Moral Consequences Of Attending Sspx Mass

[Nihil Obstat]

The Church has given permission for members of the laity to attend Mass and SSPX chapels, simple attendance is not an impression or sign of rebellion against the Church. Many more parishes worldwide offer the Extraordinary form of the Mass compared to the past. But it is false that most offer the Extraordinary form of the Mass, and many that do only do so once a month or less. Many Bishops remain hostile to it, and fight it. I'm not sure the Church agrees that the SSPX is in "open rebellion" against the Holy See, that type language simply isn't being used. So we should avoid it as well.  Dare I say faithful Catholics have much more in common with the SSPX than liberal Catholics, and the SSPX is far more loyal to the Pope and the Holy See than liberal Catholics many of which can present themselves openly as being in full union with Rome, and at the same time clearly and undoubtedly be in open rebellion against the Faith itself as well as the Holy See.

 

Pray of unity of the Church.

In that sense, personally I find it encouraging that Bishop Williamson was expelled. 

I do not think he is a bad person, per se, but I think he has been tripped up by a spirit that is not of God, and was a very bad influence on the Society.

[KnightofChrist]

The Church has given permission for members of the laity to attend Mass and SSPX chapels, simple attendance is not an impression or sign of rebellion against the Church. Many more parishes worldwide offer the Extraordinary form of the Mass compared to the past. But it is false that most offer the Extraordinary form of the Mass, and many that do only do so once a month or less. Many Bishops remain hostile to it, and fight it. I'm not sure the Church agrees that the SSPX is in "open rebellion" against the Holy See, that type language simply isn't being used. So we should avoid it as well.  Dare I say faithful Catholics have much more in common with the SSPX than liberal Catholics, and the SSPX is far more loyal to the Pope and the Holy See than liberal Catholics many of which can present themselves openly as being in full union with Rome, and at the same time clearly and undoubtedly be in open rebellion against the Faith itself as well as the Holy See.

 

Pray of unity of the Church.

 

That should be "attend Mass at SSPX chapels"...
 

[arfink]

I notice that you specified "health of your soul", as well as having or not having access to an 'approved' traditional Mass. Getting a bit deeper, what are your thoughts on that part specifically? How much desire for the traditional Mass would be enough in your opinion to justify attending an SSPX Mass, assuming it was the only one available?

I have said for a while, if I did not have the FSSP close by, I would be very conflicted. Would I go to the SSPX Mass? Would I go regularly? That is a question I am glad I do not have to answer right now, because it does trouble me. My bishop has been clear that he does not want the SSPX around, and does not want Calgarian Catholics going to them. It is a tough situation.

 

As always, we must pray that their situation is resolved.

 

I left it vague on purpose, because I think that's subjective. Some people have scruples, and they must behave in a particular way in order to avoid acting against their consciences, while others do not have this problem, and so on. I don't think it can be quantified at all.

 

We know as Catholics that our consciences, if properly formed, must be obeyed. But even an improperly formed consistence, if intentionally disobeyed, leaves us guilty of sin. I know that there are Catholics whose consciences are formed such that they believe themselves to be committing acts of wrongdoing by attending the Ordinary Form of the mass. These are Catholics for whom the Extraordinary Form becomes a matter of the health of their souls, and I would say that if they are barred from the Extraordinary Form in a licit way, they could seek the SSPX.

 

Or even more subjectively, there are even more Catholics who find the Extraordinary Form encourages their spiritual life more. How much is that benefit worth, however, when you risk the errors of the SSPX in the process? I do think it's very subjective, and will definitely differ from one person to the next.

 

For my part, I see no particular advantage to my soul by attending the Extraordinary Form of the mass, so this question doesn't much bother me. But yeah, I understand for many people it's of such paramount importance to them that to be without the EF mass, they would be at risk in their souls or their prayer lives. It's tricky.

Edited June 12, 2013 by arfink

[KnightofChrist]

In that sense, personally I find it encouraging that Bishop Williamson was expelled. 

I do not think he is a bad person, per se, but I think he has been tripped up by a spirit that is not of God, and was a very bad influence on the Society.

 

I agree, and because he fought so hard against full union with Rome, his being expelled should be a hopeful sign to all just how much the SSPX does want full union with Rome.

[Papist]

And we're off....

[arfink]

And we're off....

 

:deadhorse:

[KnightofChrist]

And we're off....

 

Ugh, I certainly hope not, not like in the pass anyway. Sometimes it seems people would like the treat the SSPX like the prodigal son was treated by his brother, rather than take the example of the father.

 

Here's hoping.

[Papist]

Ugh, I certainly hope not, not like in the pass anyway. Sometimes it seems people would like the treat the SSPX like the prodigal son was treated by his brother, rather than take the example of the father.

 

Here's hoping.

 

Agreed. It is a sticky conversation. It is not black and white as most people think. 

[To Jesus Through Mary]

The Church has given permission for members of the laity to attend Mass and SSPX chapels, simple attendance is not an impression or sign of rebellion against the Church. Many more parishes worldwide offer the Extraordinary form of the Mass compared to the past. But it is false that most offer the Extraordinary form of the Mass, and many that do only do so once a month or less. Many Bishops remain hostile to it, and fight it. I'm not sure the Church agrees that the SSPX is in "open rebellion" against the Holy See, that type language simply isn't being used. So we should avoid it as well.  Dare I say faithful Catholics have much more in common with the SSPX than liberal Catholics, and the SSPX is far more loyal to the Pope and the Holy See than liberal Catholics many of which can present themselves openly as being in full union with Rome, and at the same time clearly and undoubtedly be in open rebellion against the Faith itself as well as the Holy See.

 

Pray of unity of the Church.

 

My point was if you don't receive Communion to make a "subtle point" what kind of point are you making by going to a SSPX Mass. 

 

I did not know that the Church had given permission for the laity to attend Mass at SSPX Chapels. Which Church doc discusses this? (I believe you, I would just like to learn more about this)

 

As for the language, forgive my ignorance, but what would be the appropriate language to use in this case?

Edited June 12, 2013 by To Jesus Through Mary

[BG45]

And we're off....

 

to see the wizard?

[Nihil Obstat]

From WDTPRS:

 
 

QUAERITUR: Mass obligation at an SSPX chapel and receiving Communion

 

 

 

From a reader:
 

I would love to attend the Traditional Latin Mass, and there is an SSPX Chapel less than 15 miles from my home; but everytime I try to get information regarding the SSPX, I’ve received contradictory information. One “expert” claims that attendance at an SSPX chapel fulfills the Sunday Obligation, another says it doesn’t; one says that I may receive Holy Communion there, another says that I may not receive their sacraments.

I’ve also been told that I’m welcome to attend, so long as I’m only there for the love of the Traditional Latin Mass. Are there “official rules” somewhere?

Canon 1248 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law states:
 

The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.
 

Unless you are for a serious reason prevented from attending Mass at a recognized chapel or church, I will not recommend that you attend regularly a chapel of a group that is not in clear union with the Roman Pontiff.  If you do attend occasionally, from the motive of experiencing the Traditional Latin Mass (and not, for example, because you reject the Church’s teaching in some way), I will not recommend receiving Holy Communion, unless there is serious reason why you cannot receive in a normal place clearly in union with the Holy Father and local bishop.  That said, it would be permissible to make a small donation when the collection is taken up.
Furthermore, if that chapel is truly a chapel staffed by an actual priest of the SSPX, then you do fulfill your obligation on days of precept by attending Mass there on the day itself or on the evening before.  However, there was a recent letter from the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” clarifying that attending Mass at some independent chapel associated with the SSPX but not actually under its aegis does not fulfill the obligation.  More on that HERE.
Pray for an end of the division and the full reconciliation of the SSPX with the Roman Pontiff.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Dr. Bombay]

What are the moral consequences to attending an SSPX Mass on Sunday in a diocese where there are many nearby parishes that have licit Masses? Does it fulfill your Sunday obligation? Also, is it a sin to receive communion?

 

- It depends on your reasons for attending.

- Yes.

 

- It depends on your answer to the first question.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

It does fulfill your obligation. You do not incur sin or canonical penalty simply by attending. The CDF has confirmed this.

That said, an independent (i.e. not SSPX) Mass, which may or may not be SSPX-affiliated, does not fulfill the Sunday obligation.

 

Double standard. The SSPX is in the exactly the same position as the gay affirming churches, which is that their priests "exercise no legitimate ministry" and that all sacraments are performed in direct disobedience both to the Pope and to the local bishop. I have no idea how participating in that by your own free will could ever be okay given the opportunity to attend a valid licit mass nearby.

 

As far as I can tell, your logic makes it perfectly okay for me to go the the gar affirming church as long as my motive is only curiosity and not to imply theological agreement with them.

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Double standard. The SSPX is in the exactly the same position as the gay affirming churches, which is that their priests "exercise no legitimate ministry" and that all sacraments are performed in direct disobedience both to the Pope and to the local bishop. I have no idea how participating in that by your own free will could ever be okay given the opportunity to attend a valid licit mass nearby.

 

As far as I can tell, your logic makes it perfectly okay for me to go the the gar affirming church as long as my motive is only curiosity and not to imply theological agreement with them.

No, this is wrong and frankly insulting.

The SSPX do not hold anything contrary to the Catholic faith.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

No, this is wrong and frankly insulting.

The SSPX do not hold anything contrary to the Catholic faith.

 

This is not primarily a question of heresy but a question of schism. The SSPX and the handful of liberal independent Catholic Churches have exactly the same canonical standing. Their priests exercise no legitimate ministry, but perform valid but gravely illicit Masses.

 

I'm not sure where heresy enters the conversation. The argument has been made that going to any Mass in a Catholic rite fulfills the Sunday obligation regardless of the canonical status of the priest. As long as the liberal priest is following the rubrics, which for the sake of argument here he is, I see no difference at all. Under your logic, any priest regardless of his status (SSPX, ex-priest, Orthodox priest, independent priest) can say a Mass that fulfills my Sunday obligation regardless of the nearby availability of licit Masses. 

 

Heresy would be a concern with receiving communion. Both the SSPX and the liberal independent groups are essentially cafeteria Catholics that pick and choose which teaching they follow. The SSPX won't eat their vegetables on religious freedom and ecumenism. The particular liberal independent church I am referencing appears to reject church teaching on birth control and the morality of the homosexual act. To the best I can discern, these issues concern doctrines and not dogmas, and so the label "heretic" could not be applied in either case. The liberals might stretch close enough on the homosexuality topic to make it to the heresy level, but I'm not sure. Either way, the issue of heresy wouldn't effect the Sunday obligation portion of the question.

[Nihil Obstat]

This is not primarily a question of heresy but a question of schism. The SSPX and the handful of liberal independent Catholic Churches have exactly the same canonical standing. Their priests exercise no legitimate ministry, but perform valid but gravely illicit Masses.

 

I'm not sure where heresy enters the conversation. The argument has been made that going to any Mass in a Catholic rite fulfills the Sunday obligation regardless of the canonical status of the priest. As long as the liberal priest is following the rubrics, which for the sake of argument here he is, I see no difference at all. Under your logic, any priest regardless of his status (SSPX, ex-priest, Orthodox priest, independent priest) can say a Mass that fulfills my Sunday obligation regardless of the nearby availability of licit Masses. 

 

Heresy would be a concern with receiving communion. Both the SSPX and the liberal independent groups are essentially cafeteria Catholics that pick and choose which teaching they follow. The SSPX won't eat their vegetables on religious freedom and ecumenism. The particular liberal independent church I am referencing appears to reject church teaching on birth control and the morality of the homosexual act. To the best I can discern, these issues concern doctrines and not dogmas, and so the label "heretic" could not be applied in either case. The liberals might stretch close enough on the homosexuality topic to make it to the heresy level, but I'm not sure. Either way, the issue of heresy wouldn't effect the Sunday obligation portion of the question.

The SSPX is not in schism. The CDF has confirmed this as well.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

The SSPX is not in schism. The CDF has confirmed this as well.

 

Has the CDF said this independent liberal church is in schism? 

 

But what would be the difference of attending a SSPX Chapel and one of these wackadoo Independent Catholic Churches morally? Both have a valid Mass. Both would fulfill the Sunday obligation, no? 

[Nihil Obstat]

Has the CDF said this independent liberal church is in schism? 

 

But what would be the difference of attending a SSPX Chapel and one of these wackadoo Independent Catholic Churches morally? Both have a valid Mass. Both would fulfill the Sunday obligation, no? 

Presumably an independent church might lose its Catholicity in a canonical sense - for the purposes of Sunday obligation - by adherence to heresy. I am not entirely clear how that works. All I really know is the status of the Society. :P And even then, as you can see, it is relatively confusing on its own.

[KnightofChrist]

Has the CDF said this independent liberal church is in schism? 

 

But what would be the difference of attending a SSPX Chapel and one of these wackadoo Independent Catholic Churches morally? Both have a valid Mass. Both would fulfill the Sunday obligation, no? 

 

A 'church' that was once part of but now claims outright independence from the Catholic Church would be as far as I know in formal or defacto schism. The SSPX does not claim to be independent from the Catholic Church, they recognize the Pope as Pontiff, they believe themselves to be Catholic and the Church believes they are Catholic. This point is dismissed or glossed over quickly by those who hate the SSPX, but it is an important distinction.

 

Making out as if the SSPX is equal to independent Liberal 'catholic churches' is like saying circles are squares, and squares are circles. Or perhaps help better understand the difference like saying the issues and problems of the Protestant communities is equal to the problems and issues with the Orthodox Churches that are not in complete union with Rome.

 

A 'mass' at a independent wacko liberal parish would not be a real mass it would be a service, like Protestant's have their services. But a Mass at a SSPX would be a real Mass similar to how a Mass at an Orthodox Church not in complete union with Rome would be real.

 

Also we should notice how the Orthodox some of which still technically remain in formal schism get a lot more respect and honor than the SSPX get, who admittedly are in danger of schism but are not. Heck sometimes it seems pagan religions get more respect and honor than the SSPX, for example calling false religions false is not PC and not done much anymore.
 

Edited June 13, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Nihil Obstat]

A 'church' that was once part of but now claims outright independence from the Catholic Church would be as far as I know in formal or defacto schism. The SSPX does not claim to be independent from the Catholic Church, they recognize the Pope as Pontiff, they believe themselves to be Catholic and the Church believes they are Catholic. This point while dismissed or glossed over quickly by those who hate the SSPX, but it is an important distinction.

 

Making out as if the SSPX is equal to independent Liberal 'catholic churches' is like saying circles are squares, and squares are circles. Or perhaps help better understand the difference like saying the issues and problems of the Protestant communities is equal to the problems and issues with the Orthodox Churches that are not in complete union with Rome.

 

A 'mass' at a independent wacko liberal parish would not be a real mass it would be a service, like Protestant's have their services. But a Mass at a SSPX would be a real Mass similar to how a Mass at an Orthodox Church not in complete union with Rome would be real.

 

Also we should notice how the Orthodox some of which still technically remain in formal schism get a lot more respect and honor than the SSPX get, who admittedly are in danger of schism but are not. Heck sometimes it seems pagan religions get more respect and honor than the SSPX, for example calling false religions false is not PC and not done much anymore.
 

There can be valid Masses celebrated 'independently' though. Look at the Old Catholic Church or the Polish National Church. Liberal and wacky, but in many cases unfortunately quite valid.