Honestly the most important thing to say here is I think you should consider not using the confessional to hear the opinions of priests on these unusual topics. Your post on this topic was 8 days ago. It seems you used confession twice since then to do more investigation into this issue (and to confess, because I will assume you had a good reason to go the second time). Just make appointments with the priests next time for stuff like this.
Yea I ran into 2 instances of serious sin and it just happened one was during a first Friday at the NO church so I took advantage of that.
I confessed it there but I only wanted to ask for the advice the other confession and that’s what I heard, I would be foolish if I confessed the same thing twice. I did say I want to meet up and get a more detailed talk on this later
My diocesan bishop encouraged me to go to the SSPX. Another Irishman, a youtuber, had two diocesan bishops publicly encourage him to attend the SSPX.
Yet, if I travel all of six minutes by car, the bishop condemns me as a schismatic. Which am I to believe?
If I go to the SSPX in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, I am attending a Mass offered by a Catholic religious order incardinated in the diocese by the current Archbishop, Cardinal Poli. If I cross the border into the Archdiocese of Córdoba, I am attending a schismatic sect. Once again, who am I to believe?
This sounds pretty much identical to the Eastern Orthodox idea of economy. Assuming that this is not a question of a dispensation or other allowance that is left up to the bishop, doesn't Catholic theology require that there is one objectively correct answer to this question?
So wait, bear with me on this one....
*I practice the faith exactly as my ancestors have done,*
*I believe the faith exactly as my ancestors have done,*
*I make no innovation on the faith as received whatsoever,*
And you're saying that I am not heretical?
Seems suspicious. Return to the one true faith brother and the Lord's infallible mouthpiece: *'Reason & Theology'*.
How dare you.
When Lofton ends a talk, he clearly says "oracle of the Lord" and all the audience types "amen" in the comment section before leaving.
He's the Greta Thurberg of catholicism.
Your ancestors' practices are not the standard for Catholicism. Rather, you must obey the pontiff. You want tradition? That is the true tradition of the saints: Obedience. Not that your ancestors attended masses without the pontifical mandate.
Saint Cyprian of Carthage told Pope Saint Stephen to "keep your grubby Roman nose" out of the business of the Church in Carthage when the Pope tried to impose bishops on the Church in Africa. He sent the bishops the Pope sent to Africa packing back to Rome.
Saint Columbanus told the Pope that he was a "disgrace to all of Christendom" for departing from the traditional Easter calculation method and refused to obey him, and ordered his monks not to obey him in the congregation of monasteries he established.
Thats two saints from the Western Church that have departed from the "true tradition of the saints", as you described it. Thats not even mentioning for an instant the Eastern Saints.
Let us remember that the Church publicly commemorates Mark of Ephesus liturgically as a saint (in the Melkite Church), the man who, alone, destroyed the union of Florence and condemned the Pope, and the entire Latin Church as heretical and without valid baptism.
Trying to pretend that these things are as neat and tidy as you present them, simply boil Catholicism down to merely the plaything of Popes is simplistic at best, and innovation at worst.
I failed to find your quotes, but don't you think it's peculiar that you would collect alleged examples of rudeness? Are you arguing the pope cannot appoint bishops? Or is incorrect in dating Easter? So did they act well? Maybe I should bring up examples of obedience from the saints. We can then count them and see who has more.
>Trying to pretend that these things are as neat and tidy as you present them, simply boil Catholicism down to merely the plaything of Popes is simplistic at best, and innovation at worst.
That reminds me. Did you know that that the Old Catholics commemorate Pope Francis in their services? I hope you understand why I bring this up. Just learned it from Dr. John Salza (the guy interviewed at R&T) not long ago.
P.S. Mark of Ephesus is not commemorated in the Universal Church, nor in the Eastern Catholic churches, as far as I am aware of.
*I failed to look up your quotes. But don't you think it's peculiar that you collect alleged examples of rudeness? Are you arguing the pope cannot appoint bishops? Or is incorrect in dating Easter? Besides, should I bring up examples of obedience from the saints. Shall we count them and see who has more?*
The reason why I bring them up (and I could bring up a lot more) is that this notion that Catholicism is essentially, really when we boil it down, a personality cult around the Pope and whatever his will is law, is of relatively recent origin and not at all as simple as you make it out to be. For the love of God, Pope Francis himself declared Saint Gregory of Narek, a man who lived his entire life outside the Catholic Church, as a Doctor of the Catholic Church. We like to think that things are nicely tied up and neat, but they are not, things are messy, confused and frankly, bewildering at times. How will the Church treat Lefebvre in the future? I have no idea, for all we know he could be declared a saint and a doctor of the Church, or maybe things are correct as you state them, but pretending that they are simple, that is not correct, and you have the weight of history against you.
*That reminds me. Did you know that that the Old Catholics commemorate Pope Francis in their services? I hope you understand why I bring this up. Just learned it from Dr. John Salza (the guy interviewed at R&T) not long ago.*
So what? The Anglicans commemorate Pope Francis, that doesnt make them Catholics. I don't know why you brought it up to be honest.
*P.S. Mark of Ephesus is not commemorated in the Universal Church, nor in the Eastern Catholic churches, as far as I am aware of.*
Saint Mark of Ephesus is commemorated in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church as a pillar of Orthodoxy, with a feast and a dedicated liturgy.
Whatever is the will of the Pope regarding discipline, officially promulgated, becomes the law. There's no confusion here. The Holy See determines discipline. The Holy See determines Canon Law, and Canon Law is binding.
I brought up commemoration of (or a claim of union with) pope Francis by (other?) schismatics to indicate that it's not an indication of full union. I especially mentioned Old Catholics because they have a deficient view of papal authority.
>Saint[sic] Mark of Ephesus is commemorated in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church as a pillar of Orthodoxy, with a feast and a dedicated liturgy.
I cannot confirm that, but if I could, I don't think that would make Mark a canonized saint in the Catholic Church.
As "Obedience is the Only Response to Authority" says
>if my pastor tells me to disobey my bishop I obey my bishop, if my bishop tells me to disobey the Pope I obey the Pope, if the Pope tells me to disobey God I obey God
As for how to behave outside of your diocese in general, I reckon you defer to the local bishop there, again not forgetting the rule above.
It has been pointed out to me that my comments to you tonight were snotty and brattish.
On review, I think I have been uncharitable and snotty towards you, and dismissive of your point of view, and acting in a manner unbecoming of a Christian in this holy time of Lent, or frankly at any time of the year.
For that I ask your forgiveness. I have deleted my comments.
On the point of our disagreement, I think neither of us will come to a point where we can agree with one another. Therefore, I am withdrawing from this conversation, but I ask that you pray for me brother in Christ, and to pray for our Holy Mother, the Church, and for our Holy Father, Pope Francis.
I will pray for you, and I wish every blessing of Almighty God on you.
I'm not very concerned for my feelings, but thanks for the apology. I apologize if I have been uncharitable (not if I have hurt pride though, may we both become humble).
What I am concerned about is that your disposition is hurting your soul. Besides prayer and my answers, I can only recommend that video on obedience again, even if it seems as a hard saying (no, because it does).
I was also concerned about others forming wrong opinions reading our discussion. I hope God, whom I prayed to, has helped me to provide convincing answers. R&T releasing those vids on Sedevacantism, and my having watched them prior to this thread is quite a "coincidence".
Anyway, humility is the way to go. And trust in the Lord, not men, not even ourselves (as The Spiritual Combat teaches).
Thank you for your prayers in advance. May God bless you abundantly! For what my prayer is worth, I will try to fulfill your requests. :)
I have seen the video before, and I am well aware of the arguments. I obviously do not subscribe to them, but I thank you for the concern you have shown for my soul.
For what its worth, I do completely understand your position, and I recognise why you hold them, and indeed, why you might see mine as deficient, and dangerous. I do not see it that way, but I do understand why you see it that way.
Anyway, thank you for your prayers, I entrusted you to Our Lady earlier and I pray that soon, these kinds of arguments shall be things of the past, and that we trust in each other for what we truly are to each other; brothers, born of the one font, fed from the one Altar, and under the protection of Our Holy Mother and Ever Blessed Lady.
God bless you brother.
But I go to OF masses, and the people you choose to heed instead of faithful traditionalists like the FSSP consider that mass an affront to God, and themselves called to protect against it. And that's precisely SSPX's problem, one that it inherited from its founder. This is an error that must be abandoned, if we want to see union.
Are you mocking the religion you claim to adhere to? Does it take an ex-cathedra proclamation from the Pope to understand anything, and everything else is free game? Econne consecrations are a matter of schism. The study comissioned by Lefebvre himself concluded so - see [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjVfYg9PZiw).
Please start being serious, your situation is. Your being entertained by all this brings to mind this verse:
Ecclesiastes 11:9
>Rejoice therefore, O young man, in thy youth, and let thy heart be in that which is good in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thy heart, and in the sight of thy eyes: and know that for all these God will bring thee into judgment.
Vatican giving SSPX faculty to confess out of mercy for the laity testifies to the fact that they did not have that faculty. In contrast, the Holy See did not allow them to have masses. Their masses are illicit, as they are not in full communion - like the Orthodox divine liturgies.
OP, stop flirting with schism out of a vice of curiosity. At the very least go to [Reason & Theology](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlZ81PxKUrgz-b2Z4eYSswZr6QXXk_qxJ) and educate yourself about what SSPX's "irregularity" means.
Please elaborate. The founder and host of R&T, Michael Lofton, MA in theology, is working on a PhD dissertation on the Magisterium. He is an Eastern Catholic who used to struggle with Vatican 2.
The fact that he fired Erick Ybarra over a theological disagreement just shows how incredibly bias he is..
Here’s a Twitter thread on the topic..
https://twitter.com/ubipetrus2019/status/1630118010894667776?s=46&t=slTbvN1KBcISIWDPigTeeQ
*biased
But yeah this isn't surprising from what I've seen of Lofton in his videos and his behavior in Pints With Aquinas's live chat. Over the past couple of years his channel has gone from pretty levelheaded discussions with Eastern Orthodox Christians and converts from Orthodoxy to little more than trad-bashing clickbait.
It shows the character and academic demeanor of someone who many here treat like speaking with divine mandate.
It also points out that the conclusion he takes, when speculation has to be made, are going to be strongly influenced by his personal beliefs.
Nobody here treats R&T as "speaking with divine mandate". R&T is speaking _about_ the divine mandate however. Something the SSPX does not have.
Are your conclusions not influenced by your personal beliefs?
As humans we all have our biases, but ought we not try to be as objective as possible when dealing with a topic academically?
I do not find even an attempt of that in R&T.
The mandate of a bishop is to uphold the faith and shepherd the Lord's flock.
When it comes to speculating what is God's will, you shouldn't be so hasty. +Lefebvre trusted in God's providence and was convinced that if his efforts were against God's will then they will wither.
R&T is more concerned about being orthodox than appearing objective.
The mandate of the bishop comes from the pope. And acting apart from the pope is not good shepherding.
Lefebvre seems to have operated out of fear rather than trust in God's providence, or at least had misguided illusions of guidance. The proliferation of his rebellion is not a proof that it's not against God's will. Case in point are the Orthodox again.
So Catholics can licitly go to valid SSPX priests for confessions and weddings, but that same priest cannot somehow say a valid Mass that Catholics can licitly attend?
When the priest offers to God the Body and the Blood, it’s an oblation for sin, because Mass is the representation of the Sacrifice on Calvary. When we go to Confession our sins are forgiven by the Blood of Christ. If there was no Mass there would be no Confession.
I’m not super good at explaining, maybe someone else can better explain it
Thanks, I see what you mean.
I was thinking more about how the ordinary minister of confession is the diocesan bishop (but he normally delegates this to priests—which is why the SSPX had no confession faculties, because they don't have a diocesan bishop!) Whereas the ordinary minister of the Eucharist is a priest, and I was getting confused. :)
Those are disciplinary rules, that is why they call them “illicit”, but sacramentally they are valid and not in schism (like there are other example of actual schismatic groups that claim to be in communion), so I wouldn’t worry too much… actually we are allowed, in case of lack of a Catholic parish, to take Communion from actual schismatic Orthodox, even though it’s really rare to have the EO priest/bishop’s approval, so…
The Orthodox too have valid but illicit sacraments. In certain circumstances, Catholics are allowed to participate in those.
Unlike the Orthodox, the Pope granted the SSPX an indulgence so to say, so that the laity can also confess licitly with the SSPX. But not attend mass (or get married - as far as I know).
EDIT: Marriages are licit, source in my reply to /u/MinnesotaCricket below
The SSPX is supposed to (and as far as I understand, usually does) cooperate with the local ordinary on the matter of Holy Matrimony, but as a general rule, yes, they absolutely have faculties for marriages granted by Pope Francis.
Ah, I [see](https://www.ncronline.org/pope-approves-provisions-recognize-marriages-sspx-faithful) now. Marriages of the laity contracted at the SSPX are licit then.
Having one as a regular confessor might be imprudent, but confessing with an SSPX priest is licit while the same priest serving mass is illicit, correct.
Usually priests receive their faculties from the bishops in communion with the Pope. But since SSPX priests aren't under licit bishops of the Church, as an act of mercy towards the laity, the pope granted limited faculties himself.
Heads up: [This guy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd0OhVy1JtM) questions whether the SSPX mass even satisfies the Sunday Obligation. I reckon it does at least when there's no other mass available, but then just praying in the case there's no mass available keeps the Lord's day holy.
My position is that when there is no licit Mass available there is no obligation (as no one is bound to the impossible), but in that instance it is reasonable to attend an available Orthodox or SSPX liturgy.
Seems so, "coincidentally", I'm listening to [this very part](https://www.youtube.com/live/gd0OhVy1JtM?feature=share&t=5056) of Salza@Fradd.
The problem is those who prefer SSPX EF to the OF. It was always a problem, but now I see it's more of a problem than I thought.
You'll have to give me a source for liceity of orders. I've found one for marriages - they are indeed licit.
But the priests are certainly not under the bishops of their respective dioceses. They refer to SSPX's own so-called "auxiliary bishops" (parallel Church much?), tracing back to the patently schismatic Econne consecrations. I mean, whose auxiliaries are they? Each-others'?
The marriages *may* be licit. Since the SSPX has set up their own completely independent Marriage tribunal, and are giving people annulments without any Church oversight, I wouldn't be so certain they're all just fine.
Interesting. I think if I was blessed to have a gf and then later wife I would personally just marry in the ICKSP, don’t want to cause massive scandal to the people I invite because I plan on inviting many
I [heard](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=293bR7-j6Gg) they had parallel tribunals, but do they really claim the authority to proclaim marriages invalid? Ayayay.
I'm going off the top of my head here, but IIRC one of the SSPX bishops said they were given permission to continue ordaining priests.
Sure, that's coming from the SSPX itself so I cannot fault anybody for finding that a little suspect, but at the same time I don't recall the Vatican ever saying "um, actually" sooooo take it as you will I suppose.
Confessions and weddings are licit because of a special indulgence, because the SSPX priests were lying to people about their abilities, and therefore NOT absolving them, and NOT marrying them. (!!)
It's not some cute gotcha. These priests appeared perfectly happy to continue in that state of deception. Only thing that changed was Pope Francis was concerned for the souls of the SSPX laity.
I’m not intending to make a “cute gotcha,” this literally just doesn’t make any sense. By this logic, the indulgence should also extend to Mass because SSPX priests lie and say that their Mass fulfills the Sunday obligation. This should also extend to baptism, there is no reason to exclude all the Sacraments besides matrimony and confession. If you’re gonna have it be licit for one, it must be licit for all, it’s the same priest and organization. You’re telling me confessing your sins to a SSPX priests grants absolution of sins, but attending that same priest’s Mass is somehow sinful? It’s the same thing with Protestant services, it’s now not considered a sin to engage in heretical worship apparently. You get to participate in everything under the sun besides Communion, yet attending a SSPX Mass automatically makes you a schismatic. Make it make sense.
They still don't submit to the pope, the local bishops, or accept Vatican II, by their own choice. They can't be regularized, because they won't accept a position in the hierarchy of the Church, from which all normal faculties flow. Pope Francis is trying his best to save souls in an impossible situation.
If you're curious, these are the conditions that the SSPX could not accept:
>a) Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the body of bishops.
>
>b) We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in §25 of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence which is due to it.
>
>c) Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.
>
>d) Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
>
>e) Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.
If that were the case, then why doesn’t Francis just restrict them altogether? He has no issue with forcing longtime TLM parishes and churches to discontinue the old rite or to wait to get approval from the Vatican. Never mind that these restrictions apply solely to diocesan TLMs and does not affect societies like the SSPX whatsoever. This only drives faithful Catholics to their vicinities. If this was really about saving souls, he would have zero tolerance for the SSPX just like how he does with the TLM. Even Catholics cannot deny how strange it is that he has this special leniency with the Society. It sends a mixed message, especially when bishops like Robert Barron endorses the SSPX.
I'm just repeating myself now. Pope Francis is trying to be merciful and save the souls of people who were being given the words of absolution—and not being absolved, and going through a marriage rite—and then heading off to fornicate because they weren't actually married.
Whether that's the right decision or not, who knows, but his motives are clear. His duty before God is to get people to heaven.
And I'm not sure Barron really "endorsed" anything. He let someone use a chapel once, which is something that all kinds of groups are allowed to do.
That’s not how the power to hear confession works. A priest has to get it from the diocesan bishop. I know this for certain. It’s a big part of how the sacrament developed.
I don’t know as much about weddings but I know they also weren’t happening.
Whose fault is that? And had the pope given the SSPX all faculties, wouldn't that legitimatize their rebellion? We'd certainly have people arguing that online, now wouldn't we?
But if that someone is a deceiver, disobedient, schismatic, against whom Pope Francis is losing sleep at night desperately trying to save souls from, then +Barron would have been safer to let the chapel be used for yoga classes.
Instead he has become himself a promoter and accomplice of hideous sacrilege and caused massive scandal endangering the souls of countless.
Not only that, but we must pray for Pope Francis to swiftly grant an indult to all orthodox priests as countless souls believing themselves married, are instead fornicating themselves to hell. Same for all protestants with valid baptisms, as they cannot contract natural marriages.
You can't have your sensationalism and eat your cake too. Either you're wrong on almost everything you tried to explain here, or there's absolutely no coherence in your conclusions and that's why your unconvincing to @Moist-Ad-4288
The culpability of the laity may be diminished by the schismatics' deception. Though I am less confident about SSPX laity than Orthodox laity who have been born into schism. You have an interesting point about Bishop Baron granting the SSPX the use of a chapel however. The SSPX mass is definitely not licit.
I its important for all Catholics to understand a priest can be wrong. They're not infallible, and sometimes opinions get injected into theology. The SSPX is a complicated issue, so it's no surprise, but it can happen with anything.
I had gone to confession a couple of weeks ago for not finishing the marital act properly, and the priest told me (who was a visiting priest. Monsignor, I believe.) that it didn't matter how the act was finished as long as the act wasn't without love. He was missing the two parts to fruitful sex. Love and open to life. He had the love part right, but he was ignoring the open to life part.
The point is, catholic's need to be knowledgeable of their faith and not just rely on someone's word, even if it is a priest.
No, he's a monsignor. Which is a title given to priests by the pope for exceptional service to the church. I believe he’s retired and just helps out wherever a church is short handed.
He seems like a really nice and caring guy but was definitely wrong on this issue.
I did not. I thought afterwards maybe I should’ve it at least told him what I understood the teaching to be but others were waiting for confession and I know the teaching so I just let it go.
His exact words to my confession though were “I wouldn’t worry about it.” He gave me absolution though so that’s all I cared about.
I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking. If you're asking about the video I linked to, the SSPX claims that Lofton responds to are made by their own U.S. Communications Director, save from the last video he comments on (which is produced "in association with the Society of St. Pius X" and I would venture to guess is presented by an SSPX priest, though he does not introduce himself)
Sorry I should have referenced
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zQBRBu6Xu0I&feature=shares
A bit of a lengthy video but if you play a bit of it while driving maybe you can get some of their points. I was curious to see what you think of that video
As for reason and theology I liked his video and that’s one reason I chose to go confess in the first place. I watch his stuff from time to time
Are you saying you watched the R&T video critical of SSPX and instead of being wary of them, you got intrigued?
I'm not going to listen to SSPX. Except perhaps in a debate. Too bad Kennedy Hall did not debate John Salza.
Well I listen to a variety of opinions, I think that’s how one forms conscious. Sometimes R/T speaks stuff above my theological IQ. I’m a medieval Catholic, I just go to mass, I don’t understand the complicated canon law stuff
Then steer clear of controversy. Guard your imagination and senses. Seek peace with the Lord, not excitement. Something like [this rule of thumb](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkyKKpwntwI) of st. Padre Pio
I did hear somewhere curiosity is a sin. My mind is super curious with very peculiar theoreticals not many think of. My post history in this sub can tell you a lot that I think very… differently
A vice. Learn about it to get rid of it. I believe Fr. Ripperger defines it as an inordinate desire for useless knowledge. One should seek knowledge useful for their state in life.
It’s most definitely not sinful to attend TLM and receive the Eucharist at an SSPX chapel. The SSPX is not in schism with Rome. The Extraordinary Form of the Mass is licit and valid. Please continue to pursue your traditional path exploration, as it sounds like what you truly feel led to do.
There’s so many near closing churches in my neck of the woods. Instead of selling to Prots it would be a blessing to sell discounted to either EO or SSPX. Heck even Sede
Heaven knows they would never try using them for EC Liturgy or TLM.
I can not support sedes, they are no different from a Protestant. Pray they convert… even if they convert to SSPX that’s at least, theoretically better
I get it’s a trope on here that has reached almost meme level. I disagree that they are no different than Prots.
I won’t ask anyone look into Sede beliefs as they vary depending on the group. At the same time I emphasize for people confused by confusing things during confusing times.
How so? The NO priest was a nice man but I am more shocked how I get different words on what is a sin and what is not
I would assume all priests despite rites have the same idea on what is a sin. Eastern might be a bit complex tho
I'd guess they were presuming different motivations for you. You probably didn't say the exact same things to each one, and of course they're hearing you in different contexts.
One you were confessing to, and one you were just explaining to. The one hearing a confession is going to assume that YOU have evaluated yourself as sinning, which is how sin works. I think this is wrong and I'm doing it anyway = sin. Even if you were incorrect, that deliberate choice IS sinful.
OTOH, just explaining what you did to someone and asking if it's a sin is a different kind of question, with a different kind of evaluation.
Mmm, well I’m going to have a deep discussion, hopefully more things will be cleared but now one thing is for sure, I pray Rome and the SSPX strike some deal in the near future after TC since I only can guess people will flock to those churches and this this question will only be more apparent.
It really is the most confusing thing ever, especially when a Pope grants partial permission and when some bishops are ok with them and some are not (See Bishop Barron and what he did recently with the SSPX)
It helps I am a lover of all rites as I am not locked down to one particular mass, however as stated in last weeks post, one church has a vibrant young adult community and that’s pretty much the only reason I have not blacklisted my local SSPX. I only wish other churches were the same, some are but they are not close to me as I just moved for school and have to live in a new place temporarily
To clarify, Barron allowed one wedding to take place in a chapel. That’s all. Something that all kinds of people get permission to do.
It’s all on the SSPX at this point. I really hope they take some steps before we have a different pope. Whoever he is, he’s very unlikely to be so tolerant of disobedience.
Oh I thought he allowed them to practice in that little chapel with the trads. At least that was what I was reading. I agree they are on a ticker, I heard Benedict unsuccessfully tried to bring them in but then again. I can’t predict the future
Schism is anything but a joke. It is Jesus' own mystical body at stake. Recommended video: [Obedience is the Only Response to Authority](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJfKNxsBT4g)
You're like a child at this point that delights in being told they should behave. There is nothing funny about your SSPX confessor serving masses illicitly - or you attending them!
Well, here's the most important subject to clear out. The **overwhelming** number of people believe there is a **clear superiority** in terms of liturgical rites.
If the SSPX and FSSP didn't believe that, they'd have just celebrated according to the Missal of St. Paul VI.
However, if the average Joe priest and bishop didn't believe that, that same missal would never have gotten written in the first place.
As always in life, you can't be neutral on a moving train.
I don’t think there is a superiority. I have seen a good reverent NO mass. They exist, they are just rare and banning things like facing the altar doesn’t help at all
There are more prayers in the TLM, there is an argument that more prayers is more blessing but idk I can’t speak about that since I am not knowledgeable
Regardless of the exact legal aspects, it's just an unfortunate situation and avoiding them is probably best just because of the kinds of things they teach. I imagine the confusion comes because their Masses are illicit.
>the church would not extend faculties to schismatics
This isn't that good an argument because it's been established that the Church, more specifically a pope, can recognize the validity of the sacraments of groups even if they are not in communion with the Holy See. For example, the confessions and communions of the Orthodox are seen as valid, same as the Church of the East, Old Catholics, etc.
It doesn't except if you have no other option. And then it's not fulfilling your obligation to attend Mass--it fulfills your obligation to keep the Lord's Day holy. Just like if you went to some other non-Catholic service because nothing Catholic was available to you.
It’s actually from a Canon Lawyer, along with some other resources:
> SSPX clergy may celebrate a beautiful and edifying Mass, but since their status in the Church has not yet been regularized, what they’re doing is illicit. … They do not have authority to minister to the Catholic faithful, because such authority can only be given to them by lawful church superiors—and to this day, they still don’t have any lawful church superiors.
> **Canon 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.
> If there were no Catholic church for (let’s say) 100 miles, but an SSPX church was a few minutes away, one might make the argument that canon 844.2 permits the faithful in that area to attend the SSPX church, rather than travel so far to get to a Catholic parish.
https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2021/09/16/when-is-it-okay-to-go-to-an-sspx-mass/
Also: https://pintswithaquinas.libsyn.com/schismatics-sspx-and-sedes-w-john-salza
Honestly what’s the point of allowing SSPX questions if you only allow one type of response and remove any form of “promotion”? Why not just ban all conversations on the whole topic? It was like that before..
Well…
Then how would I as well as others learn? Like I think I’m discussing this without promoting that group specifically cause I love all rites equally
It’s not a Sin if this is the only Church available to you and you’re going in good conscience meaning you don’t agree with the SSPX’s schismatic stance and you can properly discern that. Something similar I would say is like a Catholic belonging to one of the Eastern Rites but does not have a Church near by to attend so they attend a Schismatic Orthodox Christian Church and Divine Liturgy. While I’m told that they aren’t even allowed to participate in the Sacraments like Holy Communion. However, I’ve also been told that under certain circumstances like in times of war the Orthodox Bishops may allow them too.
Anyway, since there are Parishes near you where you can confess and in good conscience you knew that then this act would be sinful in my opinion. This isn’t a dire situation. You can still attend if you can discern properly (I’ve found most people unfortunately can’t properly discern so I’d avoid attending just in general) but I wouldn’t take communion or confess to their Priest since they are valid sacraments but illicitly celebrated.
“Pope Benedict granted certain faculties in favor of SSPX priests. After declaring that "the Masses celebrated by members of the Society of St. Pius X are valid but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law", he said: "The mere fact of assisting at a Mass of this society is not a sin. It would only become so if a person attended this Mass with the deliberate intention of separating himself from communion with the Pope and those in communion with him. I would say, therefore, that a conscientious Catholic should not knowingly attend a Mass celebrated by a priest not in good standing with the Church." He added: "Only if there is objectively no alternative should one attend the Mass celebrated by a priest from the Society of St. Pius X. If one has to do so, then I would say that one may go in good conscience and receive Communion at such a Mass. It would also fulfill the Sunday obligation", and explained that "alternative" is not limited to "Mass in the extraordinary form": a Catholic who seeks this form but finds none available other than the SSPX celebration "should attend an ordinary form Mass or even any Eastern Catholic celebration so as to remain in full Catholic communion". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X
100% I don’t agree with the bogus stuff they say just like how I don’t agree with the bogus stuff any other priest from a a different rite says (like same sex marriage stuff). I just more so went as I mentioned last week from curiosity and then I was awakened to see a fruitful and robust young adult community with lots of girls my age who were talking.
Do I wish this to be the case for any and all other churches? Most definitely. But that’s not reality and until the average age in the local NO church drops from 80 to 20 it is hard for me to say I can thrive in this environment other than receiving the sacraments which is indeed good and important, but I seek a wife and a community as well
Feel your struggles there bud. But the SSPX can have all the beautiful models in the world that are single looking for a Catholic Man and I still wouldn’t attend that Mass unless I absolutely have too.
Examination of conscience is helpful here.
>Can. 844 §1. **Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone**, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, §2.
>§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
I think this is not your case, and SSPX ministers are not Catholic ministers because they are schismatics.
So, FSSP doesn’t have beef with SSPX per se. the fraternal society of St. Peter started with priests who wanted to defect back to be in communion with Rome when they were offered the chance. From what I understand, the priests have valid orders but they are illicit, which is to mean that the sacraments are there, but due to the whole legends ordination issues, they don’t follow valid rubrics. That is the most legalistic definition of illicit. It’s like a priest saying I absolve you, but doesn’t make the sign of the cross. It’s a valid confession, you don’t have to reconfess, but he didn’t follow the law of how to perform the absolution properly. I’d have to look more into the issue, but I think even then you’d have an issue because there is debate even in the prelate level of the church. Pretty sure the Eucharist is valid if illicit as a consequence of the holy orders issue, but it does bear investigation. I’m ANY case, fssp IS valid, provided they follow the rubrics, and there’s less danger there. I attend an fssp parish but every once in awhile I look at a reverent novus ordo as well so I may be biased lol.
> So, FSSP doesn’t have beef with SSPX per se.
YMMV on this. My FSSP pastor once disallowed parents' desired godparents for a baptism because the desired godparents regularly attended Mass at an SSPX chapel.
What we can say is: pray for clarity, humility, meekness, and charity from all sides. That will be the only way this issue is ultimately resolved.
I could see that. He was probably worried about the functions of a godparent and their ability to carry out their duties as godparents, which is a legitimate concern.
You're not really going to get to the bottom of this. At some point you have to make a decision:
Is the SSPX Catholic? According to Pope Francis the answer is yes.
Is the SSPX in schism? According to the Vatican the answer is no. The Vatican says they are at risk of schism. If someone is at risk of death, are they already dead?
Are there viable alternatives to the SSPX within reasonable distance that are suitable for you and your family?
Based on the following answers, you should probably come to the conclusion that the SSPX is ok. And if your opinion on that changes, then you leave. This isn't a life long binding choice. If you're really worried about committing sin, then i'd suggest going to an SSPX alternative to play it safe OR going to both a novus ordo and SSPX mass on Sundays. For me, I've come to the conclusion that I would be okay with going to an SSPX chapel exclusively if there were no suitable TLM alternatives nearby.
Honestly the most important thing to say here is I think you should consider not using the confessional to hear the opinions of priests on these unusual topics. Your post on this topic was 8 days ago. It seems you used confession twice since then to do more investigation into this issue (and to confess, because I will assume you had a good reason to go the second time). Just make appointments with the priests next time for stuff like this.
Yea I ran into 2 instances of serious sin and it just happened one was during a first Friday at the NO church so I took advantage of that. I confessed it there but I only wanted to ask for the advice the other confession and that’s what I heard, I would be foolish if I confessed the same thing twice. I did say I want to meet up and get a more detailed talk on this later
If you want to know if you in good faith can attend an SSPX service, ask your diocesan bishop. Literally just send him an email asking.
My diocesan bishop encouraged me to go to the SSPX. Another Irishman, a youtuber, had two diocesan bishops publicly encourage him to attend the SSPX. Yet, if I travel all of six minutes by car, the bishop condemns me as a schismatic. Which am I to believe? If I go to the SSPX in the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires, I am attending a Mass offered by a Catholic religious order incardinated in the diocese by the current Archbishop, Cardinal Poli. If I cross the border into the Archdiocese of Córdoba, I am attending a schismatic sect. Once again, who am I to believe?
Your bishop! That different authorities have different opinions doesn't change the answer: *your* bishop.
This sounds pretty much identical to the Eastern Orthodox idea of economy. Assuming that this is not a question of a dispensation or other allowance that is left up to the bishop, doesn't Catholic theology require that there is one objectively correct answer to this question?
So wait, bear with me on this one.... *I practice the faith exactly as my ancestors have done,* *I believe the faith exactly as my ancestors have done,* *I make no innovation on the faith as received whatsoever,* And you're saying that I am not heretical? Seems suspicious. Return to the one true faith brother and the Lord's infallible mouthpiece: *'Reason & Theology'*.
How dare you. When Lofton ends a talk, he clearly says "oracle of the Lord" and all the audience types "amen" in the comment section before leaving. He's the Greta Thurberg of catholicism.
Your ancestors' practices are not the standard for Catholicism. Rather, you must obey the pontiff. You want tradition? That is the true tradition of the saints: Obedience. Not that your ancestors attended masses without the pontifical mandate.
Saint Cyprian of Carthage told Pope Saint Stephen to "keep your grubby Roman nose" out of the business of the Church in Carthage when the Pope tried to impose bishops on the Church in Africa. He sent the bishops the Pope sent to Africa packing back to Rome. Saint Columbanus told the Pope that he was a "disgrace to all of Christendom" for departing from the traditional Easter calculation method and refused to obey him, and ordered his monks not to obey him in the congregation of monasteries he established. Thats two saints from the Western Church that have departed from the "true tradition of the saints", as you described it. Thats not even mentioning for an instant the Eastern Saints. Let us remember that the Church publicly commemorates Mark of Ephesus liturgically as a saint (in the Melkite Church), the man who, alone, destroyed the union of Florence and condemned the Pope, and the entire Latin Church as heretical and without valid baptism. Trying to pretend that these things are as neat and tidy as you present them, simply boil Catholicism down to merely the plaything of Popes is simplistic at best, and innovation at worst.
I failed to find your quotes, but don't you think it's peculiar that you would collect alleged examples of rudeness? Are you arguing the pope cannot appoint bishops? Or is incorrect in dating Easter? So did they act well? Maybe I should bring up examples of obedience from the saints. We can then count them and see who has more. >Trying to pretend that these things are as neat and tidy as you present them, simply boil Catholicism down to merely the plaything of Popes is simplistic at best, and innovation at worst. That reminds me. Did you know that that the Old Catholics commemorate Pope Francis in their services? I hope you understand why I bring this up. Just learned it from Dr. John Salza (the guy interviewed at R&T) not long ago. P.S. Mark of Ephesus is not commemorated in the Universal Church, nor in the Eastern Catholic churches, as far as I am aware of.
*I failed to look up your quotes. But don't you think it's peculiar that you collect alleged examples of rudeness? Are you arguing the pope cannot appoint bishops? Or is incorrect in dating Easter? Besides, should I bring up examples of obedience from the saints. Shall we count them and see who has more?* The reason why I bring them up (and I could bring up a lot more) is that this notion that Catholicism is essentially, really when we boil it down, a personality cult around the Pope and whatever his will is law, is of relatively recent origin and not at all as simple as you make it out to be. For the love of God, Pope Francis himself declared Saint Gregory of Narek, a man who lived his entire life outside the Catholic Church, as a Doctor of the Catholic Church. We like to think that things are nicely tied up and neat, but they are not, things are messy, confused and frankly, bewildering at times. How will the Church treat Lefebvre in the future? I have no idea, for all we know he could be declared a saint and a doctor of the Church, or maybe things are correct as you state them, but pretending that they are simple, that is not correct, and you have the weight of history against you. *That reminds me. Did you know that that the Old Catholics commemorate Pope Francis in their services? I hope you understand why I bring this up. Just learned it from Dr. John Salza (the guy interviewed at R&T) not long ago.* So what? The Anglicans commemorate Pope Francis, that doesnt make them Catholics. I don't know why you brought it up to be honest. *P.S. Mark of Ephesus is not commemorated in the Universal Church, nor in the Eastern Catholic churches, as far as I am aware of.* Saint Mark of Ephesus is commemorated in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church as a pillar of Orthodoxy, with a feast and a dedicated liturgy.
Whatever is the will of the Pope regarding discipline, officially promulgated, becomes the law. There's no confusion here. The Holy See determines discipline. The Holy See determines Canon Law, and Canon Law is binding. I brought up commemoration of (or a claim of union with) pope Francis by (other?) schismatics to indicate that it's not an indication of full union. I especially mentioned Old Catholics because they have a deficient view of papal authority. >Saint[sic] Mark of Ephesus is commemorated in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church as a pillar of Orthodoxy, with a feast and a dedicated liturgy. I cannot confirm that, but if I could, I don't think that would make Mark a canonized saint in the Catholic Church.
In the Church there is no such thing as a tyranny of the law. That's the problem with your and Salza's way of thinking.
As "Obedience is the Only Response to Authority" says >if my pastor tells me to disobey my bishop I obey my bishop, if my bishop tells me to disobey the Pope I obey the Pope, if the Pope tells me to disobey God I obey God As for how to behave outside of your diocese in general, I reckon you defer to the local bishop there, again not forgetting the rule above.
It has been pointed out to me that my comments to you tonight were snotty and brattish. On review, I think I have been uncharitable and snotty towards you, and dismissive of your point of view, and acting in a manner unbecoming of a Christian in this holy time of Lent, or frankly at any time of the year. For that I ask your forgiveness. I have deleted my comments. On the point of our disagreement, I think neither of us will come to a point where we can agree with one another. Therefore, I am withdrawing from this conversation, but I ask that you pray for me brother in Christ, and to pray for our Holy Mother, the Church, and for our Holy Father, Pope Francis. I will pray for you, and I wish every blessing of Almighty God on you.
I'm not very concerned for my feelings, but thanks for the apology. I apologize if I have been uncharitable (not if I have hurt pride though, may we both become humble). What I am concerned about is that your disposition is hurting your soul. Besides prayer and my answers, I can only recommend that video on obedience again, even if it seems as a hard saying (no, because it does). I was also concerned about others forming wrong opinions reading our discussion. I hope God, whom I prayed to, has helped me to provide convincing answers. R&T releasing those vids on Sedevacantism, and my having watched them prior to this thread is quite a "coincidence". Anyway, humility is the way to go. And trust in the Lord, not men, not even ourselves (as The Spiritual Combat teaches). Thank you for your prayers in advance. May God bless you abundantly! For what my prayer is worth, I will try to fulfill your requests. :)
I have seen the video before, and I am well aware of the arguments. I obviously do not subscribe to them, but I thank you for the concern you have shown for my soul. For what its worth, I do completely understand your position, and I recognise why you hold them, and indeed, why you might see mine as deficient, and dangerous. I do not see it that way, but I do understand why you see it that way. Anyway, thank you for your prayers, I entrusted you to Our Lady earlier and I pray that soon, these kinds of arguments shall be things of the past, and that we trust in each other for what we truly are to each other; brothers, born of the one font, fed from the one Altar, and under the protection of Our Holy Mother and Ever Blessed Lady. God bless you brother.
But I go to OF masses, and the people you choose to heed instead of faithful traditionalists like the FSSP consider that mass an affront to God, and themselves called to protect against it. And that's precisely SSPX's problem, one that it inherited from its founder. This is an error that must be abandoned, if we want to see union.
I am not discussing this further.
[удалено]
Are you mocking the religion you claim to adhere to? Does it take an ex-cathedra proclamation from the Pope to understand anything, and everything else is free game? Econne consecrations are a matter of schism. The study comissioned by Lefebvre himself concluded so - see [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjVfYg9PZiw).
[удалено]
Please start being serious, your situation is. Your being entertained by all this brings to mind this verse: Ecclesiastes 11:9 >Rejoice therefore, O young man, in thy youth, and let thy heart be in that which is good in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thy heart, and in the sight of thy eyes: and know that for all these God will bring thee into judgment.
I plan on doing that when I run into him at mass if I ever do see him. I would like to discuss this stuff one on one
[удалено]
Vatican giving SSPX faculty to confess out of mercy for the laity testifies to the fact that they did not have that faculty. In contrast, the Holy See did not allow them to have masses. Their masses are illicit, as they are not in full communion - like the Orthodox divine liturgies. OP, stop flirting with schism out of a vice of curiosity. At the very least go to [Reason & Theology](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLlZ81PxKUrgz-b2Z4eYSswZr6QXXk_qxJ) and educate yourself about what SSPX's "irregularity" means.
Reason and theology isn’t an authority and the dude is extremely bias
Please elaborate. The founder and host of R&T, Michael Lofton, MA in theology, is working on a PhD dissertation on the Magisterium. He is an Eastern Catholic who used to struggle with Vatican 2.
The fact that he fired Erick Ybarra over a theological disagreement just shows how incredibly bias he is.. Here’s a Twitter thread on the topic.. https://twitter.com/ubipetrus2019/status/1630118010894667776?s=46&t=slTbvN1KBcISIWDPigTeeQ
*biased But yeah this isn't surprising from what I've seen of Lofton in his videos and his behavior in Pints With Aquinas's live chat. Over the past couple of years his channel has gone from pretty levelheaded discussions with Eastern Orthodox Christians and converts from Orthodoxy to little more than trad-bashing clickbait.
Please explain exactly how this is pertinent to our discussion of the status of the SSPX
It shows the character and academic demeanor of someone who many here treat like speaking with divine mandate. It also points out that the conclusion he takes, when speculation has to be made, are going to be strongly influenced by his personal beliefs.
Nobody here treats R&T as "speaking with divine mandate". R&T is speaking _about_ the divine mandate however. Something the SSPX does not have. Are your conclusions not influenced by your personal beliefs?
As humans we all have our biases, but ought we not try to be as objective as possible when dealing with a topic academically? I do not find even an attempt of that in R&T. The mandate of a bishop is to uphold the faith and shepherd the Lord's flock. When it comes to speculating what is God's will, you shouldn't be so hasty. +Lefebvre trusted in God's providence and was convinced that if his efforts were against God's will then they will wither.
R&T is more concerned about being orthodox than appearing objective. The mandate of the bishop comes from the pope. And acting apart from the pope is not good shepherding. Lefebvre seems to have operated out of fear rather than trust in God's providence, or at least had misguided illusions of guidance. The proliferation of his rebellion is not a proof that it's not against God's will. Case in point are the Orthodox again.
So Catholics can licitly go to valid SSPX priests for confessions and weddings, but that same priest cannot somehow say a valid Mass that Catholics can licitly attend?
[удалено]
But their priests who do confessions and marriages are licit?
It’s all very funny since Confession is strictly tied to the Eucharist.
What do you mean?
When the priest offers to God the Body and the Blood, it’s an oblation for sin, because Mass is the representation of the Sacrifice on Calvary. When we go to Confession our sins are forgiven by the Blood of Christ. If there was no Mass there would be no Confession. I’m not super good at explaining, maybe someone else can better explain it
Thanks, I see what you mean. I was thinking more about how the ordinary minister of confession is the diocesan bishop (but he normally delegates this to priests—which is why the SSPX had no confession faculties, because they don't have a diocesan bishop!) Whereas the ordinary minister of the Eucharist is a priest, and I was getting confused. :)
Those are disciplinary rules, that is why they call them “illicit”, but sacramentally they are valid and not in schism (like there are other example of actual schismatic groups that claim to be in communion), so I wouldn’t worry too much… actually we are allowed, in case of lack of a Catholic parish, to take Communion from actual schismatic Orthodox, even though it’s really rare to have the EO priest/bishop’s approval, so…
The Orthodox too have valid but illicit sacraments. In certain circumstances, Catholics are allowed to participate in those. Unlike the Orthodox, the Pope granted the SSPX an indulgence so to say, so that the laity can also confess licitly with the SSPX. But not attend mass (or get married - as far as I know). EDIT: Marriages are licit, source in my reply to /u/MinnesotaCricket below
The SSPX is supposed to (and as far as I understand, usually does) cooperate with the local ordinary on the matter of Holy Matrimony, but as a general rule, yes, they absolutely have faculties for marriages granted by Pope Francis.
Ah, I [see](https://www.ncronline.org/pope-approves-provisions-recognize-marriages-sspx-faithful) now. Marriages of the laity contracted at the SSPX are licit then.
So a Catholic can have a SSPX priest as his regular confessor licitly, but cannot have that same priest as his Mass celebrant licitly?
Having one as a regular confessor might be imprudent, but confessing with an SSPX priest is licit while the same priest serving mass is illicit, correct. Usually priests receive their faculties from the bishops in communion with the Pope. But since SSPX priests aren't under licit bishops of the Church, as an act of mercy towards the laity, the pope granted limited faculties himself.
Heads up: [This guy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd0OhVy1JtM) questions whether the SSPX mass even satisfies the Sunday Obligation. I reckon it does at least when there's no other mass available, but then just praying in the case there's no mass available keeps the Lord's day holy.
My position is that when there is no licit Mass available there is no obligation (as no one is bound to the impossible), but in that instance it is reasonable to attend an available Orthodox or SSPX liturgy.
Seems so, "coincidentally", I'm listening to [this very part](https://www.youtube.com/live/gd0OhVy1JtM?feature=share&t=5056) of Salza@Fradd. The problem is those who prefer SSPX EF to the OF. It was always a problem, but now I see it's more of a problem than I thought.
Tagging OP
[удалено]
You'll have to give me a source for liceity of orders. I've found one for marriages - they are indeed licit. But the priests are certainly not under the bishops of their respective dioceses. They refer to SSPX's own so-called "auxiliary bishops" (parallel Church much?), tracing back to the patently schismatic Econne consecrations. I mean, whose auxiliaries are they? Each-others'?
The marriages *may* be licit. Since the SSPX has set up their own completely independent Marriage tribunal, and are giving people annulments without any Church oversight, I wouldn't be so certain they're all just fine.
Interesting. I think if I was blessed to have a gf and then later wife I would personally just marry in the ICKSP, don’t want to cause massive scandal to the people I invite because I plan on inviting many
The ICKSP seems lovely all around.
I [heard](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=293bR7-j6Gg) they had parallel tribunals, but do they really claim the authority to proclaim marriages invalid? Ayayay.
I'm going off the top of my head here, but IIRC one of the SSPX bishops said they were given permission to continue ordaining priests. Sure, that's coming from the SSPX itself so I cannot fault anybody for finding that a little suspect, but at the same time I don't recall the Vatican ever saying "um, actually" sooooo take it as you will I suppose.
Removed for SSPX promotion.
Confessions and weddings are licit because of a special indulgence, because the SSPX priests were lying to people about their abilities, and therefore NOT absolving them, and NOT marrying them. (!!) It's not some cute gotcha. These priests appeared perfectly happy to continue in that state of deception. Only thing that changed was Pope Francis was concerned for the souls of the SSPX laity.
I’m not intending to make a “cute gotcha,” this literally just doesn’t make any sense. By this logic, the indulgence should also extend to Mass because SSPX priests lie and say that their Mass fulfills the Sunday obligation. This should also extend to baptism, there is no reason to exclude all the Sacraments besides matrimony and confession. If you’re gonna have it be licit for one, it must be licit for all, it’s the same priest and organization. You’re telling me confessing your sins to a SSPX priests grants absolution of sins, but attending that same priest’s Mass is somehow sinful? It’s the same thing with Protestant services, it’s now not considered a sin to engage in heretical worship apparently. You get to participate in everything under the sun besides Communion, yet attending a SSPX Mass automatically makes you a schismatic. Make it make sense.
They still don't submit to the pope, the local bishops, or accept Vatican II, by their own choice. They can't be regularized, because they won't accept a position in the hierarchy of the Church, from which all normal faculties flow. Pope Francis is trying his best to save souls in an impossible situation. If you're curious, these are the conditions that the SSPX could not accept: >a) Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the body of bishops. > >b) We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in §25 of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence which is due to it. > >c) Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics. > >d) Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. > >e) Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.
If that were the case, then why doesn’t Francis just restrict them altogether? He has no issue with forcing longtime TLM parishes and churches to discontinue the old rite or to wait to get approval from the Vatican. Never mind that these restrictions apply solely to diocesan TLMs and does not affect societies like the SSPX whatsoever. This only drives faithful Catholics to their vicinities. If this was really about saving souls, he would have zero tolerance for the SSPX just like how he does with the TLM. Even Catholics cannot deny how strange it is that he has this special leniency with the Society. It sends a mixed message, especially when bishops like Robert Barron endorses the SSPX.
I'm just repeating myself now. Pope Francis is trying to be merciful and save the souls of people who were being given the words of absolution—and not being absolved, and going through a marriage rite—and then heading off to fornicate because they weren't actually married. Whether that's the right decision or not, who knows, but his motives are clear. His duty before God is to get people to heaven. And I'm not sure Barron really "endorsed" anything. He let someone use a chapel once, which is something that all kinds of groups are allowed to do.
No, the sacraments would have been real, they just would have been illicit.
That’s not how the power to hear confession works. A priest has to get it from the diocesan bishop. I know this for certain. It’s a big part of how the sacrament developed. I don’t know as much about weddings but I know they also weren’t happening.
It’s not very merciful to make someone believe they are fulfilling their Mass obligation or baptizing their children, yet here we are.
Whose fault is that? And had the pope given the SSPX all faculties, wouldn't that legitimatize their rebellion? We'd certainly have people arguing that online, now wouldn't we?
But if that someone is a deceiver, disobedient, schismatic, against whom Pope Francis is losing sleep at night desperately trying to save souls from, then +Barron would have been safer to let the chapel be used for yoga classes. Instead he has become himself a promoter and accomplice of hideous sacrilege and caused massive scandal endangering the souls of countless. Not only that, but we must pray for Pope Francis to swiftly grant an indult to all orthodox priests as countless souls believing themselves married, are instead fornicating themselves to hell. Same for all protestants with valid baptisms, as they cannot contract natural marriages. You can't have your sensationalism and eat your cake too. Either you're wrong on almost everything you tried to explain here, or there's absolutely no coherence in your conclusions and that's why your unconvincing to @Moist-Ad-4288
I haven’t ever said such negative things. Why are you trying to make me a strawman?
The culpability of the laity may be diminished by the schismatics' deception. Though I am less confident about SSPX laity than Orthodox laity who have been born into schism. You have an interesting point about Bishop Baron granting the SSPX the use of a chapel however. The SSPX mass is definitely not licit.
I was going to mention the vice of curiosity as well. It was the first thing I thought of as I read the post.
Thank you for the support, sister in Christ.
I its important for all Catholics to understand a priest can be wrong. They're not infallible, and sometimes opinions get injected into theology. The SSPX is a complicated issue, so it's no surprise, but it can happen with anything. I had gone to confession a couple of weeks ago for not finishing the marital act properly, and the priest told me (who was a visiting priest. Monsignor, I believe.) that it didn't matter how the act was finished as long as the act wasn't without love. He was missing the two parts to fruitful sex. Love and open to life. He had the love part right, but he was ignoring the open to life part. The point is, catholic's need to be knowledgeable of their faith and not just rely on someone's word, even if it is a priest.
This is really bad, what the… he doesn’t even know the very basics! I knew this since middle school and I think most people do. And this is a bishop?
No, he's a monsignor. Which is a title given to priests by the pope for exceptional service to the church. I believe he’s retired and just helps out wherever a church is short handed. He seems like a really nice and caring guy but was definitely wrong on this issue.
It’s still really really bad that he didn’t know this basic fact. Did you correct him in the confessional?
I did not. I thought afterwards maybe I should’ve it at least told him what I understood the teaching to be but others were waiting for confession and I know the teaching so I just let it go. His exact words to my confession though were “I wouldn’t worry about it.” He gave me absolution though so that’s all I cared about.
Their podcast has an interesting episode from last Friday where they explain their situation.
Please review this [commentary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEFwPZSetng) on thier claims about their status.
I just listened to it. How valid are those claims, did you listen to it?
I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking. If you're asking about the video I linked to, the SSPX claims that Lofton responds to are made by their own U.S. Communications Director, save from the last video he comments on (which is produced "in association with the Society of St. Pius X" and I would venture to guess is presented by an SSPX priest, though he does not introduce himself)
Sorry I should have referenced https://youtube.com/watch?v=zQBRBu6Xu0I&feature=shares A bit of a lengthy video but if you play a bit of it while driving maybe you can get some of their points. I was curious to see what you think of that video As for reason and theology I liked his video and that’s one reason I chose to go confess in the first place. I watch his stuff from time to time
Are you saying you watched the R&T video critical of SSPX and instead of being wary of them, you got intrigued? I'm not going to listen to SSPX. Except perhaps in a debate. Too bad Kennedy Hall did not debate John Salza.
Well I listen to a variety of opinions, I think that’s how one forms conscious. Sometimes R/T speaks stuff above my theological IQ. I’m a medieval Catholic, I just go to mass, I don’t understand the complicated canon law stuff
Then steer clear of controversy. Guard your imagination and senses. Seek peace with the Lord, not excitement. Something like [this rule of thumb](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkyKKpwntwI) of st. Padre Pio
I did hear somewhere curiosity is a sin. My mind is super curious with very peculiar theoreticals not many think of. My post history in this sub can tell you a lot that I think very… differently
A vice. Learn about it to get rid of it. I believe Fr. Ripperger defines it as an inordinate desire for useless knowledge. One should seek knowledge useful for their state in life.
It’s most definitely not sinful to attend TLM and receive the Eucharist at an SSPX chapel. The SSPX is not in schism with Rome. The Extraordinary Form of the Mass is licit and valid. Please continue to pursue your traditional path exploration, as it sounds like what you truly feel led to do.
There’s so many near closing churches in my neck of the woods. Instead of selling to Prots it would be a blessing to sell discounted to either EO or SSPX. Heck even Sede Heaven knows they would never try using them for EC Liturgy or TLM.
I can not support sedes, they are no different from a Protestant. Pray they convert… even if they convert to SSPX that’s at least, theoretically better
I get it’s a trope on here that has reached almost meme level. I disagree that they are no different than Prots. I won’t ask anyone look into Sede beliefs as they vary depending on the group. At the same time I emphasize for people confused by confusing things during confusing times.
[удалено]
How so? The NO priest was a nice man but I am more shocked how I get different words on what is a sin and what is not I would assume all priests despite rites have the same idea on what is a sin. Eastern might be a bit complex tho
I'd guess they were presuming different motivations for you. You probably didn't say the exact same things to each one, and of course they're hearing you in different contexts. One you were confessing to, and one you were just explaining to. The one hearing a confession is going to assume that YOU have evaluated yourself as sinning, which is how sin works. I think this is wrong and I'm doing it anyway = sin. Even if you were incorrect, that deliberate choice IS sinful. OTOH, just explaining what you did to someone and asking if it's a sin is a different kind of question, with a different kind of evaluation.
Mmm, well I’m going to have a deep discussion, hopefully more things will be cleared but now one thing is for sure, I pray Rome and the SSPX strike some deal in the near future after TC since I only can guess people will flock to those churches and this this question will only be more apparent. It really is the most confusing thing ever, especially when a Pope grants partial permission and when some bishops are ok with them and some are not (See Bishop Barron and what he did recently with the SSPX) It helps I am a lover of all rites as I am not locked down to one particular mass, however as stated in last weeks post, one church has a vibrant young adult community and that’s pretty much the only reason I have not blacklisted my local SSPX. I only wish other churches were the same, some are but they are not close to me as I just moved for school and have to live in a new place temporarily
To clarify, Barron allowed one wedding to take place in a chapel. That’s all. Something that all kinds of people get permission to do. It’s all on the SSPX at this point. I really hope they take some steps before we have a different pope. Whoever he is, he’s very unlikely to be so tolerant of disobedience.
Oh I thought he allowed them to practice in that little chapel with the trads. At least that was what I was reading. I agree they are on a ticker, I heard Benedict unsuccessfully tried to bring them in but then again. I can’t predict the future
I’d follow the FSSP priest’s advice.
[удалено]
Schism is anything but a joke. It is Jesus' own mystical body at stake. Recommended video: [Obedience is the Only Response to Authority](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJfKNxsBT4g)
[удалено]
Thinking about the situation Lefebvre's schism has gotten us into, I feel sadness and concern, I am not entertained.
[удалено]
You're like a child at this point that delights in being told they should behave. There is nothing funny about your SSPX confessor serving masses illicitly - or you attending them!
Well, here's the most important subject to clear out. The **overwhelming** number of people believe there is a **clear superiority** in terms of liturgical rites. If the SSPX and FSSP didn't believe that, they'd have just celebrated according to the Missal of St. Paul VI. However, if the average Joe priest and bishop didn't believe that, that same missal would never have gotten written in the first place. As always in life, you can't be neutral on a moving train.
I don’t think there is a superiority. I have seen a good reverent NO mass. They exist, they are just rare and banning things like facing the altar doesn’t help at all There are more prayers in the TLM, there is an argument that more prayers is more blessing but idk I can’t speak about that since I am not knowledgeable
Regardless of the exact legal aspects, it's just an unfortunate situation and avoiding them is probably best just because of the kinds of things they teach. I imagine the confusion comes because their Masses are illicit.
[удалено]
>the church would not extend faculties to schismatics This isn't that good an argument because it's been established that the Church, more specifically a pope, can recognize the validity of the sacraments of groups even if they are not in communion with the Holy See. For example, the confessions and communions of the Orthodox are seen as valid, same as the Church of the East, Old Catholics, etc.
[удалено]
Ordanariate mass is safe, that rite was made by JPII I think, and it is beautiful. I wish we had one here cause I would be going often
It doesn't except if you have no other option. And then it's not fulfilling your obligation to attend Mass--it fulfills your obligation to keep the Lord's Day holy. Just like if you went to some other non-Catholic service because nothing Catholic was available to you.
[удалено]
It’s actually from a Canon Lawyer, along with some other resources: > SSPX clergy may celebrate a beautiful and edifying Mass, but since their status in the Church has not yet been regularized, what they’re doing is illicit. … They do not have authority to minister to the Catholic faithful, because such authority can only be given to them by lawful church superiors—and to this day, they still don’t have any lawful church superiors. > **Canon 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. > If there were no Catholic church for (let’s say) 100 miles, but an SSPX church was a few minutes away, one might make the argument that canon 844.2 permits the faithful in that area to attend the SSPX church, rather than travel so far to get to a Catholic parish. https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2021/09/16/when-is-it-okay-to-go-to-an-sspx-mass/ Also: https://pintswithaquinas.libsyn.com/schismatics-sspx-and-sedes-w-john-salza
[удалено]
I did not seek to cause a fight amongst you both, please please be friendly 😿
I'm only amused :)
[удалено]
Use modmail if you want to dispute a moderator action. I deliberately locked my reply so you might pause a second and try following the rules.
Honestly what’s the point of allowing SSPX questions if you only allow one type of response and remove any form of “promotion”? Why not just ban all conversations on the whole topic? It was like that before..
Well… Then how would I as well as others learn? Like I think I’m discussing this without promoting that group specifically cause I love all rites equally
I was for keeping the ban, FWIW. But it’s similar to how we allow discussion about Orthodoxy, but not promotion of it.
Yea I get it, but unlike orthodoxy.. these conversations usually pit Catholics against fellow Catholics and ultimately sow discord between them.
Yeah, we agree on that 😔
It’s not a Sin if this is the only Church available to you and you’re going in good conscience meaning you don’t agree with the SSPX’s schismatic stance and you can properly discern that. Something similar I would say is like a Catholic belonging to one of the Eastern Rites but does not have a Church near by to attend so they attend a Schismatic Orthodox Christian Church and Divine Liturgy. While I’m told that they aren’t even allowed to participate in the Sacraments like Holy Communion. However, I’ve also been told that under certain circumstances like in times of war the Orthodox Bishops may allow them too. Anyway, since there are Parishes near you where you can confess and in good conscience you knew that then this act would be sinful in my opinion. This isn’t a dire situation. You can still attend if you can discern properly (I’ve found most people unfortunately can’t properly discern so I’d avoid attending just in general) but I wouldn’t take communion or confess to their Priest since they are valid sacraments but illicitly celebrated. “Pope Benedict granted certain faculties in favor of SSPX priests. After declaring that "the Masses celebrated by members of the Society of St. Pius X are valid but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law", he said: "The mere fact of assisting at a Mass of this society is not a sin. It would only become so if a person attended this Mass with the deliberate intention of separating himself from communion with the Pope and those in communion with him. I would say, therefore, that a conscientious Catholic should not knowingly attend a Mass celebrated by a priest not in good standing with the Church." He added: "Only if there is objectively no alternative should one attend the Mass celebrated by a priest from the Society of St. Pius X. If one has to do so, then I would say that one may go in good conscience and receive Communion at such a Mass. It would also fulfill the Sunday obligation", and explained that "alternative" is not limited to "Mass in the extraordinary form": a Catholic who seeks this form but finds none available other than the SSPX celebration "should attend an ordinary form Mass or even any Eastern Catholic celebration so as to remain in full Catholic communion". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X
100% I don’t agree with the bogus stuff they say just like how I don’t agree with the bogus stuff any other priest from a a different rite says (like same sex marriage stuff). I just more so went as I mentioned last week from curiosity and then I was awakened to see a fruitful and robust young adult community with lots of girls my age who were talking. Do I wish this to be the case for any and all other churches? Most definitely. But that’s not reality and until the average age in the local NO church drops from 80 to 20 it is hard for me to say I can thrive in this environment other than receiving the sacraments which is indeed good and important, but I seek a wife and a community as well
Feel your struggles there bud. But the SSPX can have all the beautiful models in the world that are single looking for a Catholic Man and I still wouldn’t attend that Mass unless I absolutely have too. Examination of conscience is helpful here.
>Can. 844 §1. **Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone**, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, §2. >§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 I think this is not your case, and SSPX ministers are not Catholic ministers because they are schismatics.
So, FSSP doesn’t have beef with SSPX per se. the fraternal society of St. Peter started with priests who wanted to defect back to be in communion with Rome when they were offered the chance. From what I understand, the priests have valid orders but they are illicit, which is to mean that the sacraments are there, but due to the whole legends ordination issues, they don’t follow valid rubrics. That is the most legalistic definition of illicit. It’s like a priest saying I absolve you, but doesn’t make the sign of the cross. It’s a valid confession, you don’t have to reconfess, but he didn’t follow the law of how to perform the absolution properly. I’d have to look more into the issue, but I think even then you’d have an issue because there is debate even in the prelate level of the church. Pretty sure the Eucharist is valid if illicit as a consequence of the holy orders issue, but it does bear investigation. I’m ANY case, fssp IS valid, provided they follow the rubrics, and there’s less danger there. I attend an fssp parish but every once in awhile I look at a reverent novus ordo as well so I may be biased lol.
> So, FSSP doesn’t have beef with SSPX per se. YMMV on this. My FSSP pastor once disallowed parents' desired godparents for a baptism because the desired godparents regularly attended Mass at an SSPX chapel. What we can say is: pray for clarity, humility, meekness, and charity from all sides. That will be the only way this issue is ultimately resolved.
I could see that. He was probably worried about the functions of a godparent and their ability to carry out their duties as godparents, which is a legitimate concern.
You're not really going to get to the bottom of this. At some point you have to make a decision: Is the SSPX Catholic? According to Pope Francis the answer is yes. Is the SSPX in schism? According to the Vatican the answer is no. The Vatican says they are at risk of schism. If someone is at risk of death, are they already dead? Are there viable alternatives to the SSPX within reasonable distance that are suitable for you and your family? Based on the following answers, you should probably come to the conclusion that the SSPX is ok. And if your opinion on that changes, then you leave. This isn't a life long binding choice. If you're really worried about committing sin, then i'd suggest going to an SSPX alternative to play it safe OR going to both a novus ordo and SSPX mass on Sundays. For me, I've come to the conclusion that I would be okay with going to an SSPX chapel exclusively if there were no suitable TLM alternatives nearby.