/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The Vatican themselves say that you their Mass is licit and can fulfill your Sunday obligation.

>>803742

>>803742

Maybe this letter could help you.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX.HTM

>>803748

>vaticancatholic

I watched the first minute of the video and they said SSPX weren't Catholic. They've no self-awareness.

>>803754

>admitted sedes say SSPX aren't Catholic

Thats actually frigging hilarious. I might start liking the SSPX if hardcore sedes like vaticancatholic doesn't like them.

>>803758

lol the feeling is mutual by the way

>>803742

>Closest Catholic Church to me is run by SSPX

Then go a little further down the road, friend. There is no salvation outside the Church and SSPX are not in full communion with Rome. If you don't believe your salvation is important enough to go a little further away for Mass, well, that's on you.

No the thing they are vauge about is the distinction between cannonical schism and the sin of schism.

It's beyond a doubt most sspx advocate schism and to formally cohere with the SSPX you'd be schismatic.

They're vauge about the hypothetical group of people who can go to an SSPX mass and not become schismatic.

Here is some good reading on the subject

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1224

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1392

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/guest-contribution-qa-with-the-pont-comm-ecclesia-dei-about-sspx-schism-and-sacraments/

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_commissions/ecclsdei/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html

The most recent documents make it pretty clear they don't say so openly because it wouldn't be ecunemical/they want to be nice, because they think some might participate in their liturgies without formally participating with their schism, so they don't call it that.

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

This makes it simple

if they don't submit to the Pope, they are not Catholic.

Also if you look at former sspx groups who rejoined the Church, all the document refer to them as ending their schism.

In addition to this the previously highest canon lawyer on earth whose concern this very issue would be, the head of the Apostolic Signatura, is well rather clear on this.

If anyone should know, it's him, and he's known for being clear and orthodox is all other ways as well.

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/cdl-burke-sspx-in-schism

I don't really know how anyone justifies it to themselves to go it seems… rather clear.

Or well lets look to the SSPX themselves

Why do they say they don't return to Rome?

https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/11/27/doctrine-remains-problem-in-relations-sspx-affirms-after-vatican-meeting/

Because they say they have irreconcilable DOCTRINE with the Pope, they differ from Rome in doctrine to such a degree they don't think they can rejoin, so it's a matter of heresy now as well.

They also maintain that all post 1962 ordinations are probably invalid so we probably don't really have bishops/priests anyway.

They can't be called Catholic in anything meaningful way.

Let's look to a quote from Lefebvre (who signed all the documents at Vat 2.)

>We are not of this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We are of the religion of all time, of the Catholic religion. We are not of that universal religion, as they call it today. It is no longer the Catholic religion. We are not of that liberal, modernist religion that has its worship, its priests, its faith, its catechisms, its Bible."

This is the view of SSPX

They aren't of our religon, that makes it pretty clear.

>>803745

Only in times of need where you cannot attend a Church in full communion.

>>803806

And St Thomas aquinas says

Article 9. Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?

On the contrary, The Canon says (Dist. 32): "Let no one hear the mass of a priest whom he knows without doubt to have a concubine." Moreover, Gregory says (Dial. ii.) that "the faithless father sent an Arian bishop to his son, for him to receive sacrilegiously the consecrated Communion at his hands. But, when the Arian bishop arrived, God's devoted servant rebuked him, as was right for him to do."

I answer that, As was said above (Article 5,Article 7), heretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet they do not make a proper use of it; on the contrary, they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin. Hence we read in John's Second Canonical Epistle (11) that "He that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works." Consequently, it is not lawful to receive Communion from them, or to assist at their mass.

Still there is a difference among the above, because heretics, schismatics, and excommunicates, have been forbidden, by the Church's sentence, to perform the Eucharistic rite. And therefore whoever hears their mass or receives the sacraments from them, commits sin. But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4082.htm#article9

>>803813

I think you're posting that in support of my post, but I have also heard that in times of extreme need we (Catholics) are also able to receive confession and other sacraments from the Orthodox should not Catholic be possible.

Fortunately. God's love is great, and the Catholic Church truly encompasses the world.

>>803796

>>803795

“Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to Sanchez and Palao].” (de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8.)

“If you don’t intend to use [the power given by Christ], it would be better and more to God’s honor and the good of your soul to resign. If I were in your place, I would be afraid of incurring divine judgment.” ~ St. Catherine of Siena in a letter to Pope Gregory XI

>>803833

St. Catherine cannot overrule the rulings of the Church, nor did she probably intend to. There is also no solidly founded doubts about Pope Francis, the questions about his orthodoxy are not questions about the legitimacy of his occupation of the Seat, which is something even the recent letter accusing Pope Francis of formal heresy admits.

You are without the Church, you should seek the true Church before it is too late.

>>803813

SSPX isn't considered to be heretical, schismatic, or excommunicated by the Church anymore. Receiving Communion from an SSPX is nothing at all like receiving Communion from an Arian.

>>803813

>>803813

>heretical

SSPX are not heretical, even the Vatican says so.

>excommunicate

All the SSPX excommunications have been lifted.

>or sinful priests

Then you can't receive communion from most Novus Ordo bishops, since practically all of them participated in covering up horrendous child sexual abuse, and further the majority of them are literal homosexuals with homosexual concubines.

>>803796

>“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

And yet here is Pope Francis from 2016:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a-statue-of-luther-in-the-vatican-and-a-new-papal-definition-of-lukewarm

>At the meeting, Francis reinforced his admonition from earlier this month against converting people. Weeks after saying it is a “very grave sin against ecumenism” for Catholics to try to convert Orthodox Christians, Pope Francis told the pilgrims “it is not licit” to “convince [non-Christians] of your faith.”

So Pope Francis is explicitly trying to prevent people from being saved according to you. Therefore he is a heretic, surely? I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't only quote Unam Sanctam when it's convenient to attack traditionalists, right? Surely you will apply it to your own side as well, RIGHT?

>>803813

Funny how you talk about others being heretics while sharing a link from a website called "new advent". It's a heretical idea that there can be a new advent or a new pentacost.

>>803874

Not only is it a sin according to Catholicism to go to an Orthodox liturgy, it's a sin to even enter into an Orthodox church (or any other non-Catholic religious building), unless you have some kind of special dispensation from your bishop. Consider finding a new priest if he didn't inform of you this, because you may have a heterodox heretical priest.

>>803846

>>803840

>>803866

>>803850

>>803833

>when you just bring up random stuff instead of responding to what I said

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus friends

"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25, collected with Leo [A.D. 449]).

ST. PETER CHRYSOLOGUS

>>803874

The saints would do all they can to avoid any association with schismatics/heretics, and you would be exposing yourself to the potential of mortal sin again.

>>803886

It's not bringing up random stuff, it's using your own arguments to draw conclusions that are ideologically inconvenient to you in order to show that you aren't being sincere or arguing in good faith. Either admit that Pope Francis is an evil heretic trying to send people to hell or admit that you don't really believe Unam Sanctam is true and are just quoting it because you think it will help you win the argument.

>>803889

It is bringing up random stuff because it doesn't actually engage the argument I've made.

Instead of actually engaging the fairly clear points and refuting them, you are just moving to some other topic of conversation you feel more confident about (even though you are also totally ignorant there, a heretic requires a higher authority correcting them and the Pope doesn't have one, i'm not going to respond on this point again because it isn't relevant).

I cited a bunch of stuff pointing to the SSPX being schismatic, including stuff from themselves. When someone says their doctrine is totally different from Rome and they are of a different religion I believe them.

Further even if unum sanctum isn't coherently applied, that doesn't make the point involving it wrong.

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

EVEN IF other stuff goes against this, unless you can disprove this particular point you have to maintain it. (I'm aware how modern people lessen it in a weird way but they don't reject it at all)

If you think

>“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

Is true and that Pope Francis is the Pope, you can not coherently be involved with the SSPX, a group openly hostile to the authority of the Pope.

The SSPX are not sedevecantists, they do not deny that Pope Francis is the Pope.

I'd assume they wouldn't reject unum sanctum

but they very clearly deny the authority of the Pope.

You can argue that the SSPX think they submit to the authority of the Pope but no one will take you seriously.

So the key points are

>Do the SSPX accept the authority of Pope Francis?

Obviously not, they are defined by their obstinate refusal of submission.

>Can people who are defined by a refusal to submit to the Pope be considered Catholic?

Again, obviously not.

You seem to think people can still be Catholic and not submit to the Pope which obviously contradicts unum sanctum, but if I'm wrong please correct me there.

>>803893

I see you are continuing to avoid the question. The assertion that there is no higher authority correcting the Pope is laughable (how about JESUS CHRIST) and there have been heretical popes before.

You are clearly not arguing in good faith. You are just like an atheist trying to quote the Bible at Christians to get them to do what he wants, even though he doesn't believe the Bible himself. I'm not responding to any of your points until you start arguing in good faith.

The Pope gave them rights to hear confessions. Why would the Pope do that if they were an schismatic group?

>>803968

They are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, so they are not part of the Catholic Church. We've already had these conversations before, and none of your semantic games can absolve sinful acts of Schism.

>>803980

>They are not in full communion with the Catholic Church

That's highly debatable since they're not in an official schism, the excommunications were lifted and their vows were valid (probably more than most these days).

>>803980

So you know better than the Pope? I think you're the schismatic here…

>>803997

They are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, thus they are not part of the Catholic Church. Enough mind-games.