In the case of these two sacraments, those who receive them from the SSPX are not receiving these sacraments. It would be like going to an Episcopal priest in the high church tradition and thinking one is receiving the sacraments in a valid way--you aren't. In fact it would be better to go to an Eastern Orthodox priest, since they are in true schism and do not require canonical approbation for the validity of their Sacrament of Penance and Holy Matrimony.
In the case of both the Anglicans and the SSPX, who is the only person in the world who could decree such a thing? The pope of course, but canon law supports the invalidity of Confession and Holy Matrimony when canonical status is not present in those groups that are not legitimately in schism.
For example, I could still be a priest in good standing for Baptism and Mass, but my faculties to preach, hear confessions and officiate at weddings could be removed by my bishop as a sort of punishment or acknowledgment of my incompetence, but he wants me to still say Mass. If I heard confessions and officiated at a wedding after my canonical privileges were revoked, these sacraments would be invalid.
But some are asking about other far out groups in addition to the SSPX in the Catholic Church, like the LCWR and priests who illicitly celebrate Mass by changing words and doing all kinds of stupid things, but just short of making the Mass invalid. Why aren't they treated like the SSPX by the Magisterium?
The LCWR hasn't ordained any bishops, that is a big difference. But nuns who have participated in the simulation of the sacrament of Holy Orders of women have been excommunicated as well as those who receive in an invalid way.
It is up to local bishops to discipline priests who celebrated the Mass and other sacraments illicitly albeit validly. If a breakaway progressive group opposed the pope and ordained bishops without his permission, they would be the opposite spectrum of the SSPX. There are some groups like this, but very small and will never be reconciled to the Church until there is a renunciation of heresy and sacrilege. These are truly in schism.
Holy Mother Church and her valid Magisterium are willing to work with the SSPX because so much of their lack of canonical status is tied up in discipline not heresy or sacrilege (although the invalid celebration of Penance and Matrimony come extremely close) and the fact that an Archbishop of the Church ordained bishops validly but illicitly. They have more in common with the fullness of the Church surrounded by Saint Peter than the Orthodox and Anglicans. This has to be made clear and they have more in commmon with the true Church than the LCWR, but the LCWR hasn't ordained bishops, thus a big difference.
But the difference between the LCWR and the SSPX would vanish if a bishop is ordained validly but illicitly without Rome's approval. Then the LCWR and the SSPX would be in the very same boat but on opposite sides of the ideological divide when it comes to discipline in the Church., as long as the LCWR comes under validly, but illicitly ordained bishops and priests.
72 comments:
"It would be like going to an Episcopal priest in the high church tradition and thinking one is receiving the sacraments in a valid way--you aren't."
Oh but Father, the bestest most humblest pope everrrrrrrr, Francis publicly acknowledged his dear, dead, Protestant friend as a bishop. And for whatever reason that Protestant wanted a Catholic funeral Mass and of course the church of "nice" gave him one. And the smartest pope ever called up the church where the funeral was going to be held and demanded that "bishop" Tony Parker be given the funeral that is accorded a bishop. Even though Pope Leo definitively defined Anglican orders invalid, Francis the merciful has decided otherwise.
So you see Father your argument about mixing apples and oranges does not hold up in the era of Francis. Because this papacy is not about reason and truth/Truth, it's about feeling and public relations. It's utter chaos. It's the mess Francis has demanded. Everything is up in the air. Bishop after filthy bishop is crawling out of the woodwork spewing their disgusting love for adultery, sodomy, etc. So I can state that it is ludicrous to mollify the LCWR while demonizing the SSPX which believes and teaches everything the Catholic Church has ever taught. The SSPX will not be silent in the face of the growing heresy that has taken hold in the Church and the hierarchy cannot stand it. Evil always hates it when the spotlight of truth is focused on them.
Father McDonald, thank you for the clarification. All of this is, of course, true. It is unfortunate that the letter of the Law creates this distinction. It is still puzzling, at least, why the swift and harsh reaction to SSPX and other devoted traditionalist groups yet the prolonged toleration of outright abuse from other groups. The devotees of SSPX at least know the teachings of the Church, the dogma, and Catechism and I dare say follow them better than most other Catholics. Under most other, if not virtually all, other bishops the laity have been made ignorant, even misled. If an illicit wedding is a cause for mortal sin, I wonder how teaching that contraception, abortion, homosexual activity are matters of conscience and Church teaching not binding would compare? Also, since sin may be either action or inaction, it seems the encouragement of the SSPX bishops in their transgressions is similar, perhaps even in severity, to the respective lack of action of Bishops in full Communion when upholding Church teaching.
But the Law, is the Law, and must be obeyed. That is the distinction. Recalling what I wrote in the previous post except for that distinction of Law both are extreme examples of the same population of Catholics. The clown Mass is a valid Mass because the Pope says it is so. A Clown Marriage, examples of some you have posted (although not in greasepaint) are presumed to be valid, too, by that same authority. Moses struck the rock and water validly issued forth. But that was then, and is now, a shame that such granted authority should be spent in such a manner.
Your opinion is wrong.
L, Martin Luther would say the same as would odeon Anglicans concerning their sacraments. So you have company.
I'd still go to Mass at an SSPX chapel. I would just hold my nose and go to the Novus Ordo priests for Confession and other non-Communion Sacraments.
Venerable Solanus Casey was ordained a simplex priest, who could preside at an at Mass but did not have the required faculties for public preaching or hearing confessions.
Father Casey was Roman Catholic priest in good standing but if one went to him for confession, he would have to refer you to another priest.
Hi Father,
If this is true:
"... Many Catholics who attend these chapels think they are receiving absolution in "confession" and are validly being "married" but they are not and thus when they go to Holy Communion they are doing so in a state of mortal sin compounded by their illicit civil union which is an invalid sacrament. ..."
Then the Church supplies due to error and the noted sacraments are valid.
That the SSPX does not have hierarchical jurisdiction is not in question. If they made that claim, then they would be schismatic. They generally rely upon supplied jurisdiction due to the state of necessity in which the faithful find themselves. However, the suppliance of jurisdiction in the case of error would also suffice.
P^3
Slight digression: Episcopalians were a poorly-chosen comparison since, in the wake of Apostolicae curae, many Anglicans sought ordination from bishops whose own ordinations were undoubtedly valid (though schismatic). As a result, many Episcopal priests and bishops sidestepped Apostolicae curae to the effect that the Holy See noted as recently as the 1980s that in the case of one Anglican bishop who became Catholic, it couldn't state with certainty that his episcopal ordination had not been valid. Of course, as more and more women become Anglican bishops, the number of Anglican ordinations that might otherwise be valid continues to drop.
Wow. What a lack of faith and trust in the Church and the Holy Pontiff from this display of most commenters here in this post (not to mention some other frequent people of AJM's blog.) it is sad how you justify your rationale for putting your soul in mortal danger. I equate it to the analogy of a large body of water where there are sharks swimming. You know it, the lifeguards tell you not to go so deep and there are more safer waters but you insist to go to the centre and hope you don't get bit, but eventually you will.
And don't give me the "lifeguards are asleep" excuse. Matt 16:18-19 people. Christ didn't guarantee that his tenders in the vineyard would be impeccable men, why even his Apostles were faulty in ways and Judas betrayed Christ!
I for one, stand by everything +Morlino, AJM, etc. say and promote here. Slander and detract me if you want, but I would never go one iota near them, especially after giving Benedict XVI and the Church a backhanded slap to the face in 2012. They are not obedient to Christ and His Church, hold their supposed spiritual goods for themselves (vs re-ordering and sanctifying liturgy and behavior in the Church,) and having the ability to damn a person's soul into schism. Until they repent and become canonized into communion in the church, I stand with +Morlino: have nothing to do with them.
Julian Barkin,
I don't think that anyone here has raised the question of impeccability. The problem, as most defenders of SSPX in these threads see it, is that of lack of principle among those popes and bishops who condemn SSPX but who fail/refuse to condemn or take notice of far more widespread problems outside of SSPX. As was noted in another thread, this raises the question of whether those in authority are making canonical decisions in a legitimate fashion.
Further, I don't believe that anyone here wishes or intends to risk his/her soul. Quite the contrary. The problem is that the lack of principled decisions regarding schism/heresy by the hierarchy has resulted in serious confusion at a very deep level, by people who are conversant with theology and doctrine, over what exactly the hierarchy is doing. That strongly suggests that Church is in crisis.
My sense is that nobody here wants to pull a Luther and set himself up as his own pope. Everyone here and on the earlier SSPX thread seems to be asking where within Catholicism the truth lies. The pro-SSPX people say SSPX since everything they hold (short of the mere canonical problems) was viewed as perfectly fine up until a half century ago, and the "pros" can't understand why it isn't fine now and why heresies within the mainstream apparently (to judge from the hierarchy's response) _are_ fine. The anti-SSPX people seem to be saying that the pope and the hierarchy no matter what, end of discussion. But as DJR has noted on the other thread, given historical canonical disputes, that "end of discussion" isn't realistic.
My own cynical view is that schism threatens the pocketbooks and collection plates of the mainstream hierarchy in a way that heresy by nominal Catholics doesn't. This isn't quite as bad as it sounds, since the mainstream, presumably, genuinely want to do good with Church revenues. A more sinister explanation is that the mainstream consists of modernists who don't subscribe to what the Church has taught magisterially on the subject of faith and morals, and see in SSPX a group that does subscribe to those teachings and therefore presents an obstacle to their modernist agenda. In that case, heresy in the mainstream is not merely acceptable, but desirable. Either way, given the rampant heresy and liturgical abuse within the mainstream, the sense is that the hierarchy's treatment of SSPX is simply unjust.
If Bishop Morlino were actually worried about the laity' souls, he would give the SSPX priests within his diocese faculties. Since he has chosen to "ask" his flock to avoid these priests instead of doing that, I assume there is something else motivating his letter besides concern for his flock.
The fact that we have the Fraternity of St Peter is because around 10 priests of the SSPX at the time of the illicit consecration of the bishops by Archbishop Leferbvre refused to be part of this disobedience and approached Pope St John Paul and so the Fraternity of St Peter was born and is flourishing.
Just because we have a bunch of liberals being disobedient in the Church doesn't mean that there is an excuse for the SSPX to remain in disobedience or to attend their chapels.
Anyone who attends SSPX chapels and goes to confession or is "married" by SSPX priests, knowing that they have no faculties, takes the risk of their own soul. I know many SSPX members here who go to priests other than the SSPX for confession and also are married by priests other than SSPX priests, so obviously not all are blind to the consequences as some posting here appear to be.
The SSPX claim they can do what they are doing because of a state of emergency but Pius XII didn't accept that for the Church in China, which could be thought of as being in a far greater state of emergency than the SSPX has ever been. The Sons of the Holy Redeemer have managed to reconcile with the Church, as have over 5,000 in Brazil. The only ones lagging the chain are the SSPX and, from what one hears, that is because there are certain monied people who support the SSPX who don't want a bar of any reconciliation and they told Bishop Fellay in no uncertain terms so Fellay had to do a fast backtrack. As I recall, he was threatened with being deposed at the time. Therefore, all of those attending the SSPX chapels are putting their souls at risk and dancing to the tune of this monied group who are pulling the strings of the SSPX. I know that if it were me I would be putting my soul first and finding another order that offers the Traditional Mass, even if it meant travelling a distance of moving state.
Jan
Lefebvrian said... If Bishop Morlino were actually worried about the laity' souls, he would give the SSPX priests within his diocese faculties. Since he has chosen to "ask" his flock to avoid these priests instead of doing that, I assume there is something else motivating his letter besides concern for his flock.
Perhaps the bishop is too busy giving faculties to the priests of the communist, proabortion Patriotic Association, like several of his confreres here in the United States have done (a documented, verifiable fact, reported in Catholic news outlets).
The hypocrisy in the Church outstrips the mountains.
Hi Jan,
"... The SSPX claim they can do what they are doing because of a state of emergency but Pius XII didn't accept that for the Church in China, which could be thought of as being in a far greater state of emergency than the SSPX has ever been. ..."
I don't see how the situations of the SSPX (persecuted for not deviating from pre-conciliar doctrine) and the Chinese National Catholic Church (state sponsored schismatic) are remotely the same.
"... The Sons of the Holy Redeemer have managed to reconcile with the Church, as have over 5,000 in Brazil. The only ones lagging the chain are the SSPX and, from what one hears, that is because there are certain monied people who support the SSPX who don't want a bar of any reconciliation and they told Bishop Fellay in no uncertain terms so Fellay had to do a fast backtrack. ..."
This is the first time I heard that calumny. The point is that in 2012 the CDF reinserted at least two key items that the SSPX perceives as a compromise: Accepting the Second Vatican Council without distinctions / reservations and the New Mass likewise without distinctions. Based on what Bishop Fellay has stated publicly a compromise of principles was required and therefore he could not agree.
"... As I recall, he was threatened with being deposed at the time. Therefore, all of those attending the SSPX chapels are putting their souls at risk and dancing to the tune of this monied group who are pulling the strings of the SSPX. I know that if it were me I would be putting my soul first and finding another order that offers the Traditional Mass, even if it meant travelling a distance of moving state. ..."
Sorry, your information is faulty.
The 'resistance' who have issues of their own - called for his resignation. They have, in large part, separated from the SSPX because their cultural assumptions have been violated by Bishop Fellay being willing to follow through on the principles of obedience if a legitimate command was issued.
P^3
The so-called Resistance movement highlights what makes the SSPX a legitimate part of the Church. Whereas the Resistance is completely isolated from Rome and will refuse to even have discussions with Rome until it "converts," the SSPX maintains a relationship with Rome and has discussions on theological matters. As I understand Bishop Fellay's strategy, it is to have continual discussions with Roman theologians in an effort to bring them back to a proper understanding of the Faith. I suppose the Resistance is waiting for some great miracle to happen or for the Apocalypse to break out (I seriously think this is precisely what +Williamson is waiting for).
Lefebvrian, Bishop Morlino states that there are enough Masses for people in his diocese to attend a traditional Mass without having to have recourse to a group like the SSPX that has no standing under Canon Law. I would think they can't be given faculties from a bishop while that situation pertains.
Bishop Fellay apppears to even be against the Traditional Masses under Summorum Pontificum as he states the following:
"What advice do you give to Catholics who, since and thanks to the Motu Proprio, now have a traditional Mass closer to them than a chapel of the Society of St. Pius X?
My advice to them is to ask the priests of the Society for advice first, not to go with their eyes closed to just any traditional Mass that is celebrated nearby. The Mass is a treasure; but there is also a way of saying it, and everything that goes with it: the sermon, the catechesis, the way of administering the sacraments… Not every traditional Mass is necessarily accompanied by the conditions required for it to bear all its fruits and to protect the soul from the dangers of the current crisis. Therefore ask the priests of the Society for advice first."
http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/54_answers_from_bishop_fellay_feb_2011/54_answers_bp_fellay2.htm
It seems to me that he is putting the SSPX into the context of a Magisterium - his own church perhaps.
The whole article is pompous and Fellay seems to put himself on an equal footing with the Pope when in reality he has no canonical standing in the Church whatsoever and is lucky that the Church keeps dialoguing with him.
Jan
Tradical, the short answer is that, except for sedavacantists, all traditional groups, bar the SSPX, have reconciled with the Church. The SSPX has had numerous opportunities over the years to reconcile with the Church before they were even asked to sign the preamble and so compromise their principles. Had they never gone out on their own there would be no need to sign any document. They have created a rod for their own back.
As far as I see it, the SSPX always has a reason not to reconcile and I believe they will always have a reason not to reconcile. I personally can never see a reconciliation for the SSPX. I think they have moved away too far now. They more or less have their own magisterium: telling people not to attend Mass on Sundays if they can't get to a traditional Mass, advising people what Traditional Mass is acceptable and what is not, hearing confessions and officiating at weddings etc when they know themselves they have no such faculties.
It won't be long before they have to ordain another bishop and then they will incur automatic excommunication again. The never ending story ...
Jan
Jan,
I think one of the objections the SSPX has (and anyone here more knowledgeable is welcome to correct me) is the requirement that they accept Vatican II without reservation. The reason SSPX refused to do this is its continued contention that four items in VII apparently contradict doctrines of the faith. Further, the hierarchy has (to my knowledge) steadfastly refused to even attempt to reconcile these four problem areas with pre-existing doctrine. This not only puts the SSPX in a position of utter capitulation if it accepts; it affects all of the faithful by leaving them uncertain about what Church teaching in these four areas actually is. This isn't fair dealing, either with SSPX or, mor eseriously, with the laity as a whole. You can read more about the situation I describe here:
http://cemeterypicnic.blogspot.com/2012/04/open-invitation-to-all-comers-to.html
Julian Barkin said..."I for one, stand by everything +Morlino, AJM, etc. say and promote here. Slander and detract me if you want, but I would never go one iota near them, especially after giving Benedict XVI and the Church a backhanded slap to the face in 2012. They are not obedient to Christ and His Church, hold their supposed spiritual goods for themselves (vs re-ordering and sanctifying liturgy and behavior in the Church,) and having the ability to damn a person's soul into schism. Until they repent and become canonized into communion in the church, I stand with +Morlino: have nothing to do with them."
Julian, nobody should slander you. I disagree with your above statements in regard to the SSPX. But as Catholics, we should treat each as brothers in Christ.
Julian, I disagree with the idea that the Society delivered a slap to Pope Benedict XVI in 2012 A.D. As we know from the Vatileaks scandal, intrigue, confusion, and poor governance of the Church abounded in Rome during Pope Benedict XVI's Pontificate.
Pope (Emeritus) Benedict XVI is/was a holy man. In regard to his Pontificate, he was a poor administrator. That was obvious within and without the Church.
During Pope Benedict XVI's reign, Bishop Fellay noted the confusion that swirled in Rome in regard to the SSPX.
Bishop Fellay would note that "Vatican official "A" would claim that Pope Benedict XVI expected this and that from the Society...Vatican official "B" would inform the Society that such was not the case...Vatican official "C" would contradict official "B"...official "D" would contradict official "C"...
Even today, we find within the Church mass confusion in regard to the SSPX.
Bishop Morlino painted last week picture "X" of the Society...and his evaluation as to how we should deal with the SSPX was contradicted in major...MAJOR...fashion by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
Within the past few days, two bishops, Morlino and Schneider, have portrayed the SSPX in ways that differ dramatically.
Bishop Schneider serves His Holiness Pope Francis as an Apostolic Visitor to the SSPX. Bishop Morlino does not. Take you pick as to whose evaluation in question of the SSPX you favor.
That is what the SSPX is up against now...and faced in 2012 A.D.
As to the confusion that surrounded Rome and the Society in 2012 A.D., an agreement between Rome and SSPX was in the works.
The leaked secret letter from Bishop Fellay to the additional SSPX bishops demonstrated the above. But suddenly, on June 13, 2012 A.D., Bishop Fellay's meeting with Rome was sabotaged when Vatican officials heaped new demands upon the Society.
Various officials of the SSPX pointed to a certain (I won't name him) Vatican official as the man who had undermined the Rome-SSPX discussions.
Anyway, Bishop Fellay did not "backhand" Pope Benedict XVI.
Julian, I again disagree with your approach to the SSPX..."have nothing to do with them". His Holiness Pope Francis disagrees with your approach.
Bishop Schneider, who serves Pope Francis as an Apostolic Visitor to the SSPX, disagrees with your approach.
Julian, I hope that I did not slander you. I don't have any desire to attack you. I just wished simply to disagree with you, my brother in Christ, in peaceful fashion.
Julian, I know that we share the same desire that Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X will enjoy peace with each other.
Julian, I wish peace and good health upon you and your family.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas:
It's not a question of whose evaluation I or anyone else favors. The probem is the SSPX 's canonical status as of right now. From what I've read of it, I agree with Bishop Schneider's evaluation. But it is just that - an evaluation. The fact of the matter as things now stand, the Society has no legitimate standing in the Church. So while one can accept Bishop Schneider's evaluation of the Society, a Catholic should also accept Bishop's Molrino's plea that unless and until the canonical status is changed, that Catholics should not frequent SSPX chapels or seek sacraments from the priests of the SSPX.
Who here would not accept a decision by the Holy Father to allow the SSPX back in if he were to make that decision?
Mark Thomas, George is right. Bishop Schneider is no more advocating that people attend the SSPX than Bishop Morlino is. All Bishop Schneider is saying is that the SSPX shouldn't have to sign the preamble. Fair enough. But would the SSPX reconcile even if that obstacle was taken away? That obstacle only arose in the last couple of years. Prior to that there was nothing preventing them reconciling but they failed to do so.
And, Mark, up until now you have been a complete defender of Pope Francis in the face of all some of us have pointed out to you. So what do you have to say about Bishop Fellay's - the head of SSPX - comments on Pope Francis?
"Bishop Fellay continues, “The impression we have in the present Pope is that he has a zeal for the ‘more or less’, for the ‘about’; and he wants at all cost to escape what is too clear and too certain. But the Faith is like that [it is certain] because God is like that. Well, that’s not what he thinks.
...
”Bishop Fellay exclaims in response: “What Gospel does he have? Which Bible does he have to say such things. It’s horrible. What has this to do with the Gospel? With the Catholic Faith? That’s pure Modernism, my dear brethren. We have in front of us a genuine Modernist.”
Are you prepared to denounce Bishop Fellay as you denounced the rest of uss?
Jan
Anonymous at 11:16 AM, yes, certainly the SSPX don't want to sign such a document but the problem is they have had many years to reconcile prior to that. I don't believe any of the other traditional orders that have reconciled with the Church have had to sign such a document but the SSPX dithered around so long that eventually some smart cookie in the Vatican, who obviously doesn't want any reconciliation, came up with the idea of insisting the SSPX sign this document and so SSPX were out-manoeuvred.
Interestingly, at the very same time the negotiations with the SSPX faltered the head of Opus Dei wrote in L'Osservatore Romano that anyone who wants to consider themselves Catholic has to accept the Second Vatican Council. They are a very powerful group within the Church and they were involved in the discussions. At the time I wondered why because Opus Dei has no interest in the Traditional Mass and is very much opposed to the SSPX:
" The nature of the intellectual assent that is owed
to the teachings of the Council The following article, written by Monsignor Fernando Ocáriz Braña, Vicar General of Holy Cross and Opus Dei (also one of the Vatican representatives in the doctrinal talks with the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X), was published in this afternoon's (dated tomorrow) edition of the official daily of the Holy See, L'Osservatore Romano."
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/12/nature-of-intellectual-assent-that-is.html
You can read Mons Gheradini's wonderful article which refutes the Opus Dei prelate's view that to be Catholic everyone must accept Vatican II as dogma, which he says it plainly is not:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/12/msgr-gherardini-vatican-ii-is-not-super.html
I think for the sake of the Church everyone who attends the SSPX should attempt to persuade them to reconcile. And for this reason I believe Bishop Morlino is right: the fewer people who attend SSPX chapels the more likely they are to reconcile and I am sure there are ways around them not signing this document. As Mon Gheradini says there are attempts by some to make the Second Vatican Council into a super dogma which it is not and there are serious errors in some Vatican II documents that need to be corrected. The sooner the SSPX is reconciled the stronger will be the traditional body within the Church to effect much needed change.
Jan
Jan, I have defended Pope Francis' orthodoxy. I continue to do so. I have said that His Holiness Pope Francis has made mistakes (prudential). There are certain policies of his that I do not favor.
In fact, I believe that the overall liturgical and ecumenical/interreligious direction that the Popes have pursued since the 1960s...actually since the days of Pope Venerable Pius XII...has been a disaster for Holy Mother Church.
That said, I reject any claim that the Popes in question were modernists/unorthodox.
Many prudential decisions that they have rendered have not worked out well for the Church. But that does not make them unorthodox.
As to the SSPX, I stated two or three days ago on this blog (in response to a pro-SSPX post) that the SSPX is not a Garden of Eden. That is, it has it shares of trouble.
Overall, I have found the SSPX edifying to my spiritual journey. But I won't hesitate to reject any claim from the SSPX that portrays Pope Francis as a modernist.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
George said..."It's not a question of whose evaluation I or anyone else favors. The probem is the SSPX 's canonical status as of right now. From what I've read of it, I agree with Bishop Schneider's evaluation. But it is just that - an evaluation.
"The fact of the matter as things now stand, the Society has no legitimate standing in the Church. So while one can accept Bishop Schneider's evaluation of the Society, a Catholic should also accept Bishop's Molrino's plea that unless and until the canonical status is changed, that Catholics should not frequent SSPX chapels or seek sacraments from the priests of the SSPX."
George, why should me accept Bishop Morlino's plea to shun the SSPX when the Church does not shun the SSPX? The Church teaches that we may fulfill our Sunday Mass Obligations at Masses offered by the SSPX.
Beyond that, the Church teaches that we may attend, for example, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant religious services. We may even receive the Eucharist from non-Catholic priests.
But we should shun Masses offered by Catholic priests of the SSPX?
The Church permits us, for example, to attend a Methodist Church religious service. But we should adhere to Bishop Morlino's declaration to shun a SSPX chapel?
George, in regard to your distinction between Bishop Morlino's plea and Bishop Schneider's evaluation, I note the following from Bishop Schneider:
"I was moved to assist the traditional chant for the Pope (“Oremus pro pontifice nostro Francisco…”) during the solemn exposition of the Blessed Sacrament."
Bishop Schneider participated in worship with the SSPX.
Bishop Schneider continued, "To my knowledge there are no weighty reasons in order to deny the clergy and faithful of the SSPX the official canonical recognition, meanwhile they should be accepted as they are."
Therefore, even without canonical recognition, Bishop Schneider did not find any reason to exhort Catholics to shun the Society.
Bishop Schneider noted that "meanwhile, they should be accepted as they are."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Msrk, nowhere does the Bishop Schneider say that you should attend an SSPX chapel. Bishop Schneider joining the SSPX on a matter of visitation requested by the Holy See is completely different. Where does the Church teach that we may receive communion from non-Catholic priests? There may be liberal priests that agree with that but it is not a teaching of the Church. In fact we are strictly forbidden to receive Communion in non-Catholic services.
As regards the SSPX, Mark, no doubt Bishop Morlino's statement was based on the last statement to emenate from the Vatican came from Cardinal Muller:
"From the interview granted by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Abp. Gerhard Müller, to Italian daily Corriere della Sera, published Sunday 22n December, 2013:
With the failure of discussions, what is the position of the Lefebvrians?
“The canonical excommunication due to the illicit [episcopal] ordination was lifted from the bishops, but the sacramental one remains, de facto, for the schism; because they have removed themselves away from communion with the Church. That being said, we do not close the door, ever, and we invite them to reconcile. But they also must change their approach and accept the conditions of the Catholic Church and the Supreme Pontiff as the ultimate criterion of belonging.”
No doubt you and others will continue to ignore what has been stated, ignore Canon Law and put yourself onto the same level as the liberals - dissenters from Church teaching when it suits. Nothing traditional about that. I doubt you could even fall into the realm of neo-traditionalists.
Jan
Bishop Schneider noted that "meanwhile, they should be accepted as they are."
When the Society is accepted into the Church because the Holy father in exercising the Petrine ministry changes his evaluation and "accepts them as they are", then and only then will I have anything to do with the SSPX, other than in some extraordinary circumstance. Their canonical status makes marriages and confessions
by their priests invalid. I do agree that one can attend a Society Mass if there is no other alternative.
"The Church permits us, for example, to attend a Methodist Church religious service."
"We may even receive the Eucharist from non-Catholic priests."
When, other than in an extraordinary circumstance, can Catholics do this? Do you realize that with such a statement you may be misleading some people as to the circumstances and when this is allowed?
Jan, you seem rather sure that Pope Francis is not a modernist. I wonder what gives you that impression. I have reached the opposite conclusion, and I didn't need Bishop Fellay to help me reach it...
The LWCR is an irrelevance. The SSPX is not. The other traditional movements (FSSP, ICKSP et al) came into being during the reign of JP II. Had they tried to establish themselves in the decade 1968-1978 they would have been treated with same contumely as was Abp Lefebvre's movement. And don't forget that Lefebvre set up his seminary at Econe with faculties granted by the local Ordinary, ran it on the lines mandated by the Holy See, and never deviated from that. It was the Vatican which moved the goalposts, under pressure from the French hierarchy who told Rome they would not incardinate any of his priests (their own seminaries were emptying fast). And to get an idea of their orthodoxy or honesty, try reading Bouyer's assessment of Cardinal Marty who was calling the shots at that time.
Very few people in north America understand what happens in Europe even today and what was happening in Europe half a century ago might as well be on another planet. I thought that Lefebvre had an opportunity to reconcile in the 1980s and Ratzinger was keen on it. At the time those of us who admired Lefebvre believed (rightly or wrongly) that the old man was under pressure from ambitious men in the Society who wanted to be bishops. Since one of them was Williamson (an Oratory reject who has recently 'consecrated' a bishop in defiance of the Society) we were probably right.
The problem the SSPX faces is that it will be faced increasingly by internal schisms. A small minority of its lay followers espouse extreme views which the Society itself would reject out of hand, and I have heard them. One woman told me that she would never attend a Mass celebrated by a priest who had ever celebrated in the Novus Ordo, or attend a church where it had ever been celebrated unless the said church had been reconsecrated.
Bishop Fellay is well aware of this. He is trusted in Rome and the Society will eventually be granted full canonical status. I would not be surprised if it happens in this pontificate. But don't underestimate the strength of the opposition; Lefebvre for them was the man who derailed their pet project. Fortunately in ten years they will no longer count.
"The Church permits us, for example, to attend a Methodist Church religious service." "We may even receive the Eucharist from non-Catholic priests."
"When, other than in an extraordinary circumstance, can Catholics do this? Do you realize that with such a statement you may be misleading some people as to the circumstances and when this is allowed?"
George, at least as far as attending non-Catholic religious services is concerned, there isn't anything "extraordinary" as to when Catholics may do so.
Our Churchmen teach that every...every...aspect of Catholic life is to revolve 24/7, 365 around ecumenism.
Here is the Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms on Ecumenism:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_25031993_principles-and-norms-on-ecumenism_en.html
Rome exhorts...exhorts...Catholics to pray and worship with non-Catholics. Said document even encourages the construction of joint Catholic-Protestant parishes.
Incredibly, the Ecumenical Directory teaches that at a Catholic-Protestant parish, the Catholics must remove the Blessed Sacrament from prominent view so as not to offend Protestants.
George, the reality is that Bishop Morlino, for example, upholds Rome's teachings on ecumenism. Therefore, he must teach the following to his flock:
(Keep in mind that Bishop Morlino exhorts the Faithful to shun the Catholic SSPX.)
-- Bishop Morlino, does Rome encourage us to pray and worship with non-Catholics? "Yes."
-- Bishop Morlino, may I attend non-Catholic religious services? "Yes."
-- Bishop Morlino, may I attend synagogues and mosques? "Yes."
-- Bishop Morlino, may I receive Communion from non-Catholic priests? "Yes."
We are permitted, for example, to attend an Episcopal Church "Mass". The Episcopal Church rejects one Catholic teaching after another. They accepted recently homosexual "marriage".
But we must shun the Catholic priests of the SSPX, according to Bishop Morlino.
We have even seen Cardinals bow to receive blessings from Protestant priestesses.
But we must shun priests of the SSPX, who are acknowledged by Bishop Morlino as Catholic men who have zeal for Jesus Christ.
George, if Bishop Morlino's exhortation to shun the Catholic, non-schismatic SSPX makes sense to you, then so be it.
In the spirit of peace, I simply disagree with you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
John, another excellent post, which provides some needed perspective for all of us. I think that the advent of the so-called Resistance is providential for the continued viability of the SSPX. It allowed the more radical elements of the Society to go their own way so that the SSPX can continue with its mission without having to account for that more radical wing.
I don't know if it is necessarily true that the Society will be faced with an increasing number of internal schisms, though. That is up to the obedience of the priests, and the leadership seems to be doing a good job at this point of taking a firm stand that would force disobedient priests into the light. Having just heard personally from the Fr. Pfluger (First Assistant to +Fellay) on this point and recently watching an interview with Fr. Couture (district superior in Canada), they pull no punches in calling the so-called Resistance what it is, and they are rightly warning the people away from it. Thankfully, very few priests have fallen for that trap, and I suspect it'll quickly become even more irrelevant as it tends more toward practical sedevacantism.
As for the laypeople, there will always be laypeople with strange views in whatever alcove within the Church one ventures. A layperson with crazy views has no impact on the SSPX, thankfully.
Bishop Fellay is clearly the right man for the job at this point in time. He is not a radical (like the Resistance would prefer). He appears to have a firm strategy, which might include waiting a very long time for things to materialize. Bishop Galaretta is coming to my parish in October for a Pontifical High Mass -- perhaps he will provide an update about these things.
Jan at 7:18 AM..."Where does the Church teach that we may receive communion from non-Catholic priests? There may be liberal priests that agree with that but it is not a teaching of the Church. In fact we are strictly forbidden to receive Communion in non-Catholic services."
Jan, I am amazed that you are unaware that the Church teaches that Catholics may receive Communion (and additional Sacraments) during non-Catholic services.
How do you not know that? Again, I am amazed that you are unaware of that teaching.
For starters, read #1399 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In #1399, the Catechism actually "encourages"...encourages...Catholics to receive the Sacraments from non-Catholic ministers.
Jan, what do you have to say in regard to the following? From the Catechism
of the Catholic Church, #1399:
"The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."
"Encouraged"!
Jan, next read Canon Law (Latin Church) #844. Canon #844 declares that Catholics may receive Communion in non-Catholic churches.
Jan, I am truly amazed that you are unaware that Rome encourages...encourages...Catholics to pray and worship with non-Catholics...and permits Catholics to receive Communion (and additional Sacraments) in non-Catholic churches.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Lefebvrian
What Catholics of my generation had to put up with was so horrendous that it's surprising we're still here. Marcel Lefebvre was a beacon of sanity in the 1970s when it appeared that the Church was in terminal collapse.
It is generally accepted that there were certain English bishops who would have sided with Lefebvre but compromised after pressure from their confreres. It's not important since the wind is now blowing in the opposite direction. Three dioceses in the north of England (Shrewsbury, Lancaster, Liverpool) have recently given over historic churches to societies of pontifical right (PSSP, ICKSP) to foster Eucharistic adoration and the celebration of the older rite.
But Marcel Lefebvre made it all possible. It's hardly surprising that Cardinal Silvio Oddi, after praying at his tomb, said audibly 'Merci, monseigneur'. When in Paris I would now normally go to St Eugène et Ste Cécile, but I would also visit St Nicholas-du-Chardonnet, which 25 years ago offered the only traditional Mass in the city, to light a candle for him.
John, I cannot imagine what difficulties were presented during the 1970s and 1980s -- it must have been quite terrible. As someone who was not around back then, it is easy, perhaps, to compare the current situation to those times. I don't know firsthand how Abp. Lefebvre presented his mission to the world -- I do know that the SSPX shows remarkable restraint. One never hears its priests or bishops in the media mounting attacks. One reads very little on their media in the form of attacks on the leadership of the Church.
On the contrary, one sees many attacks from the SSPX's detractors. I suppose it is easier in some ways for people to detract the Society when they have the other groups from whom they can receive the Sacraments.
It seems to me, though, that, if those groups were suppressed, people would either (1) go to the SSPX for the Sacraments, or (2) they would go to the "most reverent" Novus Ordo service. In a sense, the SSPX is the Traditionalists' insurance plan -- they will always be there if the local bishop ever closes down the FSSP parish. Either one thinks that way, or one accepts the Novus Ordo, in which case one has misunderstood the nature of the SSPX's fight. That dilemma is why I find it incredible that people, including some writing here, are willing to say what they are about the SSPX. As I have said many times, one's response is completely dictated by the way one views the current crisis.
Mark Thomas:
The most important thing about what you quoted is:
"given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."
Given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority any of us that chose to could attend a SSPX Mass without reservation. Have you asked your local bishop to get his approval? And have you inquired of him what he considers to be suitable circumstances?
Even with that, there still exists the problem of their confessions and the sacrament of marriage.
I have attended a number of Protestant funeral services of different denominations. I will not take communion at a non-Catholic service.
Someone reading what you have posted could very well feel that they could attend a Catholic Mass on Sunday morning and afterwards head on over to the nearest Lutheran church and receive communion there...and do this every Sunday.
Are you maintaining that the Church would approve this?
Mark Thomas:
The most important thing about what you quoted is:
"given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."
Given suitable circumstances and the APPROVAL of Church authority any of us that chose to could attend a SSPX Mass without reservation. Have you asked your local bishop to get his approval? And have you inquired of him what he considers to be suitable circumstances?
Even with that, there still exists the problem of their confessions and the sacrament of marriage.
I have attended a number of Protestant funeral services of different denominations. I will not take communion at a non-Catholic service.
Someone reading what you have posted could very well feel that they could attend a Catholic Mass on Sunday morning and afterwards head on over to the nearest Lutheran church and receive communion there...and do this every Sunday.
Are you maintaining that the Church would approve this?
CCC1400
Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, "have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders."239 It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, "when they commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory."240
Canon #844
Whenever necessity requires or a 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.
The Eastern Orthodox, which the Catholic Church acknowledges has valid sacraments, do not encourage and in fact from what I've read, discourage Roman Catholics from receiving the Eucharist at their churches.
The Roman Catholic church, except in exceptional circumstances discourages it also.
I don't know of any priest who would allow non-Orthodox to receive. Myself included. One of the reasons for this is that reception publicly signifies the recipient believes, in totality, the whole of Orthodox doctrine. Catholics clearly fail such a standard. This is also why anyone who receives in another community, whether Catholic, Protestant, or Oriental, is automatically excommunicated, because it is the view of the Church that such people have publicly stated, by their actions, belief in doctrines foreign to the Church.
Hi Mark Thomas. Just saw your post. I've been busy with Certain things so finally some quick words.
First, my comment about slander and such was more pre-emptive because here on Southern orders exist die hard SSPxX supporters and/or sympathizers.
Secondly, I take Morlino's stance and not Athanasius' stand because of how the SSPx has harmed Traditional Catholcism and the path they have taken clearly is one that leads a soul to schism inside the person. Also there is no point to being with someone who will only side with you on their terms, when they clearly aren't interested in obedience or true reconciliation. I say let them have their independence and let the Church move on without them. In addition, on one issue, Athanasius took the wrong side of something I saw online and did not investigate things. I cannot comment further for certain reasons I won't disclose.
Finally, thank you Mark Thomas, for being a prime example of respectful dialogue and fraternal disagreement, while exemplifying true, Catholic traditionalism. If only there were more souls like you online and in public leading the charge, Traditonal Catholicism would not be as vilified because of the Radicals. Pax!
To Greek, the same is true of the Catholic Church, Catholics are not allowed to receive in Protestant denominations. We do allow Catholics to receive sacraments in case of necessity from those in schism, such as the Orthodox, if that schismatic group has valid orders and sacraments. However, Catholic should be told that if receiving from one of these groups offends the host Church, they should not.
By special permission of the bishop, a Protestant may receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church if they believe what the Church believes about the Most Holy Eucharist,(and not just real presence, but the Sacrifice) and they have no other option to receive in their own denomination. This is a case by case situation and is rare.
Eastern Orthodox, although in schism, may receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church and if done so regularly (in the case of no Orthodox Church in the community, permission should be sought.
Eastern Orthodox are in "true" schism? As opposed to "false" schism? Of course they say the same thing about the Catholic Church, which explains why ecumenical dialogue between the two over the last 50 years has accomplished so little. Like a Mexican standoff...I was over in Greece for about 10 days recently and saw a lot of Orthodox priests on the streets; even saw a few Catholic churches over there, though our tour guide says Greece is about 95% Orthodox. I guess akin to some areas of the south being 95% Baptist, or so it seems!
Leferbrian, I didn't make any comment about Pope Francis, other than to point out to Mark, who constantly complains that people are wrongly interpreting Pope Francis and shouldn't do so that Bishop Fellay has done the very same thing but it seems okay for Bishop Fellay to do that but not the rest of us. I think you have got a fair idea of what I think of Pope Francis without me having to spell it out here.
Jan
John Nolan said "One woman told me that she would never attend a Mass celebrated by a priest who had ever celebrated in the Novus Ordo, or attend a church where it had ever been celebrated unless the said church had been reconsecrated." Exactly the same situation I have experienced. We get very little support from the SSPX because the very holy priest who offers our Mass also offers the Novus Ordo Mass and there is concern, for goodness sake, that the hosts have been consecrated at a Novus Ordo Mass. I also have to say that one or two SSPX priests have told those attending the SSPX not to attend Masses offered under Summorum Pontificum.
We're frankly quite tired of this sort of behaviour and feel it does nothing for traditionalists. The SSPX should be working with us, not against us and maybe thre would be more support for them if that were the case.
No doubt the same situation pertains in Bishop Morlino's diocease. And the difference is most Methodists are not telling people not to attend a Novus Ordo Mass as some in the SSPX are.
Mark, pull your socks up - you can't have it both ways - either you're loyal to the Church or you're not. Under present circumstances there is no way Catholics should be attending SSPX chapels when there are other Masses available as Bishop Morlino points out. And remember, Mark, Bishop Morlino has the authority to say so. You have no such authority. And the Church certainly does not teach that Catholics can receive communion at protestant services - quite the opposite - so you shouldn't be spreading this idea put forward by dissidents and, as George and others have said, maybe giving the impression to others that it's okay when it's not.
No wonder you see nothing wrong with what Pope Francis has said when you yourself are on such a slippery slope ... you're only holding on by the skin of your teeth.
Jan
Good clarification, Jan. My opinion is that Bishop Fellay is not wrongly interpreting Pope Francis, but you know, I don't think it really matters. Being hung up on what the pope says and does is dangerous, in my opinion.
Anyway, I think that, despite our difference of opinion with regard to the SSPX, we have many shared views on things. Focusing on the shared goal of fighting for the Truth is more important than to focus on the differences with regard to tactics. I gladly support the SSPX, as well as the other groups of priests like the FSSP and the ICRSS. I think they all have a part of play (and thankfully, we have all three groups in my town).
Mark Thomas, the Church has always permitted communion under special circumstances from the Orthodox churches because they have the true sacraments. However, it is not permitted from protestant sects - you need to give the full quote from the Catechism:
1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. "These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all - by apostolic succession - the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy." A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, "given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged."235
I see where you are getting your info from Mark - this article from the SSPX which denigrates Benedict XVI. Do you seriously believe that these people can be reconciled?
http://sspx.org/en/eucharistic-hospitality-ecumenical-novelty
In actual fact the SSPX makes very valid points as to why Catholics are not permitted to receive communion from them. Good on Bishop Morlino for making the points he has.
Jan
Lefebvrian, yes, I think we should all be working together striving for the restoration of the Church. I think some of us became very frustrated and very disappointed when the negotiations with the SSPX fell through because having them within the fold would make such a difference. Hopefully, someone like Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Bourke can pour oil on troubled water and all the restrictions on them will be lifted. We must pray hard for that end because there are forces in the Church that don't want that to happen. I have met some very good priests in the SSPX, French and Belgium, but there are also some who are less than helpful, Canadian and American, who border on being bigots, and I think they would be better following Williamson.
Jan
Jan at 11:09 AM..."Mark Thomas, the Church has always permitted communion under special circumstances from the Orthodox churches because they have the true sacraments."
Jan, that is incorrect. The Church had never permitted the Faithful to receive Communion outside the Church. Never.
====================================================
Jan..."I see where you are getting your info from Mark - this article from the SSPX which denigrates Benedict XVI."
Sorry, Jan. I don't know what you're talking about.
I have known for decades that for some 1,900 years, the Church had forbidden us to worship with non-Catholics, let alone receive Communion from non-Catholics.
Prior to the radical reversal of Church teaching, the Church for 1,900 years had taught the following (from the 1917 A.D. Canon Law):
Canon 1258. "It is forbidden to actively participate in the worship of non-Catholics." (communicatio in sacris)
Canon 2316: "One who cooperates communicatio in sacris contrary to the provision of Canon 1258 is suspected of heresy."
Today, after having reversed 1,900 year old teachings, Catholics are permitted to pray, worship with and receive Communion from non-Catholics.
The results of that flip-flop has proved catastrophic to the Church. Oh, well. Rome today says that we may pray and worship with non-Catholics. If that is what our Churchmen desire...so be it.
Mark Thomas
Jan..."In actual fact the SSPX makes very valid points as to why Catholics are not permitted to receive communion from them. Good on Bishop Morlino for making the points he has."
Jan, if you are compelled to accept Bishop Morlino's advice/plea to shun the SSPX, then that is your decision.
I have never been to a Mass offered by the SSPX...never even looked inside a SSPX chapel.
That said, the teachings of the Catholic Church trump Bishop Morlino's "advice" to shun the SSPX.
The Catholic Church teaches that Catholics may attend Mass offered by SSPX priests.
A Catholic may satisfy his Sunday Obligation at a Mass offered by the SSPX.
A Catholic, as Canon Law #844 indicates, may receive Communion and additional Sacraments from the SSPX.
In fact, as Father McDonald has reported on his blog, SSPX priests have offered Masses at Saint Peter's Basilica with permission from Church authorities.
The SSPX has offered Masses at many basilicas and churches with 100 percent approval granted by Church authorities.
Sorry, Jan. Those are the facts.
Again, if you wish to heed Bishop Morlino's advice to shun the SSPX, then so be it.
But the Catholic Church teaches that Catholics are permitted to associate with the SSPX.
The bottom line is that regard to the SSPX, you will follow Bishop Morlino's advice. Conversely, Catholics who attend SSPX chapels are in good standing with the Catholic Church.
Bishop Morlino's approach to the SSPX is opposite of Pope Francis' approach to the SSPX. But you prefer Bishop Morlino's approach. Okay.
Fortunately, Pope Francis' approach trumps Bishop Morlino's approach...and that is why there is hope for Rome and the SSPX to establish an agreement that will benefit Holy Mother Church.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Jan..."Mark, pull your socks up - you can't have it both ways - either you're loyal to the Church or you're not. Under present circumstances there is no way Catholics should be attending SSPX chapels when there are other Masses available as Bishop Morlino points out. And remember, Mark, Bishop Morlino has the authority to say so. You have no such authority. And the Church certainly does not teach that Catholics can receive communion at protestant services - quite the opposite - so you shouldn't be spreading this idea put forward by dissidents and, as George and others have said, maybe giving the impression to others that it's okay when it's not. No wonder you see nothing wrong with what Pope Francis has said when you yourself are on such a slippery slope ... you're only holding on by the skin of your teeth."
1. Jan, I never said that the Church teaches that we may receive "communion" at Protestant religious services. I stated that the Church teaches that Catholics may pray and worship at Protestant religious services.
For example, a Catholic is permitted to pray and worship with Episcopalians. Even though the Episcopal Church rejects one teaching after another, and now accepts homosexual "marriage", Rome says that we may pray and worship with Episcopalians.
(But Bishop Morlino asks Catholics to shun the SSPX. Sure. Okay.)
2. Jan, Bishop Morlino's advice is to shun the SSPX...then so be it. Jan, if you accept that advice, then so be it. I have said that Bishop Morlino's advice is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church teaches that a Catholic may attend a Mass offered by the SSPX and remain in good standing with the Church.
Somebody had better inform Bishop Morlino that with approval from Church authorities, SSPX priests have offered Masses, for example, at Saint Peter's Basilica.
Anyway, we've been over that...you will follow Bishop Morlino's advice. Okay. Conversely, Catholics who attend SSPX chapels are 100 percent in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Jan, as for my situation, you are incorrect when you claim that I am "on such a slippery slope ... you're only holding on by the skin of your teeth."
If you must know, I adhere to the Church's teachings. My diocese offers Novus Ordo Masses and TLM Masses at an FSSP parish established by my bishop.
I assist only at Masses "authorized" by my bishop.
I have never been to our local SSPX chapel...never been to an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy...never received Holy Communion from a non-Catholic priest.
Even thought Rome teaches that I may worship at an SSPX chapel, Eastern Orthodox church and receive Holy Communion from priests of the SSPX and, for example, Eastern Orthodox Churches, I have never done so.
I am a TLM/Novus Ordo/Maronite Catholic.
Sorry, Jan, but I am not on a slippery slope...I'm not holding on by the skin of my teeth.
Well, I am a sinner. Therefore, Jan, in that sense, I am on a slippery slope. Jan, please pray for me. Thank you.
Pax.
Father McDonald-permitting, I hope to post the following final reply on my part to Jan (unless she desires additional replies) in regard to the Bishop Morlino/SSPX situation at hand.
Jan, please note that Bishop Morlino did not apply any censure to Catholics who attend SSPX chapels.
Do you agree with the following? Bishop Morlino believes that the SSPX is a spiritual minefield. Catholics who receive, for example, Communion at Masses offered by the SSPX, place their immortal souls in grave danger via their association with the SSPX.
Jan, if that is the case, then as their spiritual father, Bishop Morlino should at the very least threaten to excommunicate Catholics who receive the Sacraments, Holy Communion in particular, from priests of the SSPX.
Jan, would a father permit, for example, his children to walk into a minefield?
Would he, as did Bishop Morlino, simply give "advice" to his children..."ummm...children...Tom, Sally...it's my advice...advice...to not walk into that minefield ahead."
No. A father would literally grab his child/children to prevent them from walking into a minefield. He would use force to prevent them from killing themselves.
A father would protect his children to prevent damage to their bodies.
It is of even greater...infinite...importance for a father to protect his children's souls from damage...from spiritual damage.
As a spiritual father, Bishop Molino has the ultimate manner at his disposal to "grab" his children. Bishop Molino could have at least threatened to excommunicate his spiritual children who attend SSPX chapels.
Excommunication is an act of great mercy.
Why doesn't Bishop Morlino go the Bishop Bruskewitz route in regard to the SSPX? That is, threaten to excommunicate Catholics who attend SSPX chapels...who receive Holy Communion from the SSPX?
Here is why he won't...Catholics in the Madison Diocese would simply write to Rome to clarify the situation at hand.
Rome would reply as follows: Masses offered by the SSPX are illicit but valid. Catholics may attend Mass and receive Communion at SSPX chapels.
Bishop Morlino knows that. In the meantime, Bishop Morlino's advice in regard to the SSPX is simply advice.
It may be a Bishop's advice to pray the Holy Rosary, believe in Fatima, receive Holy Communion on the tongue during Novus Ordo Masses...but it's just that...advice.
A Catholic who does not pray the Holy Rosary, believe in Fatima, and receives Holy Communion in the hand (at Novus Ordo Mass) remains 100 percent in good standing with the Church.
Conversely, a Catholic who attends an SSPX chapel remains 100 percent in good standing with the Church. That is why Bishop Morlino is unable to censure a Catholic who attends an SSPX chapel.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas
I've attended services of other denominations including Episcopal. In every case it was for a funeral. In every case the circumstance could be characterized exceptional and extraordinary (a funeral service).
Your replies are disingenuous. The Catholic church does not grant us permission to attend Mass on Sunday morning and then head over to a the Greek Orthodox parish to attend services there. Did you read the comment by the Greek above? We must respect other religious beliefs as well as our own.
As far as excommunication, just because Nancy Pelosi and others like her have not been excommunicated does not therefore ipso facto mean that the positions that she and others hold on certain issues are not scandalous and sinful. A bishop has the power to excommunicate but whether or not he exercises it is up to his discretion.
Do you know of any SSPX priest who has been granted permission by the local bishop to serve in a parish, or set up an SSPX parish? Have you asked the local bishop in the diocese you reside in whether any SSPX parish within the boundaries of that diocese have been granted the necessary permissions? Why not? Why not find out for the benefit of yourself and others who may want to know?
As far as what you say below:
"Rome would reply as follows: Masses offered by the SSPX are illicit but valid. Catholics may attend Mass and receive Communion at SSPX chapels."
If that is do , then why will not Rome grant us permission to attend Eastern Orthodox Mass, which is equally valid?
Do you not respect the Orthodox and what they believe? They understandably do not want us attending their Mass and receiving communion.
Why do you deny, repudiate and dismiss the God-ordained privilege and responsibility of the Catholic episcopate to teach and govern - to exercise their Holy ministry in favor some disputatious ecclesial society? Why do you and others deny the jurisdiction of Holy Mother Church in favor of the mis-application of the principle of supplied jurisdiction? Why do you deny the authority of the Holy Father and the hierarchy of the Church in favor of your own and others subjective "authority" in determining what Mass you should attend illicit or not and what priest you can confess to, even when the necessary and required faculty is missing.
George said..."The Catholic church does not grant us permission to attend Mass on Sunday morning and then head over to a the Greek Orthodox parish to attend services there."
George, the Church teaches that a Catholic is required to fulfill his or her Sunday Obligation. Said Obligation may be fulfilled at an SSPX chapel or Eastern Orthodox Church.
But here is what the Church teaches...A Catholic assists at Sunday Mass (or Saturday Vigil Mass). As long as he has fulfilled his Sunday Obligation, a Catholic may attend, for example, a Protestant religious service (or Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy).
Sorry, George. That is the teaching of the Church.
In fact, it's very common for a Catholic in mixed marriages to attend a Saturday Vigil Mass, then attend his or her spouse's Protestant or Eastern Orthodox church on Sunday.
That is done with the approval of the Church.
I literally had just read about the above in an article by Jimmy Akin. Not that I require his article, but I found it interesting and just copied said article to post some of it here.
Attending Non-Catholic Services In A Mixed Marriage
by Jimmy Akin
in Moral Theology
A reader writes: What is the official Church teaching and/or guidance on attending both Mass and a church service at another Christian denomination on Sundays? Here is some more specific background information. My family (wife + kids) and I are currently members of a Protestant church.
I have been reading up on the Catholic faith for a number of years now and I’m considering pursuing it further and possibly joining the Catholic Church. However, my wife does not share this desire.
I was wondering if I could attend both on Sundays if I became Catholic. I’m assuming that on days when our Protestant church serves communion that I would need to refrain. I have not really brought up the issue of the kids with my wife either, but one step at a time.
Jimmy Akin replied: "Thank you for writing! I pray that God will smooth your journey as you work your way through these issues.
"You are correct that, as a Catholic, you could not receive communion in your current church since Protestant churches (unfortunately) did not retain a sacramental priesthood and therefore, apart from very exceptional circumstances, do not have the Real Presence when they celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Canon law does not allow Catholics to receive communion in these circumstances (CIC 846 §2).
"Present canon law does not, however, prohibit Catholics from attending non-Catholic services.
"Therefore, you would be able to continue to attend Protestant services with your wife and family as long as doing so does not pose a problem for your Catholic faith.
"You would have the obligations other Catholics do, such as the duty to attend Mass. In some mixed-marriage families this is solved by attending Mass on Saturday evening and then going to Protestant services on Sunday morning, or the reverse, or by going to both services on Sundays (e.g., a morning service at once church and an evening service at the other). In some cases, both spouses go to both services."
George, Jimmy Akin just explained the situation that is common in mixed marriages.
As is the case in my diocese, it is often recommended that the family attended the Saturday Vigil Mass, then worship on Sunday at the Protestant religious service.
Anyway, George, a Catholic is free to attend non-Catholic religious services, according to the Church's teachings.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
George, I am very sorry that I have to repeat the following, but you continue to reject the fact that the Church teaches that Catholics may attend Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgies and/or Protestant religious services anytime.
George, you continue to suggest that it is only under exceptional circumstances, such as weddings and funerals, that a Catholic may attend a Protestant (or Eastern Orthodox) religious service.
Sorry, George, but you are incorrect.
For some 1,900 years, the Catholic Church had taught that it was a grave sin to pray and worship with those outside the Church.
Today, in a complete flip-flop of the above, our Pope and bishops teach that we are encouraged...encouraged...to pray and worship with non-Catholics.
That is anytime, George. Not only during so-called "exceptional" situations.
George, I do not understand as to why you are unfamiliar with the fact that Catholics are permitted to pray and worship day and night with non-Catholics.
From The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, in its 1993 A.D. Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, encourages such participation:
"In liturgical celebrations taking place in other churches and ecclesial communities, Catholics are encouraged to take part in the psalms, responses, hymns and common actions of the church in which they are guests. If invited by their hosts, they may read a lesson or preach (no. 118)."
George, the Catholic Church encourages...encourages...you to pray and worship with non-Catholics.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, I don't know how old you are but I can assure you that, prior to the Second Vatican Council, the Church taught that we may receive communion from an Orthodox priest if our life was in danger. Their sacraments are valid. The Church has never taught that we may receive communion from Protestants ministers whether in danger of death or not. They don't have sacraments and their bread is merely bread. However, there are many Catholics who go against the teaching of the Church and do so, just as many go against the teachings of the Church and frequent SSPX chapels when they have no need to do so.
In all that you have written, Mark, you appear to be an apologist for the SSPX and yet you say you have never entered one of their chapels. Well, why not? If you hold the beliefs that you do I suggest that you attend on Sunday. As you reject what Bishop Morlino has said and what Cardinal Muller (Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith) has said perhaps you should join with those people Bishop Morlino complains about who are bypassing Catholic churches to attend SSPX masses which are valid but illicit. What you have written if read by others actively suggests that Catholics can do so with impunity, which is not the case. You are simply wrong on this.
In Benedict XVI's words:
"The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."
https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
Benedict wrote the above as Pope, and yet it seems from all you have written you reject what he says. According to what Benedict has written - since confirmed by Cardinal Muller - Bishop Morlino is absolutely correct in making the statement he has made about Catholics who choose to go to Mass at an irregular chapel of the SSPX bypassing other churches who offer the Traditional Mass to do so.
I am sure an SSPX chapel near you will look forward to your attendance on Sunday.
Jan
My perspective is conditioned by the fact that we have an established Church which is notionally Protestant but occupies all the historic cathedrals and churches which were originally built for Catholic worship and with Catholic money.
Until 1965 we were not allowed to worship with non-Catholics. I was at school at the time and we had to wait outside morning assembly until everyone else had finished their hymns and prayers; we were forbidden to attend the school carol service and therefore forfeited the half-holiday. Likewise the annual Founder's Day service which commemorated the pre-Reformation Catholic bishop (Foxe of Winchester)who had founded the school in 1509.
This relaxation was very welcome at the time. Worshipping with our separated brethren didn't compromise us (although Catholic worship was becoming virtually indistinguishable from Anglican worship as the 1960s wore on) and there was much in the Anglican tradition in the post-Oxford movement era which was admirable, and which has been retained in the Ordinariate liturgy.
I would not attend an Anglican service, however good the music, however 'Catholic' the liturgy, notwithstanding that the church in which it was conducted was originally Catholic, and think this was equivalent to attending Mass. It isn't. However, if the choice were between an SSPX Mass and a typical parish Novus Ordo within the same travelling distance I would choose the former. If bishops don't like it, they can start doing their job and working to improve the lamentable standard of liturgy and music which prevails in most parishes in their dioceses.
Dear Jan,
I am sorry, but the Church had never (until the Vatican II Era) permitted Her children to receive Holy Communion from a non-Catholic priest.
As I had noted yesterday, prior to the Vatican II Era, the Church had condemned Communion in sacris.
As then-Canon Law noted, Canon 1258: "It is forbidden to actively participate in the worship of non-Catholics." (communicatio in sacris)
A Catholic was forbidden to even pray with a non-Catholic. It was until Pope Pius XII's 1947 A.D. (said document may have been published in 1948 A.D.) On The Ecumenical Movement that a Catholic was even permitted, for example, to pray the Pater Noster with non-Catholics.
Prior to then, even to attend an assembly of the Ecumenical Movement was forbidden by Rome.
In his 1928 A.D. Encyclical, Pope Pius XI denounced the Ecumenical Movement and condemned their assemblies as "motley."
Read sections 7, 8, 10 from said Encyclical.
7. "And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends.
"Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their *******motley,******* so to say, assemblies.
"But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor."
8. "This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.
10. "So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it."
Sorry, Jan, but down through the centuries, until the late 1940s, the Church forbade us to pray and worship with non-Catholics. We were not permitted to receive Holy Communion from non-Catholics.
We were not even permitted to attend an Ecumenical Movement assembly.
But now, for the first time in Her history, our Churchmen have instituted revolutionary changes.
Our Churchmen now encourage...encourage...us to pray and worship at non-Catholic religious services. We may receive Communion and additional Sacraments from non-Catholics.
The consequences of those revolutionary changes have been catastrophic to the Church. But that is what Rome today teaches.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Jan said..."Mark, I don't know how old you are but I can assure you that, prior to the Second Vatican Council, the Church taught that we may receive communion from an Orthodox priest if our life was in danger. Their sacraments are valid.
"In all that you have written, Mark, you appear to be an apologist for the SSPX and yet you say you have never entered one of their chapels. Well, why not? If you hold the beliefs that you do I suggest that you attend on Sunday. As you reject what Bishop Morlino has said and what Cardinal Muller (Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith) has said perhaps you should join with those people Bishop Morlino complains about who are bypassing Catholic churches to attend SSPX masses which are valid but illicit. What you have written if read by others actively suggests that Catholics can do so with impunity, which is not the case. You are simply wrong on this."
1. Jan, I go back to the time of the great Pope Saint John XXIII.
2. Sorry, Jan, but a Catholic was not permitted to receive Holy Communion outside the Church.
3. Jan, you that I "appear to be an apologist for the SSPX."
Do you mean in the same way that Bishop Schneider, who serves as Pope Francis' Apostolic Visitor to the SSPX, is an "apologist" for the SSPX?
Bishop Schneider has praised the SSPX to the hilt. He declared that they are Catholic and was blessed by the holiness and overwhelming Catholic spirit that he encountered during his Apostolic visits to the SSPX.
Does Bishop Morlino know more about the SSPX than Bishop Schneider, who serves Pope Francis as an Apostolic Visitor to the SSPX?
As to Cardinal Muller, last September he conducted a meeting with Bishop Fellay. The Holy See that afternoon issued a very positive and hopeful press release in regard to the meeting in question. From there, such positive developments such as Bishop Schneider's Apostolic visits to the SSPX have emerged.
Jan, Bishop Morlino's harsh shun-the-SSPX treatment of the SSPX is opposed to Pope Francis' treatment of the SSPX. But you accept Bishop Morlino's approach. Okay.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas
Please note that I used the terms extraordinary and exceptional. This applies to funerals and mixed marriage weddings in non-Catholic churches. We are encouraged to attend ecumenical events,yes. That is a special circumstance. What is your problem with that?
This what Jimmy Akin has said about SSPX weddings
"Since SSPX priests are never so delegated by the lawful bishop or pastor of the Catholic faithful they are marrying, the marriages are not valid due to lack of form.
SSPXers will use evil trickery to try to argue around this conclusion (esp. using canon 144, but they are no more successful with applying that canon to marriages than they are in applying it to confessions; but their evil trickery is nothing more than evil trickery.
The marriages they perform between Catholics ain’t valid.
Consequently, I can’t recommend attending them."
On Confession:
" It does not appear, apart from very bizarre circumstances, that there would be any arguments supporting the idea that the local ordinary has supplied faculties to an SSPX priest, meaning that any such doubt on the part of the faithful would not be positive.
Thus in the absence of a doubt that is both positive and probable, and in the absence of a common error, the principle of ecclesia supplet would not be engaged and the Church would not supply the faculties to an SSPX priest.
SSPX priests, however, typically have been baptized or received into the Latin Church and thus are required to have faculties per Can. 966.
They ain’t got ‘em."
I wouldn't characterize Archbishop Schneider as an apologist for the SSPX.
Furthermore Mark, I obey the pope and bishops in this matter of the status od the SSPX and do no call into question their God-ordained authority.
Bishop Morlino's harsh shun-the-SSPX treatment of the SSPX is opposed to Pope Francis' treatment of the SSPX.
In sentiment perhaps, in application no.
I am sorry, Mark, but you have skewed the whole argument. Your original statement is that the Church allows Catholics to receive communion from non-Catholic Ministers. That is wholly untrue. You then denied you stated that but if you go back a couple of posts you will see that is exactly what you said and George pulled you up on it initially. In danger of death, when there is no other priest available, the Church allows Catholics to receive communion from Orthodox priests and from the SSPX.
Bishop Morlino's statement is entirely in keeping with what Pope Benedict said, which is that SSPX priests have no standing under canon law. I notice you make no comment about Pope Benedict's statement which is a very serious statement that Catholics should take due notice of. Bishop Schneider is stating that the SSPX should be reconciled with the Church without having to sign any preamble. He is not in any way suggesting that Catholics should attend SSPX chapels while their priests are suspended a divinis. So you are also putting a false spin on what the good bishop has said. Nobody is denying that the majority of SSPX are good people but when I read some things on their website such as they state that Catholics should not attend the chapels of the FSSP. That is where I consider the SSPX are bordering on setting up their own magisterium and Catholics need to be wary of what lies beneath.
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/question-principles-sspx-vs-fssp-3062
They set out their reasons for what is wrong with Moto Proprio Masses:
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/problem-motu-proprio-masses-2265
I think these statements on their website are very serious and that those Catholics who attend SSPX chapels are buying into this idea that they have their own magisterium that is pin pricking and trying to outdo all the good work of Pope Benedict. So that is just one more good reason for not attending SSPX chapels.
Jan
Face it, Mark, from the following it is easy to see that the SSPX have more or less set up their own church with their own magisterium and while these kinds of ideas flourish in the SSPX I cannot ever see any reconciliation. This is exactly what Bishop Morlino is warning about. This is exactly the same experience I have had in my diocese with no support from the SSPX. And yet on the one hand they claim to accept that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid. I honestly don't believe that they will ever reconcile. I think they are duping their own followers into believing that this might be the case. From what they have written here and what is on their website I believe they have also duped Bishop Schneider. If he was aware of this statement I doubt he would have written in such glowing terms about them. Obviously, though, Bishop Morlino is far more up with the play as to what the SSPX is like in America.
I believe the SSPX duped Pope Benedict into the false belief that they would reconcile with the Church if he lifted the excommunications, which he did. Then they asked him to free up the Traditional Mass, which he did, and now they tell everyone not to attend - a further slap in the face for Pope Benedict. It's obvious where they stand. Personally now I believe they are have established their own church but they know that once they concede that they have no faculities many will not attend their chapels. After reading their website I say, yes, as Bishop Morlino says everyone should shun the SSPX chapels otherwise they will be like the foolish bridesmaids. From what I have read on their website I would say they are liars and they have betrayed what Archbishop Leferbvre set out to do.
"Certainly we cannot counsel our faithful to regularly participate in the Masses celebrated by priests of dubious doctrinal orthodoxy, even when offered reverentially. We must also warn them to not receive Holy Communion from a ciborium consecrated in the Novus Ordo Missae—for this is the Sacrament of unity and we cannot be in union with a theologically-deficient rite! There is also the constant danger of a strange confusion of rite and improper behavior which is so common in the mainstream churches and their accompanying irreverent rites.
For these reasons and so many others which you will easily discover even from occasional visits to your local motu proprio Mass or in talking with “conciliar trads”, why we think it is not advisable to regularly attend the “extraordinary form” offered by the diocese or under the aegis of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. After all, we have not been fighting for over 40 years against the modernist tsunami, only to be washed away by an ebb tide."
Jan
Jan said..."Face it, Mark, from the following it is easy to see that the SSPX have more or less set up their own church with their own magisterium and while these kinds of ideas flourish in the SSPX I cannot ever see any
"I honestly don't believe that they will ever reconcile. I believe the SSPX duped Pope Benedict into the false belief that they would reconcile with the Church if he lifted the excommunications, which he did.
"From what they have written here and what is on their website I believe they have also duped Bishop Schneider."
Dear Jan, a brilliant man such as Pope Benedict XVI was not "duped" by the SSPX. Are you aware as to the tremendous amount of experience over the decades that Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI had with the SSPX?
Jan, I don't mean the following in any sense that is nasty or harsh...it absolute nonsense to believe that Pope Benedict XVI, and for that matter, Holy See experts who have dealt closely for years and years with the SSPX, were "duped" by the Society.
Rome has a massive amount of experience with the Society.
His Holiness Pope Francis has considerable experience with the SSPX dating to his years in Argentina. He was/is very friendly toward the Society.
When he placed his confidence in the brilliant Bishop Schneider as an Apostolic Visitor to the SSPX, Pope Francis did not do so haphazardly.
By the way, Jan, during the past 41 years, Rome has sent several Apostolic Visitors to the SSPX. One Apostolic Visitor after another has praised the SSPX.
Cardinals Gagnon and Castrillon worked closely with the SSPX. In fact, Cardinal Gagnon served as an Apostolic Visitor to the SSPX. Both Cardinals praised the SSPX to the hilt.
Cardinal Castrillon has extensive knowledge with the that dates to at least 2000 A.D. He praises the SSPX.
Jan, your claim also collapses in the face of the following: Rome continues to work on close and friendly terms with the SSPX.
What kind of man is His Holiness Pope Francis if he continues to work on friendly terms with the supposed Pope-duping, liars and frauds of the SSPX?
Jan, in your world, Bishop Morlino is THE expert on the SSPX. Bishop Morlino is immune to being duped by the SSPX. Okay. Fine. That is your world.
In my world, the experts on the SSPX are Popes Benedict XVI and Francis...Bishop Schneider, Cardinal Castrillon, and one Apostolic Visitor after another.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Jan..."I am sorry, Mark, but you have skewed the whole argument. Your original statement is that the Church allows Catholics to receive communion from non-Catholic Ministers. That is wholly untrue. You then denied you stated that but if you go back a couple of posts you will see that is exactly what you said and George pulled you up on it initially. In danger of death, when there is no other priest available, the Church allows Catholics to receive communion from Orthodox priests and from the SSPX."
Sorry, Jan, it is not only in danger of death that a Catholic is permitted to receive the Sacraments from a non-Catholic priest.
Canon #844 of the Latin Church: "Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid."
1. Jan, please produce the Church teaching that declares that only in danger of death may a Catholic receive, for example, the Eucharist from a non-Catholic priest.
2. I never denied anything in this thread. I believe that perhaps you and George believed that I stated that Catholics may receive Communion from Protestant ministers. Is that correct?
I said that Catholics may pray and worship in Protestant "churches" (ecclesial communities). That is what the Church teaches. I understand perfectly that we are not to receive "Communion" from a Protestant minister.
Jan, the Eastern Orthodox are not the only non-Catholics from whom a Catholic may receive Communion.
Catholics, in particular, Chaldean Catholics, may receive Communion and additional Sacraments from the Nestorian Church (aka the Assyrian Church of the East. The Nestorians are not Eastern Orthodox.
We have to consider the Polish National Catholic Church, with whom the Church has signed sacramental-sharing agreements. They are "independent" Catholic priests who were ordained validly.
Jan, we are not dealing with the Eastern Orthodox alone.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Dear George, in regard to Jimmy Akin's assessment of the SSPX and the Sacraments of Holy Matrimony and Penance...I have not paid attention to the issue of the SSPX and the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
As to the SSPX and Sacrament of Penance, whatever Jimmy Akin's opinion is in that regard, Canon #844 (Latin Church Code) declares:
"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."
The Church teaches that a Catholic may receive the Sacrament of Penance from a non-Catholic ministers (whose Churches possess valid Sacraments).
Therefore, why could we not receive the Sacrament of Penance from a priest of the SSPX?
After all, in accord with Canon #844, if a non-Catholic minister may administer the Sacrament of Penance to a Catholic, should not an actual Catholic priest (SSPX) be able to administer the Sacrament of Penance to a Catholic?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"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."
The operative part of the statement is "for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister"
How many who go to an SSPX priest can say that?
You simply can't infer the general from the particular which you seem fond of doing.
At the point of death it is permissable for a Catholic to have a even laicized priest hear his or her confession.
Do you not understand the terms exceptional and extraordinary?
"After all, in accord with Canon #844, if a non-Catholic minister may administer the Sacrament of Penance to a Catholic, should not an actual Catholic priest (SSPX) be able to administer the Sacrament of Penance to a Catholic?"
In extraordinary circumstances -yes, otherwise no.
Mark Thomas
"In my world, the experts on the SSPX are Popes Benedict XVI and Francis...Bishop Schneider, Cardinal Castrillon, and one Apostolic Visitor after another."
These are prelates I hold a special respect and admiration for also.
None of them so far have been successful in gaining for the SSPX canonical approval though.
The idea, floated above, that the SSPX 'duped' Benedict XVI (the most intellectual Pontiff of the last two centuries) and Bishop Athanasius Schneider (a great and holy man whom I have had the privilege of meeting) is ludicrous.
I would not expect everyone who values tradition to agree with the SSPX stance on everything. But those who try to pretend that the existence of the Society, or the supposed (and usually false) attitudes of those who prefer the classic Roman Rite are holding back the restoration (which they themselves usually do nothing practical to foster); or are looking for a chimerical via media which will please nobody, are deluding themselves.
George said..."None of them so far have been successful in gaining for the SSPX canonical approval though."
George, that is true. We will see as to Pope Francis' course of action in regard to the SSPX and canonical approval.
But unlike Bishop Morlino's "advice" to shun the SSPX, none of the Churchmen I noted have shunned the SSPX.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
George said..."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."
"The operative part of the statement is "for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister"
George, why didn't you quote the following from Canon #844? "Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it..."
I would also ask you to explain the following: Catholics have written to Rome to enquirer as to whether they are permitted to assist at SSPX chapels. They have received letters from Vatican officials that have stated that Catholics are permitted to assist at Masses offered by the SSPX.
George, why, as Father McDonald reported, have SSPX priests offered Masses at Saint Peter's Basilica with approval from competent Church authorities?
Why have bishops permitted SSPX bishops and priests to offer Masses in churches and basilicas. Hundreds of Catholics at a time have worshiped at said Masses with approval from "full communion" Church authorities?
If the Faithful are not permitted to attend Masses offered by the SSPX, then why do Church authorities permit the SSPX to offer Masses at basilicas and churches?
Why did then-Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis) of Buenos Aires, Argentina, assist the SSPX each time that they had turned to him for help?
Pax.
Mark Thomas
John Nolan, whether or not you have met Pope Benedict is an irrelevant statement, as to if by that you can claim a specialist knowledge of Pope Benedict, which you don't have. It has been widely reported that one of the reasons for Pope Benedicts's abdication was his disappointment with the failure of the SSPX to reconcile with the Church and I don't think it is beyond the realms of possibility that the SSPX did only want to get the excommunications lifted. Otherwise, why after requesting Pope Benedict to make the celebration of the Latin Mass more widely available do they now tell their congregations not to attend what they call moto proprio Masses and not to attend the Masses of the FSSP? This is stated on their websites.
As far as I am concerned, John Nolan, I take notice of Pope Benedict's instruction that the SSPX have no standing under Canon Law and Bishop Morlino's warnings not to attend SSPX chapels and no notice of your support for a group that seem to say that only attending those traditional Masses offered by the SSPX are acceptable to them.
The second paragraph of your statement makes absolutely no sense and doesn't appear to even relate to what is being discussed.
Jan
Mark, why has Pope Benedict stated that the SSPX have no standing under canon law? Why are you disobedient to Benedict XVI's statement?
And why don't you scroll through and find out what you actually stated about ""The Church permits us, for example, to attend a Methodist Church religious service."
"We may even receive the Eucharist from non-Catholic priests." As George points out that is only allowed in exceptional circumstances as even you state now above.
Why do the SSPX tell their followers not to attend moto proprio Masses?
Why do the SSPX tell their followers not to receive hosts from a ciborium where hosts have been consecrated at a Novus Ordo Mass?
Why do the SSPX tell their followers not to attend Traditional Masses offered by the Fraternity of St Peter?
Why do you encourage, favour and promote a group that is against the moto proprio Masses, Fraternity of St Peter and the Novus Ordo Mass?
Please give us chapter and verse of where the Church teaches that everyone - not just the odd case here and there - that Catholics may lawfully attend an SSPX chapel?
Peace be to you too.
Jan
Also, Mark, Rorate Caeli reported: "The Polish Traditionalist Catholic blog Nowy Ruch Liturgiczny published yesterday the November 6, 2012 response of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei to two queries (which that blog reproduced in the original English):"
The Dicastry's response was to refer them to Pope Benedict's letter to his brother bishops of 10 March 2009 and quoted:
"As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/11/pced-letter-on-attendance-in-sspx-mass.html
So there the matter rests.
Jan
Jan, please understand that I am aware and accept the Holy See's teaching that the Society of Saint Pius X exists in an irregular state within Holy Mother Church.
The SSPX is Catholic. They offer illicit but valid Masses. They are not schismatic. They are not excommunicated. The Society was never excommunicated. At one time, their bishops were excommunicated. As you know, said excommunications of the living bishops were lifted by Pope Benedict XVI.
Despite the SSPX's irregular status within the Church, Rome has never taught that Catholics may not receive Sacraments from the SSPX. Rome has never condemned Catholics who attend Masses offered by the SSPX.
Rome has rejected Bishop Morlino's "advice" to shun the SSPX.
When he was Cardinal-Archbishop Jorge Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, Pope Francis aided the SSPX each time that they had approached him for assistance.
On one occasion, an SSPX priest in Argentina asked then-Cardinal Bergoglio for assistance to help clarify the SSPX's status in regard to a problem the SSPX had with the Argentinian government. The future Pope Francis told the SSPX priest that the Society was Catholic and he would help them.
The SSPX could have solved their problem with the government in Argentina by having simply declared itself a separate entity from the Catholic Church. The SSPX refused to take that route as they are not a separate Church. They are not independent from the Church. They are Catholics within the Church.
Finally, just four months ago, Archbishop Poli of Buenos Aires, Argentina, declared that the SSPX is a society of Catholic priests. The SSPX is not separated from the Church.
Jan, three days ago, you said that the SSPX "have more or less set up their own church..."
Jan, that is incorrect. The SSPX has never...never done such a thing. The Catholic Church rejects your claim.
Jan, I accept that which the Church teaches about the SSPX. The Church teaches that the SSPX is Catholic. They are not remotely a separate Church. Their status is irregular. Their Masses are illicit but valid. A Catholic may attend a Mass offered by the SSPX. A Catholic may receive Holy Communion at an SSPX Mass.
Jan, those are the teachings of the Church.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, YOU say those are the teachings of the Church, please give me chapter and verse where the Church teaches that.
The PCED has had the final word on the subject - as quoted by Rorate Caeli. Nowhere do they say Catholics can LAWFULLY attend an SSPX Mass. Also I repeat the questions you have failed to answer:
Why do the SSPX tell their followers not to attend moto proprio Masses?
Why do the SSPX tell their followers not to receive hosts from a ciborium where hosts have been consecrated at a Novus Ordo Mass?
Why do the SSPX tell their followers not to attend Traditional Masses offered by the Fraternity of St Peter?
Why do you encourage, favour and promote a group that is against the moto proprio Masses, Fraternity of St Peter and the Novus Ordo Mass?
Please give us chapter and verse of where the Church teaches that everyone - not just the odd case here and there - that Catholics may lawfully attend an SSPX chapel?
Peace be to you too.
Jan
Mark Thomas, just because you choose to say the SSPX are okay doesn't mean others are going to follow your recommendation. With due respect to you, George, myself and others prefer to wait until the Church says it is okay to attend SSPX chapels.
Contrary to what you say that "Rome has rejected Bishop Morlino's "advice" to shun the SSPX" the Church has done no such thing. On the contrary Cardinal Muller states, “by their schism they have broken away from communion with the Church.” No way can that be construed as the Church saying it's okay to receive communion from SSPX priests when they are not in communion with the Church.
As reported by Catholic Culture: "In an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Archbishop Gerhard Müller said that although Pope Benedict XVI lifted the canonical excommunication of SSPX prelates, they remain suspended from the sacraments because “by their schism they have broken away from communion with the Church.”
Archbishop Müller said that while talks with the SSPX have reach an impasse, the Vatican will not close the door to reconciliation. However, he said, a restoration of full communion would require the SSPX to accept the authority of the Church and of the Pope."
So, Mark, it is obvious you are incorrect but others of us are capable of reading the facts for ourselves and prefer to wait until the SSPX are in communion with the Church. Of course there is the old saying that fools rush in where wise men and women fear to tred. Of course, that is your choice but you shouldn't be misdirecting others and magligning good bishops, such as Bishop Morlino, who is right to say that we should shun SSPX chapels when they are not in communion with the Church.
Certainly a question for you would be why - if the SSPX are part of the Church, as you contend they are - do they say that Catholics should not attend the Masses of the FSSP, a legally erected order within the Church, and not attend Moto Proprio Masses offered by priests who are in full communion with the Church. I invite you to answer that qustion.
Peace to you and may your eyes finally be opened to the truth through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Jan
Post a Comment