ies0716
Just Catholic
Member
Gender: 
Location: Minnesota
Personality type: INTJ - Melancholic-choleric
Posts: 555
|
|
« Reply #10 on: November 26, 2010, 10:50:AM » |
|
From a practical perspective, Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has stated that a Catholic can fulfill his Sunday obligation and not incur any sin by attending Mass at an SSPX chapel. When it comes to Confessions and Marriages, there are questions about validity and jurisdiction. SSPX believes that these two sacraments are valid due to a principle called "supplied jurisdiction." Others make the claim that because of the lack of jurisdiction, SSPX confessions and marriages are invalid. Recent revelations have come out from the Vatican, however, that makes it appear that the Pope does believe them to be valid. I believe there was a thread about that a few weeks ago.
My personal position is that I have no problem attending SSPX Masses but I personally won't go to confession with SSPX priests because I am unsure about the jurisdiction issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." - Matthew 16:18
|
|
|
JayneK
Gold Fish
Gender: 
Personality type: INTJ
Posts: 14,590
|
|
« Reply #11 on: November 26, 2010, 12:08:PM » |
|
However, in the meantime, I have noticed a post in a topic near this on the same subforum where someone talks about having attended TLMs and would attend a SSPX chapel if it were closer to their home. How can a Roman Catholic receive Communion at TLM and SSPX?
If the SSPX is operating without jurisdiction, isn't that akin to Protestantism?
I would struggle to go back to NO Masses as I feel so ingrained in EF, so maybe some Catholics just feel desperate for tradition and would rather risk going to SSPX chapel than post Vatican II with all its altar girls and lack of reverence?
When I attend Mass at an SSPX chapel, in recognition of the problems with their canonical status, I do not receive Communion. But I know that it is a Catholic Mass, the priest a holy man and the people there devout Catholics. It is a blessing and privilege whenever I go. Under other circumstances (for example, if this were the only TLM to which I had access) I might do things differently. There has been official permission from the Vatican for Catholics to attend Mass at SSPX chapels if they do so out of attachment to the TLM and not as rejection of Church authority. The SSPX is not akin to Protestantism. They are Catholics, good Catholics, with irregular canonical status. I hope that your reading will help you to find greater value in their contributions to the Church. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ADORABLE Saviour, consider my many wants, and grant me those graces which Thou knowest I stand in need of to do Thy will in all things.
|
|
|
Bakuryokuso
Eh
Member
Gender:
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 5,935
The gentleman in question
|
|
« Reply #12 on: November 26, 2010, 01:53:PM » |
|
Heya Odette - +Lefebvre was excommunicated by JPII along with the four bishops he consecrated (including +Fellay and +Williamson) but B16 lifted these excommunications.
The way I see it, B16's motu proprio Summorum Pontificum gives every Roman rite priest the right to use the 1962 Missal and 1962 Breviary. So no SSPX priests are excommunicated anymore... they have a right to offer the mass according to the 1962 form. So I plan to go to my local SSPX chapel for the 3rd time tonight. It totally rocks.
Frankly I have no clue how the SSPX and Rome are going to patch up their differences and solve the problem of canonical irregularity. We'll have to pray and see. So until that happens, I doubt that I would ever attend an SSPX chapel as "my" parish. Currently I'm seriously considering switching from an NO Basilica to the diocesan TLM.
You'll have to read thru the SSPX links given earlier in the thread and feel free to read FE or ask questions in the forum if anything is unclear to you. A lot of the arguments hinge on pretty specific arguments and theories about V2, the way the NO mass way promulgated, etc. I don't agree with every conclusion that the SSPX comes to... for instance, they are skeptical of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and various canonizations done after V2.
But when it comes right down to it, an SSPX mass is HEAVENLY - totally blows your typical NO out of the water. I mean, it's really hard to argue with the beauty and sanctity of the 1962 mass vs Pope Paul's fiasco. So I want to encourage my local SSPX and diocesan mass.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I suppose the greatest reform of our time was that carried out by St Pius X: surpassing anything, however needed, that the Council will achieve." -- JRR Tolkien, letter to his son Michael, 1 November 1963
|
|
|
Odette
Member
Gender:
Location: England
Posts: 57
|
|
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2010, 02:40:PM » |
|
But when it comes right down to it, an SSPX mass is HEAVENLY - totally blows your typical NO out of the water. I mean, it's really hard to argue with the beauty and sanctity of the 1962 mass vs Pope Paul's fiasco. So I want to encourage my local SSPX and diocesan mass.
I'm sure I would prefer an SSPX service to NO any day in terms of how comfortable I feel praying and how the Mass is said, but maybe not recceiving communion. It's such a sad shame that, especially in my area, TLM is seen as elitist and undesirable by a lot of Catholics, but if current Parish changed course and didn't offer TLM which could very well happen in the future, then I would feel in such a dilema as the NO is so distracting for me. Perhaps other Catholics feel there is an uncertainty to the future of TLM, as in if a parish priest dies, the following priest isn't obliged to offer a TLM? There is quite a bit of hostility towards traditionalism in some priests/parishes round here, I've heard before. Sorry, that's just ended up as a NO rant! As I'm getting married next year I would love to think that any children of mine, God willing, would be able to receive traditional sacraments, I suppose being engaged has made me assess so much of my faith in a way I haven't experienced before....  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for me, a poor sinner."
Last words of Bernadette Soubirous
|
|
|
JMartyr
Member
Gender:
Posts: 1,619
|
|
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2010, 07:39:PM » |
|
He was told all would be well with Rome if he would say one NO mass. Shouldn't this this tell us all something?
 Can you spell it out for the daft among us? To be honest, it was five in the morning when I wrote this and I am not sure what the heck I was trying to say.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
" When I think that we are in the building of the Holy Office, the outstanding witness of Tradition and defender of the Catholic Faith, I cannot help thinking that I am on my own territory and that it is I whom you call ' the traditionalist' who should be judging you." - quote from Archbishop Lefebvre when questioned by the CDF
"Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer are the two great saints of the modern Church. Once this catastrophe ends they will be instantly canonized." - Father Malachi Martin
|
|
|
|
|
JMartyr
Member
Gender:
Posts: 1,619
|
|
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2010, 07:47:PM » |
|
If the Church wasn't going through a crisis, do you think the Pope would have allowed the Archbishop to consecrate bishops. Of course he would have. He trained priests as he always had. Suddenly through a pastoral council, the church is turned upside down. We have all seen the fruits. It is right and holy to resist changes within the church that diminish the faith.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
" When I think that we are in the building of the Holy Office, the outstanding witness of Tradition and defender of the Catholic Faith, I cannot help thinking that I am on my own territory and that it is I whom you call ' the traditionalist' who should be judging you." - quote from Archbishop Lefebvre when questioned by the CDF
"Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer are the two great saints of the modern Church. Once this catastrophe ends they will be instantly canonized." - Father Malachi Martin
|
|
|
JMartyr
Member
Gender:
Posts: 1,619
|
|
« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2010, 08:12:PM » |
|
However, in the meantime, I have noticed a post in a topic near this on the same subforum where someone talks about having attended TLMs and would attend a SSPX chapel if it were closer to their home. How can a Roman Catholic receive Communion at TLM and SSPX?
If the SSPX is operating without jurisdiction, isn't that akin to Protestantism?
I would struggle to go back to NO Masses as I feel so ingrained in EF, so maybe some Catholics just feel desperate for tradition and would rather risk going to SSPX chapel than post Vatican II with all its altar girls and lack of reverence?
When I attend Mass at an SSPX chapel, in recognition of the problems with their canonical status, I do not receive Communion. But I know that it is a Catholic Mass, the priest a holy man and the people there devout Catholics. It is a blessing and privilege whenever I go. Under other circumstances (for example, if this were the only TLM to which I had access) I might do things differently. There has been official permission from the Vatican for Catholics to attend Mass at SSPX chapels if they do so out of attachment to the TLM and not as rejection of Church authority. The SSPX is not akin to Protestantism. They are Catholics, good Catholics, with irregular canonical status. I hope that your reading will help you to find greater value in their contributions to the Church. Wouldn't Rome be obliged to tell people that they should not receive communion at a SSPX mass if they gave permission to go? They must assume that people will. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
" When I think that we are in the building of the Holy Office, the outstanding witness of Tradition and defender of the Catholic Faith, I cannot help thinking that I am on my own territory and that it is I whom you call ' the traditionalist' who should be judging you." - quote from Archbishop Lefebvre when questioned by the CDF
"Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer are the two great saints of the modern Church. Once this catastrophe ends they will be instantly canonized." - Father Malachi Martin
|
|
|
JayneK
Gold Fish
Gender:
Personality type: INTJ
Posts: 14,590
|
|
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2010, 08:39:PM » |
|
However, in the meantime, I have noticed a post in a topic near this on the same subforum where someone talks about having attended TLMs and would attend a SSPX chapel if it were closer to their home. How can a Roman Catholic receive Communion at TLM and SSPX?
If the SSPX is operating without jurisdiction, isn't that akin to Protestantism?
I would struggle to go back to NO Masses as I feel so ingrained in EF, so maybe some Catholics just feel desperate for tradition and would rather risk going to SSPX chapel than post Vatican II with all its altar girls and lack of reverence?
When I attend Mass at an SSPX chapel, in recognition of the problems with their canonical status, I do not receive Communion. But I know that it is a Catholic Mass, the priest a holy man and the people there devout Catholics. It is a blessing and privilege whenever I go. Under other circumstances (for example, if this were the only TLM to which I had access) I might do things differently. There has been official permission from the Vatican for Catholics to attend Mass at SSPX chapels if they do so out of attachment to the TLM and not as rejection of Church authority. The SSPX is not akin to Protestantism. They are Catholics, good Catholics, with irregular canonical status. I hope that your reading will help you to find greater value in their contributions to the Church. Wouldn't Rome be obliged to tell people that they should not receive communion at a SSPX mass if they gave permission to go? They must assume that people will. That's how I understand it. My personal practice is based on my own situation, rather than a general principle that Catholics should not receive Communion at SSPX chapels. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ADORABLE Saviour, consider my many wants, and grant me those graces which Thou knowest I stand in need of to do Thy will in all things.
|
|
|
paragon
paraGone
Member
Gender:
Posts: 1,164
|
|
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2010, 01:17:AM » |
|
If the Church wasn't going through a crisis, do you think the Pope would have allowed the Archbishop to consecrate bishops. Of course he would have. You base your position on an assumption? What principle of Catholicism permits you to second-guess the man you consider to be the pope? He trained priests as he always had. Suddenly through a pastoral council, the church is turned upside down. We have all seen the fruits. It is right and holy to resist changes within the church that diminish the faith. Again, on what principle of Catholicism do you base disobedience to the man you consider the lawful head of Christ's church? I hear these arguments all the time from SSPX adherents but I'm yet to hear anything based solidly on identified Catholic principles rather than just based on the adherent's own logical reasoning. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
INPEFESS
Please remember me in your rosary intentions.
Member
Gender:
Personality type: Mostly melancholic
Posts: 10,860
† "If anyone love Me, he will keep My word." †
|
|
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2010, 01:27:AM » |
|
Whatever you do, never compromise the True Faith.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I n N omine P atris, E t F ilii, E t S piritus S ancti "The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative magisterium" (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, no. 9, June 29, 1896). “Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time” (2 Peter 1:10).
|
|
|
|
