Would I be sinning by being ordained SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter AllenSmith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Progressive Catholics might say the same thing. The point is that both involve picking and choosing. I tend to be very cautious about that.
 
nunsuch said:
Progressive Catholics might say the same thing. The point is that both involve picking and choosing. I tend to be very cautious about that.
Click to expand...
Naw, Tradition is all about how we CAN’T pick and choose despite what the current leadership in the Church would have us believe.
 
nunsuch said:
Here is a 2014 Catholic Answers article on the SSPX
Click to expand...
Which contains false information, since a 2014 article obviously doesn’t factor in Pope Francis 2016 granting SSPX right to perform certain sacraments.

ARTICLE: " That cannot be said of the Society itself, for, as an organized, structured community, it operates in open disobedience to canon law and hence to Peter’s successor. As Benedict XVI said in his “Letter to the Catholic Bishops” of March 10, 2009, “The Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers—even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty [of excommunication]—do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.” In other words, they have the same canonical right as their lay followers to receive the sacraments but no right to administer them. (Interested readers can find the legal basis for Benedict’s assertion in such canons as 1331; 1041, 6°; 1044, §1, 3°; 1015, §1; and 1383.)"
nunsuch said:
So avoiding the authority of the Vatican and the Holy Father is a good thing?
Click to expand...
Like avoiding a 2016 Holy Father order that SSPX has right to perform sacraments?
 
But at least some Traditionalists choose to reject some or all of what came out of the Second Vatican Council—or some of the teachings of, say, Pope Francis. I’m not trying to argue, simply pointing out that selectivity happens in more than one group.
 
I just wanted to take a moment to appreciate the nuanced and mature discussion on this thread. Even if we don’t all agree, I really enjoy discussing with you guys. ❤️👍
 
TheMortenBay said:
I just wanted to take a moment to appreciate the nuanced and mature discussion on this thread. Even if we don’t all agree, I really enjoy discussing with you guys. ❤️
Click to expand...
Indeed. This is the type of subject where it can be easy for things to get heated, but the conversation has remained pretty chill. 😎
 
Last edited:
nunsuch said:
But at least some Traditionalists choose to reject some or all of what came out of the Second Vatican Council—or some of the teachings of, say, Pope Francis.
Click to expand...
Well, in my opinion it depends on the optics. If you decide what teachings of the Church to follow using gut feelings and political standpoint you’re protestant. If you discern the Church’s teachings through the lens of the Magisterium (Tradition, capital T) you’re Catholic. My argument is that the Second Vatican Council didn’t always lean on the Magisterium enough.
 
But what you are saying here is that your opinion is at least equal to and perhaps more valid than the teaching of the entirety of the world’s bishops in union with the Holy Father. Do you see why I find this problematic?
 
nunsuch said:
But what you are saying here is that your opinion is at least equal to and perhaps more valid than the teaching of the entirety of the world’s bishops in union with the Holy Father. Do you see why I find this problematic?
Click to expand...
I see why it’s ironic that I said
TheMortenBay said:
in my opinion it depends on the optics
Click to expand...
… and then went on to condemn opinion as a valid way of discerning the truth in basically the same sentence.

The problem is that the Church and ALL of her Bishops are only protected from speaking falsely when promulgating dogma through an Ecumenical council. This didn’t happen at Vatican II.

I find it problematic that the Holy Father isn’t granted infallibility by God, but the matter of fact is he isn’t.
 
I didn’t reference infallibility. But I do think that, on matters of Church teaching and policy, the body of bishops (including the Pope) probably have more authority than you–or I. To be clear, I may not like or “agree with” all of those teachings. But I assent to their authority, even as I may hope and pray for them eventually to change or evolve.

This whole discussion started with a question about ordination in the SSPX. I stand by my opinion that it is better to be safe than sorry, and to to pursue ordination with a group that at this time is not in full communion with the Holy See. And now I will bow out of this discussion, as I’ve said pretty much all I have to say.
 
I have heard that bishops say we don’t worship Jesus at mass and a hundred other things contrary to catholic doctrine that are in full communion with Rome I don’t understand what is so bad about this one issue. These priests are good priests if the Chinese patriotic catholic church gets a pass why doesn’t the sspx get one too.
 
Sean said:
if the Chinese patriotic catholic church gets a pass why doesn’t the sspx get one too.
Click to expand...
The problem with this line of thinking is that it is bad to justify doing something wrong by pointing to someone else doing something wrong. The old ‘if everyone else was jumping off a bridge,…’ argument lacks credibility.
 
TheMortenBay said:
The problem is that the Church and ALL of her Bishops are only protected from speaking falsely when promulgating dogma through an Ecumenical council. This didn’t happen at Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Infallible teaching is not the only teaching in the Church. There are also many teachings that are not definitive, covered by canon 752:
Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
Click to expand...
Do you think that the priests in SSPX can obey this canon? My impression is that ecumenism, religious freedom, etc. as well as liturgical issues make this a problem for the SSPX. This is a standard applied to every priest, not just SSPX, but their history of rejecting ecumenism etc. makes it something that needs to be addressed before regularizing their status.
 
When Benedicit was Pope all I saw in the traditioinalst forums was hatred and vitriol against Pope Benedict. Then when he resigned and Pope Francis was elected, many of these same people suddenly changed their tune and now they say “Benedict is my Pope.” or “In the good old days when Benedicit was the Pope.”
 
Tis_Bearself said:
in view of Summorum Pontificum, Benedict didn’t seem to me to be biased against traditionalists
Click to expand...
I’d be stupid to say I disagree. It seems to me Pope Francis also has a soft spot for the SSPX. In Argentina they’re poor, hardworking etc. He couldn’t disagree more with their expression of the faith, though…
 
HvonB said:
Reasons why you are less likely to sin in SSPX:
  1. Extremely low pay and practically zero opportunities for career progress mean freedom from ambition and pride
  2. Excellent record on sexual morality; practically zero cases of abuse, meaning freedom from sexual temptation. This is partly due to the insistence on their priests be group in three or more.
Another good reason to be ordained in SSPX is that
In traditionalist orders controlled by the Vatican, you never know when you will be hit by a Visitation
Click to expand...
I used to bristle at the idea that SSPX priests only live in certain priories, and that they fly all over the country each weekend to offer the sacraments at Mass centers, but do not live there. Then I got to thinking, and on the other hand, it actually makes sense, for the reason you cite and others. I do have to wonder what they do about emergency sick calls that take place Monday through Friday. Does anyone here know?

And as far as visitations, I have to think that the SSPX would never object to these. The SSPX does not reject the authority of the Church per se — they pray for the Pope and the local ordinary. If the SSPX has nothing to hide — and I don’t think they do (can all dioceses and orders say this?) — a visitation is not a bad thing and doesn’t have a “down side”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top