Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Receiving Communion In An Illicit Mass


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 HopefulBride

HopefulBride

    Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Church Postulant

  • Church Militant
  • 4,051 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 11 November 2010 - 07:15 AM

OK so I have a question PMers,

I am strongly contemplating going south to visit some family and may be near the Brooksville area. There is a community there that is SSPX and my understanding is that their mass is illicit but valid. So my question is would it be wrong to receive communion? A few months ago I was at a solemn profession mass of a sister in a sedevecantist community and of course didn't receive but I wanted some clarification on the SSPX.

Thanks!
HB

#2 MichaelFilo

MichaelFilo

    PM Pham

  • n00b
  • 2,411 posts

Posted 11 November 2010 - 11:05 AM

You may only go if there is no Catholic option. Otherwise, the answer is no.

#3 RomanCatholic

RomanCatholic

    Lurker

  • n00b
  • 36 posts

Posted 11 November 2010 - 01:58 PM

Michael's answer is correct. You may go only if there is no other Catholic option. Currently the SSPX is not in full communion with the Holy See, and until they(SSPX) and the Holy See come to an agreement, this is where they stand.

#4 MichaelFilo

MichaelFilo

    PM Pham

  • n00b
  • 2,411 posts

Posted 11 November 2010 - 02:55 PM

I don't know about whether or not it is okay to go and not receive. I believe it is as long as you do not believe it fulfills your Sunday obligation.

#5 mommas_boy

mommas_boy

    PM Pham

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 2,437 posts

Posted 11 November 2010 - 10:53 PM

The general consensus here is correct:

(1) As the SSPX is not in full communion with Rome, it would be a lie to receive communion as a practicing Catholic at an SSPX service. To do so would mean that you and the other communicants are in communion with one another, that is, that is, that you preach the same things. This is not to say that the SSPX does not have valid Sacraments (they do), just that we cannot participate in them.

(2) According to the most recent code of canon law, it is permissible to attend a protestant or even non-Christian service. This change was made so that we can have ecumenical services. However, it is not the preferred way of doing things, as attendance connotes approval, and this has the potential to cause scandal.

Also, have a look at Father Z's blog post on this topic:

http://wdtprs.com/bl...spx-ordination/

#6 Skinzo

Skinzo

    PM Alien

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 706 posts

Posted 12 November 2010 - 04:23 AM

The general consensus here is correct:

(1) As the SSPX is not in full communion with Rome, it would be a lie to receive communion as a practicing Catholic at an SSPX service. To do so would mean that you and the other communicants are in communion with one another, that is, that is, that you preach the same things. This is not to say that the SSPX does not have valid Sacraments (they do), just that we cannot participate in them.

(2) According to the most recent code of canon law, it is permissible to attend a protestant or even non-Christian service. This change was made so that we can have ecumenical services. However, it is not the preferred way of doing things, as attendance connotes approval, and this has the potential to cause scandal.

Also, have a look at Father Z's blog post on this topic:

http://wdtprs.com/bl...spx-ordination/


Father Z said this in a different response: 


"The Holy See has said repeatedly that attending Masses of the SSPX fulfills the obligation according to can 1248."

Father Z does not recommend it as a regular thing though.

http://wdtprs.com/bl...d-sspx-chapels/




S.









#7 HopefulBride

HopefulBride

    Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Church Postulant

  • Church Militant
  • 4,051 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 12 November 2010 - 05:25 AM

Thanks for the responses guys, so basically I should treat like the sede mass that I went to.

#8 Mark of the Cross

Mark of the Cross

    PM Pham

  • Phishy
  • 2,575 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 15 November 2010 - 03:46 PM

28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

#9 Ed Normile

Ed Normile

    Master Fisherman

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 3,200 posts

Posted 15 November 2010 - 10:56 PM

I am still wondering how something can be both illicit and valid at the same time?

ed

#10 Skinzo

Skinzo

    PM Alien

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 706 posts

Posted 16 November 2010 - 03:13 AM

I am still wondering how something can be both illicit and valid at the same time?

ed





Hi Ed,


 Illicit means to violate canon law. For example, when anyone ordains a priest without permission from Rome, the ordination is illicit, and therefore a violation of canon law.  BUT, at the same time the person ordained truly becomes a VALID priest, i.e., truly receives the sacrament of holy orders and is therefore a priest. This can apply to other sacraments as well such as the Masses celebrated by the SSPX which are valid, but illicit as all their clergy are suspended from the celebration of the sacraments. You can read more here: http://www.jimmyakin...it_vs_vali.html

S. 



#11 HopefulBride

HopefulBride

    Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Church Postulant

  • Church Militant
  • 4,051 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 16 November 2010 - 04:57 AM

Hi Ed,


Illicit means to violate canon law. For example, when anyone ordains a priest without permission from Rome, the ordination is illicit, and therefore a violation of canon law. BUT, at the same time the person ordained truly becomes a VALID priest, i.e., truly receives the sacrament of holy orders and is therefore a priest. This can apply to other sacraments as well such as the Masses celebrated by the SSPX which are valid, but illicit as all their clergy are suspended from the celebration of the sacraments. You can read more here: http://www.jimmyakin...it_vs_vali.html

S.



If they are suspended from the celebration of the sacraments, wouldn't that imply that it's wrong to do it (not valid?) The good news is though I didn't go to the mass but I am now way more confused than ever about the difference between the SSPX and the Sede groups.

#12 MichaelFilo

MichaelFilo

    PM Pham

  • n00b
  • 2,411 posts

Posted 16 November 2010 - 07:26 AM

Illicit is the part that makes refers to the right or wrong.

The valid is the part that is whether it actually happens or not.

Examples

Illicit and Valid : Bishop says you can't say a special "Healing" Mass, but you are a priest and do it anyway, it's valid but illicit.

illicit and Invalid: You are saying Mass on Sunday and during the Consecration you say "This is my human dwelling abode within which my spirit rests, take this, some of the people here, because I said so." Not licit, not valid.

Licit and Valid : a regular mass

Licit and invalid: Someone who is not a priest says the Mass. He followed the form, but it's not valid, cause he isn't ordained.

#13 HopefulBride

HopefulBride

    Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Church Postulant

  • Church Militant
  • 4,051 posts
  • Catholic

Posted 16 November 2010 - 09:29 AM

ok noooooooow I get it.

Thanks Michael!

#14 mommas_boy

mommas_boy

    PM Pham

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 2,437 posts

Posted 16 November 2010 - 04:11 PM

Licit and invalid: Someone who is not a priest says the Mass. He followed the form, but it's not valid, cause he isn't ordained.


I believe that this example is still illicit, as well as invalid. Specifically because I know that the Code of Canon Law explicitly prevents someone from "simulating" a sacrament, on pain of excommunication latae sententiae.

Otherwise, good job!

#15 Ed Normile

Ed Normile

    Master Fisherman

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 3,200 posts

Posted 17 November 2010 - 12:30 AM

I was referring to the meaning of the words, one of the definitions of illicit is illegal as well as one of the definitions of Valid is legally sound. Just seems like a contradiction to me, its confusing at the very least.

ed

#16 Vincent Vega

Vincent Vega

    DO YOU SPEAK IT?

  • Cordial Non-Catholic
  • 8,489 posts
  • Protestant

Posted 17 November 2010 - 12:35 AM

I was referring to the meaning of the words, one of the definitions of illicit is illegal as well as one of the definitions of Valid is legally sound. Just seems like a contradiction to me, its confusing at the very least.

ed

Websters lists these for "valid":
1 : having legal efficacy or force; . . .
2
a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory>
b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>
3
: appropriate to the end in view : effective <every craft has its own valid methods>


It conforms to all these things, for though it was brought about in an illicit manner, it is still valid (i.e., "logically correct", "relevant", "meaningful", "effective", as it is truly the Body and Blood of Our Lord).

#17 Skinzo

Skinzo

    PM Alien

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 706 posts

Posted 17 November 2010 - 05:00 AM

I was referring to the meaning of the words, one of the definitions of illicit is illegal as well as one of the definitions of Valid is legally sound. Just seems like a contradiction to me, its confusing at the very least.

ed

The solution to your problem  is  to look at the terms "valid" and  "illicit" as the Church defines them, not the way an ordinary dictionary defines them. 


S.



#18 reminiscere

reminiscere

    PM Peep

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 196 posts

Posted 26 November 2010 - 08:59 PM

I am not an "SSPX'er" as they are called, but the PCED has stated many times that we are allowed to receive Holy Communion at SSPX Masses, even when we're not there simply because there is no other available Mass. You can proof by doing a simple Google search on this.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users