An FSSP response to the SSPX

[geocajun]

They do, however, have valid priests and bishops, just like the Orthodox. I see no difference between the two, other than the Orthodox have been around a lot longer.

I certainly don't advocate attending schismatic Masses of any sort, but I do have a problem with the attitude that "the Orthodox are fine, the Protestants are fine, just stay far away from the SSPX". As far as I know, SSPX is only schismatic, not heretical, making them the closest of the three to the Church. If I had to choose between receiving the Sacraments from the Orthodox or the SSPX, I'd pick the latter, whether they're a "church" or not.

The EO have their own laws and customs which go back to apostolic times, thus they are not bound by our canon law of the west, however the SSPX are. The canon you presented as evidence that one can receive from an SSPX (formally excommunicated, hence, non-catholic) does not match up because they are not a church, whereas the EO are a proper, and true church.
As far as which non-catholic i'd rather receive communion from? I wouldn't even consider the question unless I was dying and needed viaticum.

 

[Paul S]

The EO have their own laws and customs which go back to apostolic times, thus they are not bound by our canon law of the west, however the SSPX are. The canon you presented as evidence that one can receive from an SSPX (formally excommunicated, hence, non-catholic) does not match up because they are not a church, whereas the EO are a proper, and true church.
As far as which non-catholic i'd rather receive communion from? I wouldn't even consider the question unless I was dying and needed viaticum.

Dominus Jesus says: "Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches." The SSPX has apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, making them, by that definition, a Church.

Contrasted with "Churches" are "ecclesial communities": "On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense."

I wouldn't receive the Sacraments from either unless there were no Catholic priest available at all within some reasonable distance, but I wouldn't limit it to Viaticum.

 

[geocajun]

Paul, i'm not sure where you get that definition of 'church' - even the E.D. commission doesn't consider them a church and has made that very clear.

 

[PeterPaul]

(whistles) This wasn't a debate thread. It was primarily an article which I thought was well written.

 

[Paul S]

Paul, i'm not sure where you get that definition of 'church' - even the E.D. commission doesn't consider them a church and has made that very clear.

That's from Dominus Jesus (paragraph 17).

 

[geocajun]

That's from Dominus Jesus (paragraph 17).

that paragraph begins with the presupposition that something is already a church.
The SSPX don't even consider themselves to be a seperate church... odd that you do.

 

[D'Ann]

Subject too complicated for my little pea brian... Interesting article though from what little that I have read of it...I must come back and read it more thoroughly... when I have more time and access to a computer again.

God's Peace,

Debbie

 

[Paul S]

that paragraph begins with the presupposition that something is already a church.
The SSPX don't even consider themselves to be a seperate church... odd that you do.

No, the SSPX consider themselves to be fully Catholic and not excommunicated, so of course they don't consider themselves a separate church.

Ultimately, it's up to the Church (and God) to decide the status of the SSPX. I'd just find it very odd that it would be okay to receive from the Orthodox, who not only reject the papacy but several other doctrines, too, but not the SSPX, who are much closer to the Church.

They're either churches or ecclesial communities, so I think "churches" in canon 844 refers to those groups which have a valid priesthood and a valid Eucharist.

Perhaps it really doesn't matter, since we shouldn't attend receive the Sacraments from either group unless there's a grave necessity. But I do think there's a real problem when we treat the Orthodox and the Protestants as fellow believers, and even concelebrate Masses with them, or at least prayer services, and yet the attitude towards the SSPX is "stay far away". I think that's the right attitude to take towards schism - just call schism schism and heresy heresy, wherever it exists.

 

[D'Ann]

No, the SSPX consider themselves to be fully Catholic and not excommunicated, so of course they don't consider themselves a separate church.

Ultimately, it's up to the Church (and God) to decide the status of the SSPX. I'd just find it very odd that it would be okay to receive from the Orthodox, who not only reject the papacy but several other doctrines, too, but not the SSPX, who are much closer to the Church.

They're either churches or ecclesial communities, so I think "churches" in canon 844 refers to those groups which have a valid priesthood and a valid Eucharist.

Perhaps it really doesn't matter, since we shouldn't attend receive the Sacraments from either group unless there's a grave necessity. But I do think there's a real problem when we treat the Orthodox and the Protestants as fellow believers, and even concelebrate Masses with them, or at least prayer services, and yet the attitude towards the SSPX is "stay far away". I think that's the right attitude to take towards schism - just call schism schism and heresy heresy, wherever it exists.

Not sure if I'm understanding your post correctly, Paul, I could be mistaken, but the SSPX has been declared by the Catholic Church via the Magesterium to be in schism (in rebellion against and with) the Catholic Church and because of this... I don't believe that Catholics who are in communion with Rome can partake in the Eucharist... Because as Jason(name?) aka Geocajun mentioned... the SSPX has never made themselves formally a "church" that I know of. I really need to study more about this particular subject... but if you would like, I can do more research and get information from other apologists who have studied and research this subject and can be much more defining and clarifying than me.

God's Peace,

Debbie

p.s.: sorry, if I've offended anyone.

 

[D'Ann]

figured out what the FSSP stands for... deleted/edited

 

[geocajun]

No, the SSPX consider themselves to be fully Catholic and not excommunicated, so of course they don't consider themselves a separate church.

If I consider myself to be a apple, that doesnt change the fact that I am human. The SSPX are objectivly excommunicated. They consider themselves to be a society of apostolic life (at least I think thats it today...) However since their bishops have no valid see for which to incardinate their priests, they also have no lay persons, thus, no assembly, hence... no church. They are just a group of schismatic, and defiant priests and bishops who have been formally excommunicate insofar as they adhere to the lefebvrrist movement.

Ultimately, it's up to the Church (and God) to decide the status of the SSPX. I'd just find it very odd that it would be okay to receive from the Orthodox, who not only reject the papacy but several other doctrines, too, but not the SSPX, who are much closer to the Church.

you may also find it odd then, that one can receive a valid sacramental absolution from an EO priest, but not from an SSPX priest.
The EO are also no longer formally excommunicated.

They're either churches or ecclesial communities, so I think "churches" in canon 844 refers to those groups which have a valid priesthood and a valid Eucharist.

no, it takes more than a valid priest or bishop to make a Church, and a canon lawyer would understand that when reading canon law.

Perhaps it really doesn't matter, since we shouldn't attend receive the Sacraments from either group unless there's a grave necessity. But I do think there's a real problem when we treat the Orthodox and the Protestants as fellow believers, and even concelebrate Masses with them, or at least prayer services, and yet the attitude towards the SSPX is "stay far away". I think that's the right attitude to take towards schism - just call schism schism and heresy heresy, wherever it exists.

Paul I think you are more sympotheitc to the SSPX because you agree with them more. The reason we are more forgiving of protestants is that they are in material heresy, whereas the SSPX is a formal schism. The EO, at the direction of the Holy Father who is the supreme legislator of the Church have a different canonical status... but I don't know that its been given a word.

 

[Paul S]

Not sure if I'm understanding your post correctly, Paul, I could be mistaken, but the SSPX has been declared by the Catholic Church via the Magesterium to be in schism (in rebellion against and with) the Catholic Church and because of this... I don't believe that Catholics who are in communion with Rome can partake in the Eucharist...

Normally, we can't, but Canon 844 provides for limited exceptions. I think if those exceptions apply to the Orthodox, they'd also apply to the SSPX, both of whom are schismatic, but retain valid apostolic succession and a valud Eucharist.