/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>565264

>Do you consider them part of the Catholic Church despite their rejection of Vatican II ?

Not sure.

I think Lefebvre was justified in his consecrations but I'm not sure it can always be justified to go to their masses because the Pope told them to stop.

Begome Catholic.

>>565264

The Catholic Church doesn't consider them to be part of the Catholic Church and since the Catholic Church makes the rules on who is and who is not a part of the Catholic Church, then no, they are not part of the Catholic Church.

>>565264

>Their sacraments are treated valid by the Holy See.

No, they are illicit and not valid and it has nothing to do with rejection of Vatican II. Lefebvre consecrated 4 bishops without Papal mandate and John Paul II excommunicated all 5 of them. Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication, but said himself: The Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers do not legitimately exercise any ministry within the Church.

>>565273

The question was

>Do you consider them part of the Catholic Church

I don't get to decide who is and who is not part of the Catholic Church.

>>565274

>No, they are illicit and not valid

Their sacraments are valid though it is debatable whether they're licit. While they are technically suspended and don't have ministry within the church they do have Papal permission to hear confessions and marry people.

>>565279

Marriage, sort of; confession, no. Pope Francis is trying to reconcile with the Society and bring them back to the Church, but Pope Francis gave bishops the option of granting an SSPX priest the necessary faculties to officiate validly over the marriage rite "if there are no priests in the diocese" available to do so.

>>565280

4 Bishops + Lefebvre = 5 people.

>>565281

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/pope-extends-special-permission-for-sspx-priests-in-confession

>>565284

Ah ok. I didn't know he extended it.

Aren't they the only ones who have been preserving the Latin mass? Or was that already in Catholicism, however minor?

>>565290

The Latin Mass is readily available, but is no longer the Ordinary.

>>565290

For a while U believe this was the case, then the Fssp was formed by some former sspx clergy so they could be in full communion. In 2009 Pope Benedict allowed any priest to say mass in the extraordinary form.

>>565295

I believe*

>>565295

Ah, I never figured out what the difference was between FSSP and SSPX, I guess that explains it.

I guess Benedict really is incredibly based. Wow.

During the time when it was mostly (or entirely?) SSPX preserving the Latin mass, this doesn't entail a corruption of doctrine, right? Was it only in '09 that the Latin mass was allowed?

>>565299

So if I want to attend Latin mass, I should go for FSSP ? What the differences between the Ordinary form and the Extraordinary one ?

>>565301

Latin vs New. Just look it up. And FSSP does Latin mass but the Latin mass here is not run by FSSP or SSPX, just regular Catholics but at a strange time so as not to compete with the normie mass.

>>565302

I'm French I don't know where you live but I'll look it up ! Thanks to all the anons ITT

>>565304

Canada. Count yourself lucky because I'm pretty sure Latin mass is more popular in France than anywhere else.

>>565299

>During the time when it was mostly (or entirely?) SSPX preserving the Latin mass, this doesn't entail a corruption of doctrine, right?

What do you mean?

>>565264

As far as I understand they're seen as Eastern Orthodox+

Eastern Orthodox as that their sacraments are valid but illicit and the + because they're not excommunicated nor officially in schism…which is kind of weird.

>>565315

Nigga that's the FSSP.

It's a priestly fraternity concerned with the Tridentine Mass.

>>565301

So if I want to attend Latin mass, I should go for FSSP ?

Not necessarily, other uncontroversially licit groups celebrate the Latin mass as well.

>>565299

>Was it only in '09 that the Latin mass was allowed?

Since the editio typica of the new missal in 1970, the old has been restricted to priests that were too old to learn the new form and to England and Wales (Agatha Christie indult), but it was used by some Priestly Fraternities such as the SSPX first, then the FSSP and ICRSS. Then in 1982 and 1988 the usage depended on the bishops and finally, it was made worldwide available to any priest in 2007, not 2009

>>565295

>>565290

>>565328

Friendly reminder that FSSP and SSPX don't have monopoly on TLM. In my city they are provided by franciscans and one regular priest.

>>565318

To basically enforce New Mass on everyone…that's not a corruption of doctrine?

>>565352

But for the longest time it was only a borderline schismatic/outright schimastic group preserving the Tridentine Mass? That's what I was asking about.

>>565771

Not that I know of. I've never been to a Latin mass but would like to.

>>565352

This

Normie priests are allowed to celebrate it, there are latin mass societies everywhere, they're fantastic

>>565777 (checked)

I don't really know, but I don't think so. It's not like in 1969 everyone magically forgot how to do TLM except for Lefebre.

>>565777

Yes, it was. Priests were literally forbidden from performing it after Vatican II and it (along with Latin) stopped being taught in seminaries. That's why Benedict XVI had to "give permission" to perform it again.