Are Catholics inducing into temptation SSPX priests?

I was wondering about the sacraments administered by the SSPX priests. It appears that most people on this forum agree that most of the sacraments are valid but illicit, and that two are invalid. Let assume that a Catholic (not SSPX) understands that participating to a SSPX Mass is not forbidden under some conditions, and he also understands that the SSPX priest commits mortal sin by performing illicit sacramental functions.

Given these assumptions is the Catholic committing a sin by asking the SSPX priest to perform an illicit sacramental function? I think that I could answer to this question with either a YES or a NO and I would still able to somehow to justify my answer.

For example if the participation to the Mass is not forbidden then how can he commit a sin by receiving Communion? (NO)

Or a different case, where if he asks for a specific sacramental function that is only about him as an individual and would not be performed without him, then he commits a sin. (YES)

Receiving from a schismatic actually is immoral. Beyond that, though, I would agree that a rule of thumb might be whether the service were specifically requested. Of course, I would probably avoid any other outward acts that imply communion or support, like receiving a blessing.

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

So you are suggesting that receiving communion at an Orthodox Church is immoral? You are aware that the Catholic Church ‘allows’ Catholics to receive from them and they are ‘clearly’ schismatic if not worse?

Communion with SSPX is even ‘less’ schismatic than with Eastern Orthodox. How can your position be tenable under the the circumstances.

Gratias

I really didn’t think much about this dimension of it all.

Great point, OP.

Receiving from a schismatic is normally immoral. Better? The Church does allow us to receive from the Orthodox - but only under very specific conditions. For Latins, the only condition is when we are geographically deprived of access to the sacraments and could otherwise not receive. Try to apply that to an SSPX chapel.

There is also another distinction. As material but born and baptized shismatics, the orthodox are in a different position from the SSPX insofar as jurisdiction in their sacraments. The SSPX are suspended from performing sacraments (and have been since a decade before the schism). So even if the (to be charitable I’ll even say alleged) schism cannot be seen as an insurmountable issue, receiving from a suspended priest is also immoral.

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

Have you ever visited an Eastern Orthodox Parish in the U.S.? Care to guess what makes up a sizable portion of their laity? Yes, Roman Catholics. But it’s okay to take communion with them even if they deny the Dogmas of our faith? The average Roman Catholic finds this reasoning very questionable as do I. Are you suggesting that the Eastern Orthodox have a more valid claim to their sacraments than SSPX? What does ‘time’ have to do with jurisdiction and suspension of sacraments?

Are we to conclude that in a few hundred years it will okay to commune with SSPX?

This doesn’t make sense. Can anyone offer us a reasonable explanation?

Gratia


Where does Msgr. Perl say that it is immoral to receive from an SSPX priest. You are being led by your own prejudice.

unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

I’ve already said it’s NOT okay for a Latin to receive from the Orthodox unless there is an impossibility of receiving from a Catholic. That’s our church’s own rule.

And, believe it or not, if the SSPX drop the pretense that they are Catholics in good standing, maybe in a few hundred years they will be treated differently. However, when the Orthodox went into schism they did it as whole churches. Thus they left with real hierarchical structures already in place. Would these remain valid after severing communion with Rome? I don’t know. What I do know is that Rome recognizes their priests’ absolutions as valid, which must imply proper faculties, which in turn require jurisdiction. We have yet to see a definitive ruling from Rome on the SSPX, who did not break away as an entire hierarchical body. Their society had been supressed for years before the schism, their archbishop - because their society did not technically exist - could most likely not be considered their ordinary, they remain unincardinated, and their current bishops have never had any jurisdiction in the Catholic Church, being as they were ordained illicitly and incurring latae sententiae excommunications. They had a several year stint as part of the Catholic hierarchy but that lapsed a decade before they officially broke communion. It’s a different situation.

Well, I for one am sick and tired of the whole love fest with the Eastern Orthodox whilst the SSPX (and even traditional Catholics in full union with Rome) are treated as if they were lepers. For the record, I’d never set foot in a SSPX chapel until their status in the Church is regularized, but why can’t traditional Catholics be treated with the same respect that many clergy and hierarchy give to the EO? I want the EO Church to return to the fullness of truth and salvation, which they are already so close to already. But I think the Church should reach out to traditional Catholics who are not in full union with Rome first. Charity begins at home, as they say.


Where does Msgr. Perl say that it is immoral to receive from an SSPX priest. You are being led by your own prejudice.

unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

Where does Msgr. Perle say it is moral to do so? Glass houses, etc. Since we are already discussing this on a different thread, I suggest we stick to that one where we already have more substantive bacground and posting.


You were the one who brought receiving Holy Communion from an SSPX priest was grave matter into this discussion. You —yourself should have taken your own suggestion to begin with.

The discussions developed at basically the same time. More importantly, though, I would suggest you actually read this thread, look for the phrase “grave matter,” then edit your post.

(Whether or not it is moral to receive from them was already in the OP; grave matter first appeared in the above-quoted post.)

Quote=Andreas Hofer
…So even if the (to be charitable I’ll even say alleged) schism cannot be seen as an insurmountable issue, receiving from a suspended priest is also immoral.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did find—immoral—which is grave matter.

Immorality involves venial and grave matter. I have no doubt that other Catholic speakers of English will back me up on that. For future reference, gravely immoral=grave matter. Now you know.

Oh, Contrare … on both counts.
The EO is not even visible from the shoreline.
The Popes have done all the giving, compromising, and the EO has done…what exactly…excluding kisses, hugs or timmed their beards.


Since you made the distintion in this thread between immoral vs. gravely immoral(= grave matter)----that makes receiving from an SSPX priest not grave matter.

I do wish you would make up your mind. First you say one thing ----then another.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.