SSPV

[acatholiclife]

I'm not SSPV but I'd much rather go to their chapels than to the NO.

[Virgil the Roman]

I'm not SSPV but I'd much rather go to their chapels than to the NO.

Same. I'm a "Pan-traditionalist"/"Pan-Trad" in the sense, that I'd go to wherever the Latin Mass is said; be it: FSSP, ICKSP, SSPX, SSPV, or Independent.

[newyorkcatholic]

Eh, actually I haven't read it. It might be terrible!

But given that I agree with a lot of our friend's stances, it's probably a worthy enough read. I'm not a sed but I hold sedevacantist sympathies, given how frustrating BXVI's pontificate has been for Traditionalist Catholics thus far.

I'm jumping into this discussion late but ... isn't what you describe a trap.  I don't think this pope, so maybe he's not the pope?  That's not a good argument.

I would love to see someone (of the millions) who likes Pope Benedict XVI to be convinced by objective arguments that he's not the real Pope ... haven't seen it happen! 

On the other hand, I have definitely known countless people who don't like him but accept the obvious argument that he is the current validly reigning Pope.

[crusaderfortruth3372]

I'm not SSPV but I'd much rather go to their chapels than to the NO.

Same, but if I go I can't receive as normally attend the FSSP... So I would humbly abide by their rules!

[INPEFESS]

Father, this thread is getting very long and the points are getting obscured and scattered (largely my fault), so here is a summary of the different elements that constitute this policy:

The premise for your argument hinges on a misinterpretation of Canon 853. This misinterpretation is effected by restricting the prohibition of the canon to only violations of a specific law, a law which you say must state that a violating person must be denied communion. But this is an extrapolation of the law because the law does not say this.

1. Canon 853 grants a right to all Catholics to receive Holy Communion unless prohibited by law:

"Quilibet baptizatus qui iure non prohibetur, admitti potest et debet ad sacram communionem.”

This means that a Catholic has the right to receive Holy Communion unless he is prohibited by way or means of law. The law only has to prohibit his reception of communion. The recipient doesn't have to break a law that carries a specific penalty of "no communion". This is why I believe your argument is a strawman. See below...

2. To give public assent of belief to doubtful sacraments, which are legally to be considered not sacraments at all, via public participation in them gives serious public scandal and is a serious matter. But I'll let you explain how serious it actually is: 

"It is not permissible in the administration and reception of sacraments to follow a mere probable opinion about validity. To do so is a mortal sin against religion, charity and (for the minister) against justice. Further, this would hold all the more true regarding the administration of Holy Orders, because of the irreparable harm — invalid Masses, absolutions and Last Rites — that would result from its invalidity.  One could therefore neither confer nor receive Orders based on an opinion…” (Rev. Anthony Cekada, Absolutely Null and Utterly Void [2006] p. 11.)

3. (a) Public scandal (by sufficient reflection and full consent of the will to participate in something of a seriously scandalous nature) is mortally sinful.

4. (b) Mortal sin makes one unworthy to receive the Eucharist.

5. Public mortal sin, especially when committed as a matter of routine and when the individual refuses to acknowledge that there is even a problem, renders one (a) publicly (b) unworthy.

6. Canon 855 prohibits priests from distributing communion to the publicly unworthy:

"Arcendi sunt ab Eucharistia publice indigni, quales sunt excommunicati, interdicti manifestoque infames, nisi de eorum poenitentia et emendatione constet et publico scandalo prius satisfecerint."

7. The fact that the law itself prohibits priests from distributing Communion to those who are publicly unworthy to receive Communion prohibits these person by law from receiving Communion because one cannot lawfully receive Communion if It is not lawful to distribute It to him in the first place. The unlawfulness of the distribution would be the "prohibition by law" mentioned in Canon 853.

These persons are prohibited from lawfully receiving Communion by the very law that prohibits priests from distributing It to them because a person can't lawfully receive Communion from priests who are obliged by law not to distribute It to him.

So, since the priest can't lawfully distribute Communion to them (855), the parishioner can't lawfully receive communion (853).

This is a prohibition by means of law in accordance with Canon 853.

[damooster]

Quick question/statement:

There's no doubt regarding the validity of Fr. Cekada's ordination, so why does the SSPV prohibit those that assist at his Mass from receiving Holy Communion? Is it because Bishop Dolan was consecrated by a Thuc-line bishop?

[INPEFESS]

Quick question/statement:

There's no doubt regarding the validity of Fr. Cekada's ordination, so why does the SSPV prohibit those that assist at his Mass from receiving Holy Communion? Is it because Bishop Dolan was consecrated by a Thuc-line bishop?

Sure. This has been answered, but I will answer it again.

The canonical rule enforced by the SSPV that involves refusing Communion to those persons to whom the law forbids distribution of Communion concerns those who are known to publicly frequent doubtful sacraments or worship at Masses that distribute doubtful sacraments (which, according to basic sacramental theology, means invalid sacraments).

How would periodically attending Fr. Cekada's Mass null the ongoing routine scandal in which the same person regularly participates while at other Masses?

A public heretic could (by way of example) go to Fr. Cekada's Mass and then come to the SSPV (or the SSPX for that matter). The fact that he went to Father's Mass first would have nothing to do with the SSPV refusing him communion.

See here for a more complete explanation.

[OldMan]

Quick question/statement:

There's no doubt regarding the validity of Fr. Cekada's ordination, so why does the SSPV prohibit those that assist at his Mass from receiving Holy Communion? Is it because Bishop Dolan was consecrated by a Thuc-line bishop?

Sure. This has been answered, but I will answer it again.

The canonical rule enforced by the SSPV that involves refusing Communion to those persons to whom the law forbids distribution of Communion concerns those who are known to publicly frequent doubtful sacraments or worship at Masses that distribute doubtful sacraments (which, according to basic sacramental theology, means invalid sacraments).

How would periodically attending Fr. Cekada's Mass null the ongoing routine scandal in which the same person regularly participates while at other Masses?

A public heretic could (by way of example) go to Fr. Cekada's Mass and then come to the SSPV (or the SSPX for that matter). The fact that he went to Father's Mass first would have nothing to do with the SSPV refusing him communion.

See here for a more complete explanation.

The only scandal is the PHARISAICAL SCANDAL concocted by the SSPV and its ignorant apologists.

[vakarian]

Eh, actually I haven't read it. It might be terrible!

But given that I agree with a lot of our friend's stances, it's probably a worthy enough read. I'm not a sed but I hold sedevacantist sympathies, given how frustrating BXVI's pontificate has been for Traditionalist Catholics thus far.

I'm jumping into this discussion late but ... isn't what you describe a trap.  I don't think this pope, so maybe he's not the pope?  That's not a good argument.

On the other hand, I have definitely known countless people who don't like him but accept the obvious argument that he is the current validly reigning Pope.

I'm one of those people.

[vakarian]

Eh, actually I haven't read it. It might be terrible!

But given that I agree with a lot of our friend's stances, it's probably a worthy enough read. I'm not a sed but I hold sedevacantist sympathies, given how frustrating BXVI's pontificate has been for Traditionalist Catholics thus far.

I'm jumping into this discussion late but ... isn't what you describe a trap.  I don't think this pope, so maybe he's not the pope?  That's not a good argument.

I would love to see someone (of the millions) who likes Pope Benedict XVI to be convinced by objective arguments that he's not the real Pope ... haven't seen it happen! 

On the other hand, I have definitely known countless people who don't like him but accept the obvious argument that he is the current validly reigning Pope.

I agree with you when you say "I don't think this pope, so maybe he's not the pope?  That's not a good argument." However, though I don't take their position, I do sympathise with those who don't think he's the pope.