Moral Consequences Of Attending Sspx Mass

[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.

[KnightofChrist]

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.

 

When I think wacko liberal catholic I don't think of those that would follow the rubrics of the Mass. It's hard to believe but I suppose they could have some that are valid.
 

[dells_of_bittersweet]

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.

 

The Eastern Orthodox churches are heretics because they deny the fillioque and the primacy of the Pope.

 

All of this fails to address the problem that if any priest regardless of his cannonical status can say a Mass that fulfills my Sunday obligation, regardless of any licit Masses nearby, why should I actually go to a Catholic Church? There would be no sin in going to an Orthodox church just for fun then, and not going to a Catholic Church. Same with the SSPX and same with the liberal whackos. And same with an ex-priest living with his wife who is still saying Mass behind the back of his bishop.

[Nihil Obstat]

The Eastern Orthodox churches are heretics because they deny the fillioque and the primacy of the Pope.

All of this fails to address the problem that if any priest regardless of his cannonical status can say a Mass that fulfills my Sunday obligation, regardless of any licit Masses nearby, why should I actually go to a Catholic Church? There would be no sin in going to an Orthodox church just for fun then, and not going to a Catholic Church. Same with the SSPX and same with the liberal whackos. And same with an ex-priest living with his wife who is still saying Mass behind the back of his bishop.

As I said, above my pay grade. I only know that it is quite clear that sspx Masses fulfill the Sunday obligation and a layperson incurs no canonical penalty for assisting thereat. I also know the Society is not in schism and not heretical. This is all affirmed by the Church.
That, after all, is the topic of the thread.

[PhuturePriest]

As I said, above my pay grade. I only know that it is quite clear that sspx Masses fulfill the Sunday obligation and a layperson incurs no canonical penalty for assisting thereat. I also know the Society is not in schism and not heretical. This is all affirmed by the Church.
That, after all, is the topic of the thread.

 

Also, I'm almost certain the Orthodox are not heretics. They are schismatics, but that doesn't necessarily make them heretics. If they were heretics we probably wouldn't be allowed to receive Communion at their Masses.

[Nihil Obstat]

Objectively speaking, an Orthodox Mass can fulfill one's obligation, if a Catholic church is not available. The same is not true of, for instance, a Lutheran service.
I do not know the status of an Old Catholic or Polish National church. Perhaps someone can comment on that.