I believe your question sets up a false dichotomy between people who frequent the SSPX and people who attend the Mass elsewhere.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

why would you want to join an organization that is not in full communion with the Catholic Church?

I don’t think it’s a question of “partial communion” at all. They’re in full communion with only a few legalities left to be ironed out. The SSPX began in the bosom of the Church, and has never left that bosom. The excommunications of 1988 have been lifted. The SSPX denies no doctrine or dogma. They question certain things about Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae, and they set up chapels (where those who attend, as noted elsewhere here, are simply “guests”) outside the diocesan framework. But that’s it. They have been given permission (and faculties where needed) for all seven sacraments, though technically they are supposed to approach the local bishop for matrimony faculties.

Are the SSPX the only priests in the Church who are not 100% “on point” with the teaching Church in all matters? Are there priests who teach contrary to Humanae vitae? Are there priests who give communion to divorced and invalidly “remarried” couples? What is worse?

 

[ProVobis]

That is not the question to ask IMO. Since all FSSPX/SSPX priests are in suspension, is there hope during your seminary studies that this suspension is lifted soon? I mean FSSPX priests are allowed to hear confessions so it can’t be a mortal sin to join the fraternity per se. But I don’t want to make that judgment.

 

[godisgood77]

I believe your question sets up a false dichotomy between people who frequent the SSPX and people who attend the Mass elsewhere.

I do not mean to divide… I honestly have a difficult time understanding why a Catholic would join an organization that is not in full communion with the Church.

• Their founder was and is still excommunicated
• They reject the the Church’s Ordinary Mass… and literally call it evil and teaching their people not to attend because it will do them harm
• They reject the Church’s teaching on ecumenism
• They reject the Church’s teaching on the sources of revelation
• In general, they reject the 2nd Vatican Ecumenical Council altogether.

The Society uses the harshest language and condemns the majority of the Church… but asking a simple question about why someone would want to enlist in an org that is not in full communion with the Church is taboo? Seems like a double standard.

 

[commenter]

they set up chapels (where those who attend, as noted elsewhere here, are simply “guests”) outside the diocesan framework.

In theory, laity who happen to visit the SSPX chapel this week are encouraged to continue supporting, and getting most of their pastoral
guidance from, their parish (not the chapel). In theory the guests are getting their primary overall guidance from (not just praying for) their bishop Ordinary, and diocese, and ideally offering their volunteer service to that parish and diocese.

This is true even of those guests who were baptized and went to school K - 12 in SSPX.

In theory.

 

[godisgood77]

The SSPX began in the bosom of the Church, and has never left that bosom. The excommunications of 1988 have been lifted.

They did indeed leave the bosom of the Church. The founder and leaders were excommunicated for years… that would be outside the bosom… The illicitly ordained bishops were reinstated by a great act of mercy by the Pope. Lefebvre remains excommunicated.

Are the SSPX the only priests in the Church who are not 100% “on point”

Probably not… they remain in at minimum irregular state though and they continue to follow the line of an excommunicated bishop. Preaching that the standard mass of the Church is evil.

What is worse?

I’m going with the irregular ones on this question.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

• Their founder was and is still excommunicated
• They reject the the Church’s Ordinary Mass… and literally call it evil and teaching their people not to attend because it will do them harm
• They reject the Church’s teaching on ecumenism
• They reject the Church’s teaching on the sources of revelation
• In general, they reject the 2nd Vatican Ecumenical Council altogether.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...ops_doc_20090121_remissione-scomunica_en.html

• The excommunication was lifted as far as the living bishops were concerned. Can the Church even lift an excommunication upon a deceased person? After a person dies, does the fact of excommunication in this life even matter anymore? It is a juridical penalty, not a statement about the person’s soul.
• They may take the stance on the OF that you cite, I will grant that (though what they actually say is a bit more nuanced than that, and I’m not sure “evil” is the best word to describe their stance on the OF).
• They affirm traditional teachings and have questions about how Vatican II conforms to them.

They did indeed leave the bosom of the Church. The founder and leaders were excommunicated for years… that would be outside the bosom…

Excommunication does not remove someone from the Church. This is a common misconception.

What is worse?

I must respectfully disagree with you. The two practices I cite are deeply harmful to souls and can even threaten their salvation (all completed sins of the flesh are objectively grave, and mortal if all three conditions are met).