Catholic Leaders Hail 'Fruitful' Talks with Archbishop

"It is not permissible to knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. Consequently nobody has the obligation to satisfy his Sunday obligation by attending the New Mass, even if there is no other alternative. [sic]"

Yup. Good, solid advice, that. However, you said that the SSPX had "proclaimed" that receiving at a N.O. mass is a "sin." Either there's more to the FAQ than you posted, or you're putting words in their mouth.

They also declare receiving other sacraments from NO illicit, and even receiving sacraments from FSSP illicit, since FSSP priests, while they use the Tridentine mass, are sinful priests since they accept the Pope's teaching regarding the validity of the NO mass!

Kindly post the url for the site containing the specific statement that calls FSSP priests "sinful."

Now, if you can't see how this constitutes schism, even if Rome had not recognized it as such, trying to convince you that anything the SSPX says constitutes heresy would seem pointless.

It would indeed be pointless to try to lure me back into the Novus Ordo. It shouldn't be impossible, however, to substantiate your claims of schism and heresy if, in fact, those are true. How difficult could it be to qualify a charge as serious as heresy? Seems to me it should be as easy as defining a specific, revealed Catholic dogma, and then pointing out where and how the accused heretic has taught something contrary to that Catholic dogma. Do you even know what heresy is?

The SSPX has been formally declared to be in schism

Oh?

but they declare that the declaration is ultra vires simply on the basis that they are right and the Pope is wrong. But they ACT in schism, also, for they have declared the Pope's own sacraments illicit.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for proof again. So far, what you've offered to substantiate your allegations is a rephrasing of your allegations, and a statement that proving them would be "pointless."

how can the Pope say that the SSPX is even communicant with Rome, when the SSPX itself states that it is not?

The SSPX has said this? Please post the url of the official SSPX source that contains this specific statement.

And if it is not communicant, how can it not be in schism?

Do you know what schism is?

>> Yup. Good, solid advice, that. However, you said that the SSPX had "proclaimed" that receiving at a N.O. mass is a "sin." Either there's more to the FAQ than you posted, or you're putting words in their mouth. <<

Does the SSPX not hold that it is sinful to fail to meet one's Sunday obligations?

>> Kindly post the url for the site containing the specific statement that calls FSSP priests "sinful." <<

I did.

>>I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for proof again.<<

Same site. SSPX itself does recognize that the Vatican issued such a statement. They present the entire timeline, including a silly little exhange where the Vatican did it first through a cabinet-level office, the SSPX said, "Doesn't count; only the Pope can do it." So the Pope did it, and SSPX said, "Well, it doesn't count anyway."

>> The SSPX has said this? Please post the url of the official SSPX source that contains this specific statement.<<

See, this is the pathetic little trick of the SSPX. They make all sorts of wild assertions, and when they get called on the implication of their assertions, they say, "We never said that!"

The SSPX declared that it was sinful to receive communion from priests allied with Rome. Being communicant means you recognize each others' communions. Hence, if they do not recognize Rome's communions (which they don't, check out the URL), then they are not in communion. If they are not in communion, then they are in schism.

You said:

Accordingly, the Church needs to treat SSPX-ers in such a way as to make it clear the the faithful that these are heretics.

Then, once you realized that calling people who attend Mass offered by the Society "heretics" is an unsubstantiated calumny, you backed off and said:

Catholics who attend SSPX masses are guilty of disobedience, but not necessarily heresy.

Then midway through your posting you became confused again and said:

The SSPX has gone the way...of heresy as well.

So again, giving you the benefit of the doubt, would you like to substantiate your claim that the Society is guilty of heresy or would you like to retract your statement as it amounts to nothing more than further calumny?

From the link you provided:

The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although certainly illicit and unprecedented in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass.

The validity of the reformed rite of Mass, as issued in Latin by Paul VI in 1969, must be judged according to the same criteria as the validity of the other sacraments; namely matter, form and intention. The defective theology and meaning of the rites, eliminating as they do every reference to the principal propitiatory end of sacrifice, do not necessarily invalidate the Mass. The intention of doing what the Church does, even if the priest understands it imperfectly, is sufficient for validity. With respect to the matter, pure wheaten bread and true wine from grapes are what is required for validity. The changes in the words of the form in the Latin original, although certainly illicit and unprecedented in the history of the Church, do not alter the substance of its meaning, and consequently do not invalidate the Mass.

However, we all know that such a New Mass celebrated in Latin is an oddity, doomed to extinction by the very fact of the reform. The validity of the New Masses that are actually celebrated in today’s parishes more than 30 years later is a quite different question. Additives to the host sometimes invalidate the matter. The change in the translation from the words of Our Lord, "for many" to the ecumenically acceptable "for all" throws at least some doubt on the validity of the form.

In other words some Novus Ordo Masses may be invalid, but not necessarily all of them. Why take the risk?

Does the SSPX not hold that it is sinful to fail to meet one's Sunday obligations?

The SSPX holds that one cannot knowingly receive doubtful sacraments. That's what the site said. It did not say, as you claim, that one commits a sin by going to the Novus Ordo.

Same site. SSPX itself does recognize that the Vatican issued such a statement. They present the entire timeline, including a silly little exhange where the Vatican did it first through a cabinet-level office, the SSPX said, "Doesn't count; only the Pope can do it." So the Pope did it, and SSPX said, "Well, it doesn't count anyway."

There's a rerason I'm asking you for urls & direct quotes. Your failure to provide them is speaking volumes about the credibility of your position. Kindly cite your source for the above.

See, this is the pathetic little trick of the SSPX. They make all sorts of wild assertions, and when they get called on the implication of their assertions, they say, "We never said that!"

Asking for proof is a "pathetic little trick?"

The SSPX declared that it was sinful to receive communion from priests allied with Rome.

This isn't the first time you've made this assertion, although you have yet to point out where the SSPX actually says this.

Being communicant means you recognize each others' communions.

Does it? This may be the source of your confusion. I don't think you have the first idea of what it means to be in communion with Rome. Maybe I'm wrong about you, but I don't think so. Take a stab at it and either me or someone else will let you know if you get the right answer.

If they are not in communion, then they are in schism.

Read the above, substituting "communion with Rome" with "schism."

The SSPX challenges the doctrine of an ecumenical council, and four popes as well, thereby making it guilty of heresy. If you yourself will acknowledge their doctrinal authority, then I shall be happy to defend you from any accusation of heresy.

Heresy is the formal denial or doubt by a baptised person of any revealed truth of the Catholic faith. "Challenging" an ecumenical council that defined no doctrine or "challenging" the teachings of popes that pertain to that council but have not been proposed as binding on the conscience of the faithful falls well short of heresy. Your accusation remains unsubstantiated calumny, which is a sin against the Seventh Commandment.

I politely decline your offer to defend me against charges of heresy, as you seem to have enough trouble trying to defend your own arguments.

Why in the world would traditional/orthodox Anglicans WANT to be re-united with the liberalized RC church? As near as I can tell, there isn't a nickels worth of difference between the '79 BCP and the Novus Ordo. In the year leading up to ECUSA's surrender to the pansexualist agenda, I attended our local RC church to see whether or not I was ready to swim the Tiber. Outside of the fact that the crosses had a corpus on them and there were a number of Deprato statues here and there, I could have easily believed I was sitting in an Episcopalian sanctuary witnessing the '79 BCP liturgy...Rite II, no less. They haven't ordained women...yet...but there were plenty of women and girls involved in the liturgy, the altar was not against the wall, and on at least one occasion, the choir sang that abysmal "Eagles Wings" tripe that passes for hymnody these days. That's why I joined a "continuing" Anglican church, instead.

Somebody has pooped in the Tiber and I refuse to swim in it.

It does more than say "why take the risk?" It goes on to declare that it is illicit to take that risk, and then leaps to the conclusion that since it is illicit to take that risk, it is illicit to attend New Order mass. But there are other ways to avoid taking the risk: Priests who confect invalid masses do so purposely rebelling against the Church. Such rebellion is easy to recognize if you educate yourself. The things which invalidate a mass have been posted here several time, due to the wonderful work of Freepers, but those are external signs; it is true that the priest must also have the proper disposition.

The following are irregularities that do not necessarily invalidate a mass, but which suggest that the mass is offered without proper disposition:

* Use of extraordinary ministers while there is an idle concelebrant.
* Use of sacred vessels which are not obviously noble. (Some glazed pottery, for instance, does not necessarily desecrate the Eucharist as unglazed pottery, but why would the priest tolerate the uncertainty?)
* Ad-libbing rites.
* Laity in the sanctuary.
* Disregard for the GIRM.

The Council and the popes who have endorsed its doctrines made no formal formal definitions. Nonetheless, they darned sure taught a lot of doctrine. In rejecting their teachings as "not been proposed as binding," you merely demonstrate my point, that you are not only disobedient but a heretic as well.

I could have easily believed I was sitting in an Episcopalian sanctuary witnessing the '79 BCP liturgy...Rite II, no less.

Probably because the ICEL translation of the 1970 Roman Missal (a.k.a. the "Novus Ordo Missae"), which came along (of course) in 1970, was one of the main ingredients in the 1979 BCP Rite II.

I probably could have told you that before you went.

Of course, for a Roman Catholic, there's one very big difference between the Catholic Mass and the 1979 BCP Rite II: the round white thing on the altar in the Episcopalian church is a piece of bread; the round white thing on the altar in the Catholic church is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Re: "SSPX-ers usually are ex-Catholics who still claim to be Catholics, and only a few of them have been formally excommunicated."

Correction to the assumption above. There was no FORMAL excommunication of any SSPXer. The closest that anyone came was a letter sent 3 days after St Marcel Lefebvre consecrated the 4 Bishops. In this letter the Pope referred to his actions as de facto cause of excommunication, a point that is hotly debated on different threads. This can be debated again but I doubt anyone would claim this classifies as a FORMAL excommunication, which is a process that requires more than a single letter and more than 3 days to complete.

The Council and the popes who have endorsed its doctrines made no formal formal definitions.

I'm not sure what a "formal formal" definition is, but you are correct in stating that the council and the popes concurrent and subsequent to the time of the council have not defined any new teaching that is binding upon the faithful.

Nonetheless, they darned sure taught a lot of doctrine.

Again, I'll ask the question, as you seem to be unable to grasp the whole point of this continued conversation: What doctrine taught as a truth of faith or morals has the Society dissented from? What specifically has been proposed in the last forty years that those who adhere to the traditional teachings of the Church need to assent to in order to avoid condemnation?

...that you are not only disobedient but a heretic as well.

Now you are not only guilty of calumny against the Society, but calumny and rash judgment against me also. You have absolutely no basis for your assertion except your own faulty understanding of theology. I strongly recommend that you retract your statement and apologize.

I'm not sure what a "formal formal" definition is

I was referring to solemn definitions.

but you are correct in stating that the council and the popes concurrent and subsequent to the time of the council have not defined any new teaching that is binding upon the faithful.

That's right. They never invent new doctrines. They merely teach what has always been taught.

What specifically has been proposed in the last forty years that those who adhere to the traditional teachings of the Church need to assent to in order to avoid condemnation?

Nothing. All their teachings coincide with the traditional teachings. Those who adhere to the traditional teachings have no trouble assenting to the teachings of the last 40 years. Those who do not are the heretics.

LOL at swimming the (dirty) River Tiber and hymnody. Looks like I'm on the same page as you about testing the RC's holy water.

Found one Catholic church which was much more Anglican than the Episcopal church we currently attend, but there was too much confusion on whether we were or were not welcome to participate in Holy Communion.

One kind elderly Irish Padre said "Of course, please take Communion with us," and one not so elderly nun said "Please do not ever do it again, unless you have taken the classes and have been converted" after we had already received Communion.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.