Third Order SSPX Members

[RalphKramden]

The Society of St. Pius X is NOT an order so how can they have a Third Order???   

And they are not yet accorded canonical status even though it is being worked on.

Might want to wait on this...

As others said a society can have a third order. FSSP has a third order I believe, though I'm not sure if they call it that? Confraternity of St. Peter I think it's called, may be wrong? Call it confraternity or third order or whatever, it amounts to the same thing

I think if you attend SSPX masses and are intrested this may be a very good idea and I see no reason to wait.

[RalphKramden]

Here is info regarding the Confraternity of St. Peter
http://www.fssp.org/en/confraternite.htm
May not be a "Third Order" in the technical sense or maybe it is, I'm not sure. I would say that it seems to be along the same lines as TO/SSPX in purpose anyway.
There isn't a rule, and seems to require less, but the idea seems to be about the same.

edited to add this link also:
http://www.confraternityofstpeter.org/

[IrishCowboy]

I'm not intrested in joining TO/SSPX. Not because I think there is anything wrong with them , I'm just not intrested.

What I am intrested in is hearing about other people's religious intrests such as third orders, prayer routines, etc. I'm intrested in the TO/SSPX because of my personal intrests, not because I'm discerning.
I just wanted to hear about this without being forced to listen to all the pro/con SSPX BS.

If people want to argue that fine, great even. I'm just not wanting to listen to in in a thread that's supposed to be about a Third Order.

end of rant, return to discussion

1.)  While you have a right to express what interests you, this is not your thread, so what you are interested in hearing is somewhat irrelevant, under the circumstances.  The OP may be discerning, as well as others, so that is perfectly legitimate conversation.

2.)  If you are free to rant, so are others.  That's what they were doing.  No one asked you to rant, either, and why should they be forced to listen to your rant any more than you should be forced to listen to theirs, just because it may be pro/con SSPX BS?

3.)  There is no such thing as pro-SSPX BS.  The only BS is the anti-SSPX variety.

Cheers!   

[petrelton]

Pisseltron
Is partially schismatic and parially in communiopn the same as
A little pregnant?

That's my point. Which is exactly why I say that they are schismatic, because the Vatican tells me, what is plain as the nose on your face, that they are partially schismatic. Therefore as you correcly point out. If they are partially schismatic then they are schismatic. Period.

[petrelton]

The Society of St. Pius X is NOT an order so how can they have a Third Order???   

And they are not yet accorded canonical status even though it is being worked on.

Might want to wait on this...

Couldn't have put it better myself. What you stated in one line took me pages. Well done.

[RalphKramden]

1.)  While you have a right to express what interests you, this is not your thread, so what you are interested in hearing is somewhat irrelevant, under the circumstances.  The OP may be discerning, as well as others, so that is perfectly legitimate conversation.

2.)  If you are free to rant, so are others.  That's what they were doing.  No one asked you to rant, either, and why should they be forced to listen to your rant any more than you should be forced to listen to theirs, just because it may be pro/con SSPX BS?

3.)  There is no such thing as pro-SSPX BS.  The only BS is the anti-SSPX variety.

Cheers!   

You're right, my point was just that this thread is supposed to be about the third order and not about the canonical status or validity of the SSPX sacraments.
I tried not to rant, but can only take so much. I need to practice the virtue of patience
I understand this isn't 'my' thread and I have no intrest in monitoring people, I just think that the point of having threads is to discus the topic at hand and not derailing it.
If someone wants to talk about rather the SSPX is valid or not than start a thread about that. Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way
If I've miss stepped than mea culp. I'd still like to hear about anyone's experience with the TO/SSPX, personal or second hand. This is an intresting topic and I don't want to derail it further discussing rules or etiquette.

[RalphKramden]

There is no such thing as pro-SSPX BS.  The only BS is the anti-SSPX variety.

I found this very funny 
Maybe the opposing viewpoint would see things differently
I agree with you, but I don't think everyone does

[IrishCowboy]

You're right, my point was just that this thread is supposed to be about the third order and not about the canonical status or validity of the SSPX sacraments.
I tried not to rant, but can only take so much. I need to practice the virtue of patience
I understand this isn't 'my' thread and I have no intrest in monitoring people, I just think that the point of having threads is to discus the topic at hand and not derailing it.
If someone wants to talk about rather the SSPX is valid or not than start a thread about that. Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way

You're not the only one that feels this way, and you have every right to feel this way.  I also struggle with patience sometimes, and can "only handle so much."  I fear that people have stopped taking this thread seriously, though, which is a shame.

[Ruination_ipa]

Something for consideration concerning the validity of confession to SSPX (& marriages) :

1. Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.

In other words, for any just cause someone can approach any Priest who is suspended or excommunicated for the sacraments or for an act of governance and it's valid as long as the sentence was not declared. In the case of the SSPX only the Bishops had received a declared sentence and the Priests were never excommunicated which is all a moot point now anyway since the excommunications have been abolished.

The above is not even considering the 'common error' argument or the reality of a state of necessity.

For the record, I've never gone to SSPX for confession and I'm not third order so I'm not particularly biased in this matter - I just try to keep things objective. My family and I have other options here (FSSP) and so the need has never arisen to go to the SSPX for confession although if the FSSP was not here I probably would be going. It depends on how bad the crisis is in your area.

John Salza takes on Jimmy Akin's interpretation of canon law over the SSPX jurisdictional issue here and it's quite informative:
http://scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979099/10-do-sspx-priests-have-jurisdiction-to-hear-confessions/

Further, if you consider the groups who "reunite" with Rome  (for lack of a better word), such as Campos, Papa Stronsay et. al. you'll find that they never had to make general confessions to cover their "invalid" ones nor did they have to get remarried. The prior confessions and marriages were assumed valid. In bringing this up it would only be fair to state the possibility of a "radical sanation" of the sacraments although I've only ever heard of this being applied to marriage and not to confession.

I further declare that the above is my opinion and I subject myself to the ruling of the Church on this manner if and when a decisive judgement has been made.

[petrelton]

Something for consideration concerning the validity of confession to SSPX (& marriages) :

1. Can. 1335 If a censure prohibits the celebration of sacraments or sacramentals or the placing of an act of governance, the prohibition is suspended whenever it is necessary to care for the faithful in danger of death. If a latae sententiae censure has not been declared, the prohibition is also suspended whenever a member of the faithful requests a sacrament or sacramental or an act of governance; a person is permitted to request this for any just cause.

In other words, for any just cause someone can approach any Priest who is suspended or excommunicated for the sacraments or for an act of governance and it's valid as long as the sentence was not declared. In the case of the SSPX only the Bishops had received a declared sentence and the Priests were never excommunicated which is all a moot point now anyway since the excommunications have been abolished.

The above is not even considering the 'common error' argument or the reality of a state of necessity.

For the record, I've never gone to SSPX for confession and I'm not third order so I'm not particularly biased in this matter - I just try to keep things objective. My family and I have other options here (FSSP) and so the need has never arisen to go to the SSPX for confession although if the FSSP was not here I probably would be going. It depends on how bad the crisis is in your area.

John Salza takes on Jimmy Akin's interpretation of canon law over the SSPX jurisdictional issue here and it's quite informative:
http://scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703979099/10-do-sspx-priests-have-jurisdiction-to-hear-confessions/

Further, if you consider the groups who "reunite" with Rome  (for lack of a better word), such as Campos, Papa Stronsay et. al. you'll find that they never had to make general confessions to cover their "invalid" ones nor did they have to get remarried. The prior confessions and marriages were assumed valid. In bringing this up it would only be fair to state the possibility of a "radical sanation" of the sacraments although I've only ever heard of this being applied to marriage and not to confession.

I further declare that the above is my opinion and I subject myself to the ruling of the Church on this manner if and when a decisive judgement has been made.

This really gets me. The SSPX never stop finding fault with the V2 Council and all of its products including the rites of the sacraments and the catechism and yet its proponents are not shy to justify their actions using another of the products of V2, the 1983 Canon Law. What is meant by "any just reason". Who decides what a just reason is? The church does. We as individuals cannot judge for ourselves what a just reason is. It is also remarkable to imagine the the Pontifical Commision of Ecclesi Dei was not aware of this canon of the law. As I have previously shown the PCED has ruled notwithstanding Canon 1335 as follows

“Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid""

Ecclesia Dei have made one concession to this namely that if the penitent is not aware of the invalidity of  the canonical status of the SSPX confessions that his sins may be absolved. However as soon as any of us read this concession we immediately become aware of the invalidity of SSPX confessions and so are morally obliged to confess our sins elsewhere where a valid sacrament can be secured. Some people however willfully reject these rulings of the church and even claim that the church has not even made a ruling. They then deliberately forsake the ordinary jurisdiction of the church and supplant it with an invalid competing sacrament.

The belligerence of these willful acts by the SSPX and their followers is no doubt the source of statements like the following from the PCED which was given at the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean by Cardinal Castrillón who said:
"the efforts undertaken to end the regrettable schismatic situation and secure the return of those brethren belonging to the Fraternity of Saint Pius X to full communion. . extend to satisfying the just aspirations of people, unrelated to the two aforementioned groups, who, because of their specific sensitiveness, wish to keep alive the earlier Latin liturgy in the celebration of the Eucharist and the other sacraments"
http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/1253861

Compared to this frank in-house assessment of the Cardinal we get the more public lingo where the SSPX is regarded as seperated but not schismatic. Here given at a public interview to the press  "CASTRILLÓN HOYOS: Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism." http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360

Huh? What does that mean? Is that like saying that seperated brethren are not scismatic. How can you be separated and not schismatic? As traditionalists its better to read past the modern V2 rubber language and conclude that the church definately considers the SSPX to be schismatic but are putting on diplomats hats to resolve the schism using dialogue and negotiation. Meanwhile the SSPX are still trying to run the church old school with guns blazing making cut and thrust statements attacking everything post V2.

By the way here is a fantastic article from someone who made the journey out of the Lefebvre schism
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0072.html

In 1988 Lefebvre himself agreed to the following protocols:

* promised fidelity to the Catholic Church and to the Pope

* accepted the doctrine contained in section 25 of the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium on the Church’s magisterium

* pledged a completely non-polemical attitude of study and communication with the Holy See on the allegedly problematic aspects of the Second Vatican Council and the reforms that had followed it

* recognised the validity of the revised rites of Mass and of the other sacraments

*promised to respect the common discipline of the Church and her laws, making allowance for special provisions granted to the SSPX.

* agree that the SSPX would become a Society of Apostolic Life with special exemption regarding public worship, care of souls and apostolic activity, in line with canons 679-683

* that the SSPX would be granted the faculty to celebrate the Tridentine rites

* that a special commission, including two members of the SSPX, would be set up to facilitate contacts and resolve problems and conflicts

* that it would be proposed to the Pope that a member of the SSPX be consecrated as a bishop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_situation_of_the_Society_of_St._Pius_X#cite_note-12

He even SIGNED THIS PROTOCOL. But then went back on his agreement (who does that?) and went ahead with the consecrations anyway. Unbelievable. We are living in a fools paradise if we think that the SSPX will agree to anything like this protocol today AFTER the illicit consecrations if they could not agree to it BEFORE the illicit consecrations. The situation is far worse today than it was in 1988. Can the Pope now succeed where the Pope then failed. I doubt it. But with God all things are possible. Oremus.

[CatholicThurifer]

I would love to join the Third Order of the Society, but I don't think I should since I don't go to a Society Mass center. If they ever get one closer, then I will probably have to consider it. I think it's worthy thing for one's spiritual life.

[Ruination_ipa]

This really gets me. The SSPX never stop finding fault with the V2 Council and all of its products including the rites of the sacraments and the catechism and yet its proponents are not shy to justify their actions using another of the products of V2, the 1983 Canon Law. What is meant by "any just reason". Who decides what a just reason is? The church does. We as individuals cannot judge for ourselves what a just reason is. It is also remarkable to imagine the the Pontifical Commision of Ecclesi Dei was not aware of this canon of the law. As I have previously shown the PCED has ruled notwithstanding Canon 1335 as follows

Where in canon law does it say that the Church rules which reasons are just and which are not? It does not. This is an individual's call. You're missing the point which this canon obviously expresses which is the supreme law; the salvation of souls. The above concept is also expressed in canon 844 where permission is given to receive the sacraments from non-catholic 'churches' (ie. schismatic) where those sacraments are valid.

Can.  844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

So, either way (in or out) there is a provision for receiving the sacraments in cases of 'spiritual advantage', 'moral impossibility', or for  'any just cause'. Since you maintain the SSPX is schismatic then the above puts to rest your arguments.

Ecclesia Dei have made one concession to this namely that if the penitent is not aware of the invalidity of  the canonical status of the SSPX confessions that his sins may be absolved. However as soon as any of us read this concession we immediately become aware of the invalidity of SSPX confessions and so are morally obliged to confess our sins elsewhere where a valid sacrament can be secured.

Where does the exception due to ignorance come from? Is ignorance explicitly mentioned in canon law as an exception to the invalidity of confession from a Priest without ordinary jurisdiction? No, it's not. It comes from the canonical concept of 'common error' which John Salza does a good job of describing. You need to read the link I provided above. Seeing how viciously opposed you are to the Priests of the SSPX you can rest assured that John Salzaa is a reputable apologist who is often featured on EWTN and who is not affiliated with the SSPX in any way.

Huh? What does that mean? Is that like saying that seperated brethren are not scismatic. How can you be separated and not schismatic? As traditionalists its better to read past the modern V2 rubber language and conclude that the church definately considers the SSPX to be schismatic but are putting on diplomats hats to resolve the schism using dialogue and negotiation.

You don't see the irony of your statement? You calling the SSPX schismatic, when the Church does not. The Pope has removed the excommunications - don't continue in your bad will.

IF the SSPX was ever truly schismatic then the Church could not tell people they could fulfill their Sunday obligation there. To say otherwise would be to say that the Holy Father is condoning and furthering a schism. Furthermore, Church disciplinary law does not apply to schismatics since they are outside the Church. This being the case how can the Priests of the SSPX be 'suspended' when they are outside the Church? Simple: they are not schismatic.

It's painfully obvious that the Church cannot publicly come out and say the SSPX has supplied jurisdiction since to do so would be to admit there is a catastrophe in the Church and legitimize the claims of the SSPX -and that would burst the fantasy that we're experiencing a new springtime!

[petrelton]

This really gets me. The SSPX never stop finding fault with the V2 Council and all of its products including the rites of the sacraments and the catechism and yet its proponents are not shy to justify their actions using another of the products of V2, the 1983 Canon Law. What is meant by "any just reason". Who decides what a just reason is? The church does. We as individuals cannot judge for ourselves what a just reason is. It is also remarkable to imagine the the Pontifical Commision of Ecclesi Dei was not aware of this canon of the law. As I have previously shown the PCED has ruled notwithstanding Canon 1335 as follows

Where in canon law does it say that the Church rules which reasons are just and which are not? It does not. This is an individual's call. You're missing the point which this canon obviously expresses which is the supreme law; the salvation of souls. The above concept is also expressed in canon 844 where permission is given to receive the sacraments from non-catholic 'churches' (ie. schismatic) where those sacraments are valid.

Can.  844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

So, either way (in or out) there is a provision for receiving the sacraments in cases of 'spiritual advantage', 'moral impossibility', or for  'any just cause'. Since you maintain the SSPX is schismatic then the above puts to rest your arguments.

Your joking. On any other day the trad point to this kind of thing as being heretical innovations of Vatican 2 but they are quite happy to use these concessions to their advantage when it pleases them. Besides you are setting canon law against canon law which is inadmissable. I have already cited the specific points in canon law which directly explain that confessions performed outside the ordinary jurisdiction of the bishop are INVALID.
This Canon 844 is designed for peculiar individual situations not as endorsements for entirely new fellowships. Besides as you point out "what is ignorance",  what is "spiritual advantage", what is "moral impossibility", what is "any just cause". Who knows. Typical post V2 rubber language. Are you prepared to rest your eternal soul on the hope that you truly are completely ignorant and that you are truly acting justly and morally and to spiritual advantage. Do you really want to put your hope in your own judgement? Why would you do that when down the road at the local parish you have a confession which is CERTAINLY valid. Why would you choose a confession which MIGHT be valid provided you are truly and honestly fulfilling the requirements of Canon 844. In fact Canon 844 is simply a concession that salvation can in certain circumstances be found outside the church even amongst the Eastern schismatics. Again I point out, this is the kind of teaching that the SSPX and others rail against, but when it suits them they are happy to appeal to them. That's not the path of truth. That's hypocrisy.

As for John Salza, I have read this article. It all rests on ifs and maybes. Sorry IF and MAYBE is not good enough. I want to be certain when I go to confession that my sins are absolved. I want a  higher authority to attest that they are absolved, not be resting on John Salza maybe being right, and certainly not on my own judgement of whether I am truly acting justly and that it is truly impossible for me to go to a local parish confession.

[Ruination_ipa]

Your joking. On any other day the trad point to this kind of thing as being heretical innovations of Vatican 2 but they are quite happy to use these concessions to their advantage when it pleases them.

It's the basic and legitimate principle of fighting fire with fire.

Besides you are setting canon law against canon law which is inadmissable.

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. The canons do not contradict each other and deal with two different scenarios; one for those outside of the Church, the other for those inside. I think your main problem is that you don't want to admit the Church has made concessions, for the benefit of souls, that you don't agree with and that you don't want to see applied to the SSPX. That's quite a pharisaical attitude; demanding strict adherance to the law while souls perish.

I have already cited the specific points in canon law which directly explain that confessions performed outside the ordinary jurisdiction of the bishop are INVALID.

Generally, yes, if there was no state of necessity, no common error, doubt of law, people desiring sacraments for a just cause etc. then such confessions would be invalid. If any one of these is present then the Church supplies. This begs the following questions for you:

1. Do you acknowledge that the Church allows Priests without jurisdiction to administer sacraments that ordinarily require jurisdiction to those in danger of death?

2. In your opinion does the Church ever supply jurisdiction in cases outside of danger of death for Priests without ordinary jurisdiction?

This Canon 844 is designed for peculiar individual situations not as endorsements for entirely new fellowships.

Can you quote from canon law where it states to whom this applies to and whom it does not? There is no such distinction. Again, your are deliberately making a distinction that the code is not making in order to show your disapproval of the SSPX. If you're personally opposed to the SSPX that's fine but don't go applying whiteout all over canon law in order to make it say something it does not. There are laws and principles here that you are clearly unable to grasp so you would be wise to not comment on them - and I do not mean this in a negative or provoking fashion. As I've already stated I don't have a dog in this fight since my family and I do not confess to SSPX Priests. I'm simply maintaining that which the Church has always taught about supplied jurisdiction; that there are cases where the Church supplies faculties even outside of the danger of death and you have not recognized that even when presented with the appropriate sections of canon law. You would like to make that determination yourself and exclude groups based upon your own opinion.

Besides as you point out "what is ignorance",  what is "spiritual advantage", what is "moral impossibility", what is "any just cause". Who knows. Typical post V2 rubber language. Are you prepared to rest your eternal soul on the hope that you truly are completely ignorant and that you are truly acting justly and morally and to spiritual advantage. Do you really want to put your hope in your own judgement?

You would not do well in an occupation that requires abiding by and interpreting codes, ordinances, or laws. All of these deal with norms and likely scenarios of what generally happens in a given scenario. Not all scenarios are presented in building codes, for example, as it would be impossible to do. Sometimes judgement calls have to be made or trying to determine the intent of the law. Being in the construction industry, in a design position, there are times that if I were to abide strictly to the codes as written it would become detrimental to the occupants of the building because the scenario I'm designing to is not directly addressed by the codes. In such cases research is done and a decision is made that will prove beneficial to all parties. The code of canon law is no different.

I'm sorry if you need every definition spelled out for you and if you cannot come to any conclusion as to what "any just cause" or "spiritual advantage" means in any given situation. These are relative terms which individuals must make judgments upon after reflection. It's impossible to have a list of "just causes" or "justified spiritual advantages" that applies to every person.

Why would you do that when down the road at the local parish you have a confession which is CERTAINLY valid. Why would you choose a confession which MIGHT be valid provided you are truly and honestly fulfilling the requirements of Canon 844.

Unfortunately there are a lot of places where there is no certainty that the NO Priest will provide a valid sacrament or provide solid advice. I grew up post V2 and learned to filter out the good from the bad - even in the confessional. When my wife converted I took it for granted that all Catholics must by like me; sorting out the good from the bad, until my wife ended up receiving horrible advice in the confessional on a multitude of occasions (promoting contraception if she wanted to use it.) She was upset, confused and started to doubt Church teaching because of Priest in the confessional. I quickly realized not everyone is able to deal with things on the same level and now I won't let my wife go to certain NO Priests and I absolutely will not allow my children to confess to a NO Priest unless I personally know them and can attest to their orthodoxy. We mainly stick to FSSP for the sacraments.

The point is if people actually bought into what you are saying you would have them confess to Priests that put their very souls in danger of hell fire just because someone has a paper saying "I must be good since I'm with the Bishop and have ORDINARY jurisdiction." Meanwhile there are good solid Priests right down the road who want to see you in heaven and tell you like it is. It's certainly a double standard and a spiritual contradiction: Go to a priest who may lead me to hell but is supposedly in "union" with the Bishop or go to a Priest who will lead me to Heaven but only has supplied jurisdiction. It's a sure sign of the diabolical disorientation in the Church.

In fact Canon 844 is simply a concession that salvation can in certain circumstances be found outside the church even amongst the Eastern schismatics.

Careful with your wording there - what you said is heretical. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. IF someone is saved outside the VISIBLE confines of the Catholic Church they were saved because they were searching for the truth and were Catholic in spirit because what they sought was the Catholic Church although they did not know it by name.

[karyn_anne]

i am thinking of joining the SSPX 3rd order for the reason that i am already doing everything that i am supposed to do, including not watching TV at all (my non-Catholic family has two in the house though) and even going to daily Mass at the SSPX. I am "quite pleased" with its aims and mission, but am not completely "rah-rah" enthusiastic about it, with all of my intentions going for the conversion of sinners, my family and for reparations/thanksgiving.

So should I join it? I would very much rather join a Carmelite or Dominican 3rd order, but i do not know if there is one and they won't be as well maintained at the SSPX (for me at least), seeing that there are regular SSPX 3rd order meetings in my parish.

Also, i attend a weekly bible sharing held at a Novus Ordo Church. Some of its members know the SSPX and its priests for the past couple of years, but do not attend its Masses. The rest are just good Catholics attending the Novus Ordo.  Its pretty orthodox though, and we meet only to read Scripture and share on how we can apply its lessons to our lives (not a doctrinal interpretation of the Bible of course). Will this contradict the aims of the 3rd order?

So...should i consider joining the SSPX 3rd order?