qfnol31 Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 Okay, I don't know where to go with this one, feel free to move it around. Do not bash in this post! I want to be able to read it. Now to my question: I have a friend who is having trouble seeing why SSPX Masses are illicit. I've tried to explain it to him in many different ways, but he's very knowledgable and can come up with good responses. Also, he thinks that the Holy Father may not have handled the situation well by creating FSSP the next day. You guys have any advice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 If they reject the Pope, how can the SSPX Masses not be illicit? For that matter, how can they even be considered Catholic? If one rejects the Pope and claims the Chair of St. Peter is empty, in effect, they are saying the Church has become Apostate, which would mean that Jesus lied in Matthew's Gospel when he promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. ...stay away from the SSPX! I had troubles with them before I came to my senses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PedroX Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 SSPX does not reject the Pope. They choose to disobey him. A fine line of distinction, true, but an important one. They do not claim the chair of Peter is empty and they do see themselves as part of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Just wanted to clarify. peace... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p0lar_bear Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 qfnol31, I was trying to find some of my previous posts on the SSPX, but apparently threads that ended up in the back alley were not transfered over. That means I have to start from scratch. I'll try to find the information again for you, but it might be a couple of days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 [quote name='PedroX' date='Jun 1 2004, 09:15 AM'] SSPX does not reject the Pope. They choose to disobey him. A fine line of distinction, true, but an important one. They do not claim the chair of Peter is empty and they do see themselves as part of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Just wanted to clarify. peace... [/quote] That wasn't my experience with them... Aren't they part of the schismatic "Traditionalist" branch that follows Lefebvre?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jun 1 2004, 09:17 AM'] Aren't they part of the schismatic "Traditionalist" branch that follows Lefebvre?? [/quote] Yes they are. Most don't view themselves as seperated from Rome, but Rome views them as seperated. Not all are the Radical Trads many view them as. The Tridentine Mass is licit and beautiful, as is the N.O. most of us are familiar with. The Schism is about rejecting the Authority of the Pope and LeFebvre ordaining Bishops against the will, direction, and Authority of the Pope and Magesterium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 That's what I thought... and was my experience with them, i.e. "the N.O. Mass is invalid.." blah blah blah. Oh yeah, and from the SSPX site for the US: "We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it." [url="http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_I._declaration.htm"]http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/appendix_I._declaration.htm[/url] The SSPX themselves (or most of them) do not view themselves as being separated, but they certainly seem to advocate it when you read what they have to say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted June 1, 2004 Author Share Posted June 1, 2004 LoL, sorry, didn't mean that they don't believe that the Holy Father is a true Successor to Rome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 (edited) Often, I think it depends on which SSPX "follower" you talk to. Some do reject the Pope, others do not. Some just really really like the Tridentine Mass but go to Novus Ordo when a Tridentine Mass isn't available, others believe that the Novus Ordo is invalid and say prayers in reparation because they believe its an abomination. Of course, there are those who aren't SSPX followers at all and who love the Tridentine Mass, too, which probably would mean that they beling to the first instance of just really really liking the Trid Mass. (I've known various people from who fit into any one of those "groups") Edited June 1, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 If one loves the Tridentine Mass [i]and the Magisterium[/i], then I should think he'd attend an indult Mass. I've known friends so enamored with the Church's liturgical traditions that they basically throw the pope out with the bath water; opting to attend the Society "Masses." I think that once one becomes a regular at those celebrations, attendees become indoctrinated with the Society's errors also. They begin sounding sympathetic..."The poor Holy Father..." and within a short while, they speak of him with utter contempt. Rome has called for generosity in providing the faithful with traditional Masses (approved ones). There's no need to attend Pius X Masses, imho. Pax Christi. <>< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusader_4 Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 I love the latin mass...yet i am completely faithful to His Holiness John Paul II The Vicar of Christ and the Holy Magestrium...altho i would never go to a SSPX mass but rather an approved one by the local Bishop or Rome. Also from what i hear JP II is a really big fan of the Latin mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hananiah Posted June 1, 2004 Share Posted June 1, 2004 [quote name='qfnol31' date='Jun 1 2004, 04:47 AM'] who is having trouble seeing why SSPX Masses are illicit. I've tried to explain it to him in many different ways, but he's very knowledgable and can come up with good responses. Also, he thinks that the Holy Father may not have handled the situation well by creating FSSP the next day. You guys have any advice? [/quote] No one is allowed to disobey a direct disciplinary command from the Holy Father, except perhaps in cases of necessity, such as if the Pope asked you to kill someone. The Pope told Marcel Levebvre not to consecrate bishops, but he did so anyway. There was no state of necessity. This act incurred latae sentiae excommunication. He went into schism, as did all who formally adhered to his diobedience. There is no excuse for schism, no matter how many legitimate greivances one has against the Pope. The proper attitude is that of David towards King Saul. Even though Saul was trying to kill him, he said "who can stretch out his hand against the LORD'S anointed and be without guilt?" God rewards patience towards bad leaders, not disobedience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader1234 Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 thanks pope... that was really informative. This has already been suggested, but I'd agree and say just tell him to go toa latin mass if he feels so inclined. Tons of Churches offer them. Like Hannaniah said, basically by joining the whole SSPX schism, you are removing yourself from the Church. I personally think, that in all situations (aside from in cases of neccessity like Hannaniah said) we should just do what the Pope says, after all, nobody knows more about what is right (as far as faith goes among us humans) than the Pope. If he didn't know the most, and wasnt the best for the job, he wouldnt be Pope now would he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p0lar_bear Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 Regarding whether the faithful may attend an SSPX Mass, the answer is generally negative. There are two arguments against attending such a Mass: one canonical, the other ecclesial (pertaining to what it means to be a member of the Church). The canonical argument begins with the premise that the SSPX is in schism. The Catholic Church allows its members to receive Communion in churches whose sacraments are valid, which would include the Orthodox Churches and certain western schismatic groups with valid sacraments, such as the SSPX. However, the Church emphasizes that these exceptions are only for those Catholics “for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister” (Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2): [quote]Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful, for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid (emphasis added; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 1400-01). [/quote] If a Catholic lives in an area where there are Masses celebrated in communion with the local bishop and thus the Pope, the provisions of canon 844.2 clearly do not apply and thus there would be no physical or moral necessity to participate in a schismatic Mass, such as is offered by the Society of St. Pius X. The ecclesial argument is based on the admonition of the Vatican: “The priests and faithful are warned not to seek to adhere to the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, because they would incur ipso facto the extremely grave penalty of excommunication.” The issue here is not to avoid excommunication (although one should), but to avoid formal association with the group. Worshipping together is in itself an act of community, or association. Furthermore, people who choose to worship with a group in schism when a legitimate Mass is available elsewhere indicate their intent to associate by their choice. A member of the Church of Christ acts to uphold the unity of His Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted June 2, 2004 Share Posted June 2, 2004 I'm closing this topic and deleting the last few posts because it turned into a battle of the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts