CathInfo.com

A common error among many SSPX Catholics:

You attend your local SSPX chapel, and have attended for many years, just like your parents attended their local parish, St. ______ for decades.

So it's a common mistake to mix the two up -- how would your parents react to someone leaving their parish? "They left the Church".

But if someones leaves the SSPX they haven't left the Church. The two are not the same, even if "de facto" the SSPX is filling in for the Church in many ways, for many people, and for some time now.

But as I've said before, it's a matter of Catholic dogma and truth that the SSPX holds no jurisdiction (authority from above) over any Catholic. Only the Conciliar Church has this today.

The only person/chapel that has any CLAIM FROM ABOVE on you is your local Novus Ordo parish. They have the authority, or the ordinary Jurisdiction. Their authority comes from God, through the Pope, who appointed the bishop of the diocese you live in, and that bishop oversees and appoints your local pastor who is in charge of the Catholic church nearest to your house.

Once you leave that local Novus Ordo parish and enter the "wild world of Tradition", it is completely up to you where you decide to go for Mass. You are at liberty to choose your own lifeboat to preserve the Faith. It's all a question of personal prudence.

Whether you go to a poorly trained priest saying Mass in a hotel room once a month for 10 people, or to the honest-to-goodness CHURCH built in Colorado (St. Isidore's) run by the SSPX with hundreds of parishioners, where Mass is said by a well-trained priest -- those two Mass centers are on exactly the same footing. That is to say, they both rely on supplied jurisdiction, which comes FROM BELOW from the needs and requests of the Faithful.

Sure, one of them has better equipment, facilities, a bigger bank account, more parishioners, etc. but those things are ACCIDENTAL rather than FUNDAMENTAL to the issue. Fundamentally, they are both in the same boat.

So even though it SEEMS like leaving a pseudo-parish like St. Isidore's is like leaving the Church in the 1970's (most Catholic churches were large like St. Isidores, rather than small chapel like buildings), and you could only leave if you had a MAJOR REASON like the Novus Ordo Mass, you have to keep your thinking straight.

Just because St. Isidores managed to upgrade to the point that it looks just like a 50's parish doesn't mean that is IS a Catholic parish with ordinary jurisdiction! Reality is the important part -- not the appearance of reality.

St. Isidores (for example) doesn't have ANY MORE JURISDICTION or claim on individual Catholic faithful than a small mission out in the boonies, where a priest says Mass in a garage four times a year.

I've actually encountered, personally, several individuals who weren't aware of this. One older lady said that leaving an SSPX chapel is akin to leaving the Church. Another older lady criticized a young man because he left his SSPX chapel for weekly Mass at another (independent) chapel, because (to paraphrase): "I left my parish back in the 1970's, yes, but I was leaving the Novus Ordo. You have no such grave reason to disobey."

I kid you not.

She doesn't understand jurisdiction, obviously. Is there really this much IGNORANCE in the world of Tradition? I thought that's what we criticized the Novus Ordo so harshly for -- lack of proper catechesis and widespread ignorance of the Faith.

She doesn't understand that I could leave my Traditional (supplied jurisdiction) chapel for any and all reasons -- because I can't understand the priest's accent, I don't like some of the people who go there, because the priest isn't very good with kids, or because he has bad breath.

As long as I have another Tridentine Mass within driving distance that I'm willing to drive to instead, it's up to me which lifeboat I choose to hop in.

Now leaving a Trad chapel for stupid reasons and staying Home Alone -- that's a completely different story. We are obligated by the Church to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days, unless prevented by grave inconvenience.

The priest saying Mass 1/2 hour from my house being "a Mexican" is not sufficient reason to dispense from my obligation.

I think "jurisdiction" is a very vague concept.  

If anyone can point me in the direction of any docuмents or pre-Vatican II manuals that would help me understand it better, I would greatly appreciate that.

Matthew's post is definitely a well-thought out post and intriguing.  My own view of jurisdiction can be summed up by "Who sent you?"  

The SSPX Bishops and priests were all validly ordained.  Archbishop LeFebrvre did mention that he wasn't passing on jusidiction but what does that really mean?  

As for SSPXers advising other SSPXers against leaving the SSPX, I see no real harm in that as long as it's not dogmatic.

If it turns out that the "Conciliar Church" is a false Church, not part of the Church founded by Christ, etc. then it wouldn't follow that the SSPX (for example) inherited the True Church's jurisdiction, with every other group being under them.

No, even if it turned out that the collection of ALL Traditional chapels in the world is synonymous with the Catholic Church (as in, there are 500 Traditional chapels worldwide, and the Catholic Church is no bigger than that group: 500 chapels) then the jurisdiction would pass to ALL of them. Each and every one of them.

The merits/virtues/relative size of each group is beside the point. If they are Catholic, and holding to the Catholic Faith (which is traditional), then they are all in the same boat.

The same goes for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate. Sure, the SSPX had the most famous and impressive ceremony back in 1988. Maybe they even had the most qualified candidates? We'll pass over that (transeo). But if we grant that +ABL did a good thing in 1988, we can't really criticize +Ngo Dinh Thuc or Bishop Slupski for doing essentially the same thing 20 years later.

I assure you that jurisdiction has nothing to do with the "trappings" of a chapel OR a Consecration, as in # of parishioners at the consecration ceremony, the bank accounts of the organization(s) involved, or the number of trumpets playing during the recessional.

The Church looks at more fundamental questions than that, and as a matter of fact She *always* ignores accidentals and other fluff.

When making a judgment on a marriage annulment, does the Church ask questions like "What color was the groom's hair?" or "Do you both like the same kind of music?" Of course not.