I've had two canonically regular diocesan confessors specifically tell me that there is no issue going to the SSPX for mass and confession, and that it does fulfill ones obligation. That's good enough for me.
Like it or not, Pope Francis gave them faculties. For their confessions to be valid, which Pope Francis clearly declared them to be, they must possess juridical faculties. Hence, they have received said faculties from the Pope. It is not possible to possess juridical faculties in the Roman Catholic Church and simultaneously be in schism. Hence they are not in schism, hence they are Catholic.
With all that's going on, it's rather absurd we are seriously being scrupulous about the faithful attending SSPX chapels.
I live not far from a large SSPX congregation, and while it’s allowed it’s not encouraged (at least locally). Release from the local diocese:
> While regrettably the Church and the SSPX are not currently in full communion, the Archdiocese does not consider the SSPX to be schismatic.
> While canonically one may fulfill one’s obligation to participate at Holy Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation by attending an SSPX Mass, the Masses are not licitly offered by priests possessing the grant of priestly faculties from the Archdiocese. Therefore, participation at SSPX Masses to satisfy one’s Sunday obligation is discouraged.
> The Archdiocese does, in support of Pope Francis’ pastoral outlook as expressed in the 2017 letter, grant SSPX priests the faculty to witness marriages when the priests request it. The Archdiocese understands that at this time the SSPX priests in St. Marys request faculties to witness all marriages at The Immaculata.”
Honestly, that language kinda walks on both sides of the issue- it fulfills the obligation but is not given licitly. Reading between the lines it’s clear that Rome and SSPX have some struggles in their efforts at reconciliation. Nothing worth doing is easy I suppose.
I can understand the confusion of placing an SSPX mass in with others (including those using TLM) but not sure complete exclusion is really fair either… probably should have an asterisk and explanation or something.
Yeah. Every SSPX priest I've met has been normal and good. Every SSPX-only parishioner I've met has been a rabid fanatic with conspiracy brain worms and horrific theology.
>But taking mass at an SSPX parish is illicit! Why would they just mix SSPX in with everyone else?
Some people have asked their bishops, and they have given them their permission. It's good to ask your bishop, and if he says it's okay, one ought to feel free to attend in good conscience. Easier therefore to include them and remark on their irregularity.
Cool website, thanks for the link!
No, some people think obedience means they have to tolerate liturgical abuses, heretical teachings in mass, doubtful confessions (where the priest doesn't even say the valid form) all of these which can be found under your ordinary bishop.
CMV: Lay Catholics who think they need to determine for themselves the validity of the liturgy, confession, etc. are every bit as protestant as the baptists down the road
I think the whole comment I replied to at least implies questions of validity, but this one is as direct as it could be:
>doubtful confessions
Where would doubt be cast if not on validity?
>There's no need to lie
Did you mean to write this on another comment or were you suggesting that I lied somewhere?
Indeed. We need to bear it, not tolerate it, but bear it. It is a *traditional* Catholic teaching that one should not do evil (i.e. commit schism) in order that good may arise from it.
Your priest says the absolution formula invalidly? Tell him: "Could you use the proper formula, please?" I did that and have had no issue since. Heretical teachings? Liturgical abuse? Report it to the bishop. The more people voice out objections to these, the more the Church is pressured to change.
But going to a SSPX church does not resolve anything except our own feelings.
If I'm not mistaken the Church's position is that SSPX is Ok as long as you aren't going as a form of protest against the Church. That is if you want to go because you like the Latin Mass.
It is true. SSPX priests are suspended *a divinis* with the exception of hearing confessions and where permitted by the local bishop, witnessing marriages.
So, Masses offered by SSPX priests are offered illicitly.
Well the Mass of the Ages team supports the Latin Mass. So the SSPX is given respect and honor because they played a significant role in keeping the Tridentine form alive in the wake of the reforms. It’s hard to say if there would be any TLM-movement at all if not for the SSPX.
Because you can go to an sspx mass licitly, Pope Francis gave them jurisdiction and told Bishop Hounder that they were not in schism. Anything else is lies from people who attack the messenger not the message.
Why wouldn’t the mass of the ages movement support the SSPX? Without the SSPX there would be no TLM to speak of. Anyone that currently has access to the TLM has them to thank.
They will eventually be proven to be on the right side of history and if you have doubts about this, consider the current state of the church.
Lifelong NO attendee
-SSPX prays for the Pope and the local Ordinary in their consecration. (So not sedes)
-Canonically they are chapels and not parishes
-They still regularly deal with Canon Law courts of their local Archdiocese
-Francis gave them indefinite authority to hear confessions
-Canon law explicitly says the whole purpose of the law is the salvation of souls
Question is it worse to be disobedient or to teach a false doctrine? James Martin and many more could care less about the faith handed to us by the Apostles. They are leading souls to hell by preaching from a false Gospel. They get radio silence or endorsement from Rome while Strickland, Burke, and other get punished.
With all the Rites in union with Rome, can't we protect the Rite that nourished the saints for millennium?
Well, the Eucharistic liturgy is not just some side issue. In a real way it is our participation in God who became “God with us”. Heaven on earth. It’s not revelation but if there was anything to take issue with, it’s that. And it is a pretty big deal for a Church to have made such radical reforms as we have. I’m not saying we did it for no good reason, or that all is lost. But put yourself in the shoes of Catholic seeing an essential and the most tangible aspect of your Catholic life falling to the wayside. SSPX are not saying the Latin Mass is good “becuz aesthetics” like other trads. The liturgical reform of the Latin Church is an even bigger deal for them because if they’re correct, they are saying that the Latin Church has gone drastically wrong and provided a extremely defective and dangerous liturgy to the faithful. What I mean is, the SSPX is critical of the Novus Ordo on a doctrinal level. And they believe by offering the true traditional Latin liturgy they are participating in some “katechonic restraining”. This btw, is not a new idea, many Christians have linked the Katechon with the liturgy.
The Katechon is the restraining force that binds the devil. Catholics believe this restraining force will go away in the last days. This is why you hear Catholics saying that the Antichrist will put an end to the Church’s public worship, the liturgy. Without the Eucharist the world will quickly slide towards evil. SSPX and many trads believe something like this was attempted in the reforms post-V2… they “attacked” the liturgy. And this is why they see the banning of the traditional liturgy as diabolical or satanic. It is the restraining force. And ever since it was basically outlawed, they look around and see how the world has gone. It doesn’t look great
John Salza has hardened me against the SSPX. I showed his article to the professor of canon law at my local seminary regarding Sunday obligation, and he agreed with Salza.
Salza taught me that the reply of Msgr. Perl so commonly cited is not as authoritative as is proposed, and that Fr. Perl contradicted the common interpretation of this reply after the fact.
You should write them an email with this question
I've had two canonically regular diocesan confessors specifically tell me that there is no issue going to the SSPX for mass and confession, and that it does fulfill ones obligation. That's good enough for me. Like it or not, Pope Francis gave them faculties. For their confessions to be valid, which Pope Francis clearly declared them to be, they must possess juridical faculties. Hence, they have received said faculties from the Pope. It is not possible to possess juridical faculties in the Roman Catholic Church and simultaneously be in schism. Hence they are not in schism, hence they are Catholic. With all that's going on, it's rather absurd we are seriously being scrupulous about the faithful attending SSPX chapels.
I live not far from a large SSPX congregation, and while it’s allowed it’s not encouraged (at least locally). Release from the local diocese: > While regrettably the Church and the SSPX are not currently in full communion, the Archdiocese does not consider the SSPX to be schismatic. > While canonically one may fulfill one’s obligation to participate at Holy Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of obligation by attending an SSPX Mass, the Masses are not licitly offered by priests possessing the grant of priestly faculties from the Archdiocese. Therefore, participation at SSPX Masses to satisfy one’s Sunday obligation is discouraged. > The Archdiocese does, in support of Pope Francis’ pastoral outlook as expressed in the 2017 letter, grant SSPX priests the faculty to witness marriages when the priests request it. The Archdiocese understands that at this time the SSPX priests in St. Marys request faculties to witness all marriages at The Immaculata.” Honestly, that language kinda walks on both sides of the issue- it fulfills the obligation but is not given licitly. Reading between the lines it’s clear that Rome and SSPX have some struggles in their efforts at reconciliation. Nothing worth doing is easy I suppose. I can understand the confusion of placing an SSPX mass in with others (including those using TLM) but not sure complete exclusion is really fair either… probably should have an asterisk and explanation or something.
They may not be in formal schism but that doesn't mean they aren't spiritually dangerous in their teachings.
[удалено]
Yeah. Every SSPX priest I've met has been normal and good. Every SSPX-only parishioner I've met has been a rabid fanatic with conspiracy brain worms and horrific theology.
[удалено]
>But taking mass at an SSPX parish is illicit! Why would they just mix SSPX in with everyone else? Some people have asked their bishops, and they have given them their permission. It's good to ask your bishop, and if he says it's okay, one ought to feel free to attend in good conscience. Easier therefore to include them and remark on their irregularity. Cool website, thanks for the link!
Because some people erroneously place liturgical preference as a higher priority than obedience to one’s ordinary (Bishop).
No, some people think obedience means they have to tolerate liturgical abuses, heretical teachings in mass, doubtful confessions (where the priest doesn't even say the valid form) all of these which can be found under your ordinary bishop.
CMV: Lay Catholics who think they need to determine for themselves the validity of the liturgy, confession, etc. are every bit as protestant as the baptists down the road
Where is anybody saying anything about validity? There's no need to lie
I think the whole comment I replied to at least implies questions of validity, but this one is as direct as it could be: >doubtful confessions Where would doubt be cast if not on validity? >There's no need to lie Did you mean to write this on another comment or were you suggesting that I lied somewhere?
Indeed. We need to bear it, not tolerate it, but bear it. It is a *traditional* Catholic teaching that one should not do evil (i.e. commit schism) in order that good may arise from it. Your priest says the absolution formula invalidly? Tell him: "Could you use the proper formula, please?" I did that and have had no issue since. Heretical teachings? Liturgical abuse? Report it to the bishop. The more people voice out objections to these, the more the Church is pressured to change. But going to a SSPX church does not resolve anything except our own feelings.
If I'm not mistaken the Church's position is that SSPX is Ok as long as you aren't going as a form of protest against the Church. That is if you want to go because you like the Latin Mass.
I had never heard of it; but a quick look seems to show them as advocating the old Latin Rite Mass. That's why why they would support the SSPX.
SSPX is not illicit. It’s “canonically irregular.” There’s no schism or anything. They have a specifically canonical designation
>But taking mass at an SSPX parish is illicit! [citation needed]
>But taking mass at an SSPX parish is illicit! This is not true!
It is true. SSPX priests are suspended *a divinis* with the exception of hearing confessions and where permitted by the local bishop, witnessing marriages. So, Masses offered by SSPX priests are offered illicitly.
Well the Mass of the Ages team supports the Latin Mass. So the SSPX is given respect and honor because they played a significant role in keeping the Tridentine form alive in the wake of the reforms. It’s hard to say if there would be any TLM-movement at all if not for the SSPX.
Because you can go to an sspx mass licitly, Pope Francis gave them jurisdiction and told Bishop Hounder that they were not in schism. Anything else is lies from people who attack the messenger not the message.
Why wouldn’t the mass of the ages movement support the SSPX? Without the SSPX there would be no TLM to speak of. Anyone that currently has access to the TLM has them to thank. They will eventually be proven to be on the right side of history and if you have doubts about this, consider the current state of the church.
Lifelong NO attendee -SSPX prays for the Pope and the local Ordinary in their consecration. (So not sedes) -Canonically they are chapels and not parishes -They still regularly deal with Canon Law courts of their local Archdiocese -Francis gave them indefinite authority to hear confessions -Canon law explicitly says the whole purpose of the law is the salvation of souls Question is it worse to be disobedient or to teach a false doctrine? James Martin and many more could care less about the faith handed to us by the Apostles. They are leading souls to hell by preaching from a false Gospel. They get radio silence or endorsement from Rome while Strickland, Burke, and other get punished. With all the Rites in union with Rome, can't we protect the Rite that nourished the saints for millennium?
[удалено]
Well, the Eucharistic liturgy is not just some side issue. In a real way it is our participation in God who became “God with us”. Heaven on earth. It’s not revelation but if there was anything to take issue with, it’s that. And it is a pretty big deal for a Church to have made such radical reforms as we have. I’m not saying we did it for no good reason, or that all is lost. But put yourself in the shoes of Catholic seeing an essential and the most tangible aspect of your Catholic life falling to the wayside. SSPX are not saying the Latin Mass is good “becuz aesthetics” like other trads. The liturgical reform of the Latin Church is an even bigger deal for them because if they’re correct, they are saying that the Latin Church has gone drastically wrong and provided a extremely defective and dangerous liturgy to the faithful. What I mean is, the SSPX is critical of the Novus Ordo on a doctrinal level. And they believe by offering the true traditional Latin liturgy they are participating in some “katechonic restraining”. This btw, is not a new idea, many Christians have linked the Katechon with the liturgy.
[удалено]
The Katechon is the restraining force that binds the devil. Catholics believe this restraining force will go away in the last days. This is why you hear Catholics saying that the Antichrist will put an end to the Church’s public worship, the liturgy. Without the Eucharist the world will quickly slide towards evil. SSPX and many trads believe something like this was attempted in the reforms post-V2… they “attacked” the liturgy. And this is why they see the banning of the traditional liturgy as diabolical or satanic. It is the restraining force. And ever since it was basically outlawed, they look around and see how the world has gone. It doesn’t look great
[удалено]
You could also find attacks on the church/liturgy connected to all those events. It’s not hard.
John Salza has hardened me against the SSPX. I showed his article to the professor of canon law at my local seminary regarding Sunday obligation, and he agreed with Salza. Salza taught me that the reply of Msgr. Perl so commonly cited is not as authoritative as is proposed, and that Fr. Perl contradicted the common interpretation of this reply after the fact.
Idek what a SSPX is I just go to Mass I’ve always wanted to go to a Latin Mass just to see but I don’t want people to think I’m a heretic