What is wrong with FSSP?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

Cam, i have big problems with the NO. and if an indpendent chapel fufills my obligation i would prefer to go there.

hopefully by March 24 the SSPX will be back in full communion.

[Fidei Defensor]

Positive change in the Church must come from within. The SSPX will never do anything good for the Church because they are outside of it. They set no good example of orthodoxy because they are disobedient to Christ's Vicar.

If you really want to help the Church become more holy, be holy yourself. Attend masses which are in communion with Rome, so that you may be in the Church, not outside it. Attend masses with abuses, but be holy. Set an example. Pray for positive change. Send [b]humble[/b] letters to your pastor(s) and request orthodoxy. You must be holy in order to help, and you must be holy within the Church, not outside of it.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

i have a porblem with the way the faith is practiced at the NO churches.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 6 2006, 08:39 PM']i have a porblem with the way the faith is practiced at the NO churches.
[right][snapback]904776[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You have a problem with the way the faith is practiced at [i]your[/i] "NO Church". If you believe that is how every church is, you need to re-think that stand. It is no secret that there are priests who are disobedient. But this needs to be taken up with the Bishops, or the proper Church authorities. Sitting around and complaining about it isnt fixing the problem.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 6 2006, 09:36 PM']Cam, i have big problems with the NO. and if an indpendent chapel fufills my obligation i would prefer to go there.

hopefully by March 24 the SSPX will be back in full communion.
[right][snapback]904773[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

An independent/schismatic/SSPX chapel only fulfills your Sunday obligation IF you cannot reasonably attend a Mass approved by Rome.

Do you know how many "I's" I have read from you in the last hour or so? Let's count......at least 12 since 8:43pm.

I think that is telling......you need to stop being so prideful and listen to what we are teaching you. Your view is askew and your view is incorrect. I believe that you are entering into [i]involuntary doubt[/i]. Please stop, it will lead to spiritual blindness. I am asking you as someone with more understanding than you.....please listen and guard against said doubt.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

you still have not proved this to me............

i must be really stupid because i am just not getting this:

perl never says their has to be no licit mass available.

Edited March 7, 2006 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 6 2006, 09:39 PM']i have a porblem with the way the faith is practiced at the NO churches.
[right][snapback]904776[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Then you have a problem with the faith of the Church and the authority of the Pontiff as well as those bishops in union with him.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 6 2006, 08:39 PM']i have a porblem with the way the faith is practiced at the NO churches.
[right][snapback]904776[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
So do you have a problem with the NO or the faith that is practiced at NO churches? Those are two different things.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 6 2006, 09:53 PM']you still have not proved this to me............

i must be really stupid because i am just not getting this:

perl never says their has to be no licit mass available.
[right][snapback]904797[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You are only reading one part of one document.....READ ALL OF THEM.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

can you cite your document?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 6 2006, 10:12 PM']can you cite your document?
[right][snapback]904820[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yep.....

[quote name='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.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.[/quote]

In case anyone needs a clarification, "morally illicit" means the same as "sinful." (cf. Can. 844 §2)

Can a Catholic Approach a SSPX Priest for the Sacraments?

What is clear from this is that a Catholic who participates in Society Masses not only commits a sin, but, he does not fulfill his Sunday obligation; i.e., the obligation cannot be fulfilled with a group which is out of communion with Rome. Which the SSPX clearly is. As in the case of the Orthodox churches, for instance, if a Catholic cannot attend Mass at a Catholic Church, he is then not bound to go to Mass; his obligation is suspended in this instance. In any event, the Church says that when a Catholic is in a doubtful situation, his duty is to leave it which definitely applies to the SSPX.

[quote name='Pontifical Commission ECCLESIA DEI in protocol N. 117/95']2. The Masses [the SSPX] celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2).   The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.[/quote]

The ordinary means for Catholics to fulfill their Sunday Mass obligation is through attendance at locations approved by Rome and none other. This was clearly indicated when the Commission Ecclesia Dei said "The Masses the SSPX celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing. (Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2) The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called 'Tridentine' Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses."

Is that clear enough for you.....? And the "morally issue....." That is not for you to discern, but rather the local Ordinary. If you have concerns, follow the directive of Redemptoris Sacramentum #184.

[quote]Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.  It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.[/quote]

[Amator Veritatis]

Perhaps I could bring some clarity to this matter, for I assist at Mass at a parish of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, [i]Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Petri[/i], FSSP, and know those who assist at Masses at chapels of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii Decimi, FSSPX (often termed the Society of Saint Pius X in English and hereinafter, SSPX). The oversimplification of the disapproval of the FSSP by supporters of the SSPX as an historical matter is naïve and simply inaccurate. If anything, the clerical members of the SSPX, the seminarians, priests and bishops, might be inclined to disapprove of the FSSP for the historical reason that they separated themselves from the SSPX at the founding of the FSSP by Pope John Paul II. Even this assessment, however, is incomplete at best, illustrating merely a rudimentary understanding of the actual sentiments of the members and supporters of the SSPX. The truth of the matter is that most of the supporters of the SSPX oppose the FSSP for the fact that, at least in their opinions, the FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, [i]Institutum Christi Regis Summi Sacerdotis[/i], (hereinafter ICR) as well as the now-suppressed Society of Saint John simply have not maintained unadulterated traditionalism. By this phrase is meant that the other groups officially recognised and formally sanctioned by Rome have failed to maintain traditional principles regarding the status of Vatican II, the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the new Catechism of the Catholic Church [i]et al[/i]. Without discussing the specific positions of the SSPX on any of those matters, suffice it to say that the supporters of the SSPX feel that the FSSP, ICR, [i]et al[/i]., have simply failed to recognise the heresy of Modernism which permeates--at least in their opinions and those of many others--so much of the activity in the Church today. The historical issue is not only often regarded as unimportant, but there are many who assist at Masses at SSPX chapels who do not know much information about the historical roots of the SSPX, much less that the FSSP in some manner replaced the SSPX after its institution. It should also be noted, as a general rule, the supporters of the SSPX are essentially always as rigid or extreme in their views regarding a given matter as the official position of the SSPX, if there be any, but they are often or at least sometimes more strict, e.g., the SSPX promotes that the vernacular [i]Novus Ordo Missae [/i]is at least questionably valid as a result of the defective consecration of the chalice which states "for all" rather than "for many", [i]pro multis[/i], as its Latin form states; many supporters of the SSPX maintain that the vernacular [i]Novus Ordo Missae [/i]is certainly invalid or that every [i]Novus Ordo Missae [/i]is invalid. This principle, that the majority of the faithful who assist at Mass are often more strict or rigid in their views that the official positions held by the clergy offering the Mass, seems to prevail whether the clergy be SSPX, FSSP, ICR or even the educated faithful who assist at the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i].


It should also be noted that an FSSP priest is not obliged to say the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i]. While he is permitted this option and, as Rome has stated that it is the right of any priest in the Latin rite to offer the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], he is by no means required to offer it. Interestingly enough, after the debacle in 1999 in which 16 priests, mostly French, of the FSSP sought permission to concelebrate the Chrism Mass, there was something of a debate within the FSSP as to the exact status of priests who wished to offer the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], though the votes at their chapter meeting confirmed the sentiments of the priests in the FSSP, with the most traditional priest being elected to places of authority, all of whom were known to be opponents of concelebration or the celebration of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/I ]or both. As a result of this desire on the part of the 16 priests, a [I]dubium[/i] was presented to the Congregation of Divine Worship by those wishing to concelebrate the Chrism Mass and others, including a number of laymen, most of whom were also from France. Having consulted with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, the Congregation of Divine Worship issued the infamous Protocol 1411/99 (usually simply deemed Protocol 1411 or the Protocol). Protocol 1411/99 offered the following answer to a question regarding the celebration of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] by traditional priests:

Can a priest who is a member of an institute which enjoys the faculty of celebrating the rite in force before the liturgical restoration of Vatican II freely use the Roman Missal promulgated by the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI when he celebrates the Eucharistic Sacrifice for the good of a community in which the Mass is celebrated according to this missal, even if occasionally?

Affirmative and [i]ad mentem [/i]. [i]Mens[/i]: Since the use of the preconciliar missal is conceded by indult, it does not remove the common liturgical right to the Roman Rite, according to which the missal in force is that promulgated after the Second Vatican Council. [i]Moreover, the above-mentioned priest must celebrate with the post-conciliar missal if, by chance, a celebration takes place in a community which uses the modern Roman Rite[/i]. This is so in order that there be no wonderment (confusion) or inconvenience for the faithful and also in order that he might be a help to his brother priests who ask this service of pastoral charity. (emphasis added)

Now, this statement only requires the priest to offer the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] in a community which uses the Novus Ordo Missae. The priests of the FSSP and ICR at least cannot be forced to offer the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], for the requirement stated in Protocol 1411/99 would not apply to a priest who chooses to offer the Mass strictly in a traditional setting, so while it can be said that a priest of the FSSP or ICR could, perhaps, be required under certain circumstances to offer the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i], it cannot be said that such priests can be forced to do so. This is an important distinction, especially in the minds of the clergy of the FSSP and ICR, which has been manifested both publicly and privately.


I should add that I have been unable to find a document suppressing the traditional Mass. Because of this fact, the Mass can be offered by any priest. Cam seems to be unaware of this fact or seems to deny it outright. If there is any disagreement on this point, I would be interested in reading an authoritative document suppressing the traditional Mass. It is noteworthy at least that a small convocation of Cardinals was called by John Paul II in 1986 to answer questions regarding the use of the traditional Mass. The commission, comprised of Cardinals Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin, Innocenti, Palaz-zini, and Tomko, determined that the traditional Mass had never been forbidden, that priests are not obliged to offer the [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] and that bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions on the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass whether in public or in private. Though their findings be not authoritative in themselves, they are certainly an illustration of the [i]mens ecclesiae [/i]in this matter. In addition, eight of the nine Cardinals favoured an official document making their findings clear and public. These facts have been affirmed by Cardinal Stickler, one of the Cardinals called for the commission.

Edited March 7, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Take the St. Francis, the St. Charles Borromeo, or the St. Benedict route for change - not the Martin Luther or the SSPX route. The SSPX is cowardly. We cannot just go off into our own little universe and pretend the rest of the world does not exist. Christianity has to engage to world head on - ultradtraditionalism backs off from the challenge. To go to an independent chapel when there is access to a parish in communion with Rome is unacceptable. I would rather go to the local parish with a Ghandi picture on the wall than commit an act of schism.

[brendan1104]

[quote]so you are a feenyite? [/quote]- how do you define feeneyite?

no pope has ever solemnly, dogmatically defined "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire". it is not a part of public revelation. there's no neccessity to believe in it.

From the Creed- "Confiteor [b]Unuum [/b] Baptisma"- "I confess [b]One[/b] Baptism." Not three, one.

[quote] There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved. [/quote] (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

[quote] The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. [/quote] (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

brendan i have to say this is unacceptable. Marcel Lefebvre wrote about this error in his book "Open Letter to confused Catholics"

we must only reject novelities that are taught. Baptism of blood and desire were taught before Modernism infeccted the church.