Is it a sin to go hear Mass at an SSPX chapel?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 2 2006, 10:00 PM']STATUS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X 
Msgr Camille Perl
Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following letter was sent to an Australian man in response to a letter he addressed to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. He provided it to EWTN for use as we saw fit. The author is the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission responsible for the implementation of Ecclesia Dei, the Holy Father's letter announcing the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and encouraging broader implementation of the Indult allowing the celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei

N. 343/98
Rome, 27 October 1998


Dear ______,

We wish to acknowledge receipt of your document, Statements and Allegations Made By Some Australian Members of The Society of St. Pius X, which you sent to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger for evaluation. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters that come within our particular competence.

First of all, we thank God that you have been able to be Sufficiently objective about the claims of the Society of St. Pius X to leave it and return to full communion with the Church. We recognize that this has been a long journey for you and your wife and we trust that all that you have experienced has helped you to be a better Catholic, aware of the wounds of the Church in its members on earth, but even more conscious of its indefectibility.

You will have noted that we are that very Pontifical Commission referred to in Father Jean Violette's letter to you of 21 January 1995 as made up of "liberals, modernists who have infiltrated the positions of authority in the Church and who are using their authority to do away with Tradition..." We trust that you will now understand that this is not a fair description of us or of our often difficult and delicate work.

We will now attempt to address ourselves to your questions in the order in which you have raised them.

a. The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that

[b]Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).[/b]

[b]Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.[/b]

b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, [b]they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.[/b]

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, [b]all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith[/b].

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

b. Thus far the Church has not officially declared what Constitutes "formal adherence to the schism" inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition.

c. It may still be difficult to characterize the entire Society of St. Pius X, but the documentation which you have submitted witnesses [b]to a consistent condemnation of the new Mass, the Pope and anyone who disagrees with the authorities of the Society in the smallest degree. Such behaviour is not consistent with the practice of the Catholic faith.[/b]

d. We reiterate what we stated above: "The Pope is the Supreme legislator in the Church." [b]Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself [/b](cf. Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium #22-25).

e. The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.

f. You want to know how authoritative our responses are. We Must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but it is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the variou dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.

g. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts rules primarily on the interpretation of the law. Any more Authoritative response to your questions than the one we have given would be more likely to come from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact that that Congregation has transmitted your dossier to us indicates that at this time our response should be sufficient. Statements of dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which touch on faith and morals are not considered infallible, but should be taken as norms of moral certitude.

i. Our response to your questions may be made public.



With prayerful best wishes I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ,

(signed) Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary
[right][snapback]933720[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
None of that proves that the Masses which they celebrate are invalid.

It says they are forbidden from celebrating the sacraments, but it does not say that if they defy that order, that the sacraments they celebrate are invalid.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 2 2006, 10:03 PM']All wrongdoing is a sin.

Going to an SSPX mass is wrong.

Therefore going to an SSPX mass is a sin. It may not be a mortal sin but it's still a sin.
[right][snapback]933722[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



[quote]2.  We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin." [/quote]


Once again wrong. NOT a sin nessecarily. Monsignor Perl says it all right there.

[Paphnutius]

Ironmonk,

The letters that you posted did not speak to the validity of the Mass, nor the ordinations for that matter. Notice that it said they were illicit (which no one is denying here), but not invalid.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 2 2006, 10:07 PM']Once again wrong. NOT a sin nessecarily. Monsignor Perl says it all right there.
[right][snapback]933725[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Just some things to remember:

His letter is not the final and difinitive word on the matter. While I agree that attending a SSPX Mass in not a sin only if it is the only Mass offered within reasonable distance to travel to, it is a sin to atttend simply because you cannot go to an indult, and dont like the Novus Ordo. This is what the Church has expressed. This letter does not necesarily reflect this perfectly, because the wording makes it seem as if it is alright to go to one for the sake of attending a TLM. However, if you are attending one because you don't like the NO or think it is of "questionable validity", then you are separating yourself from the Holy Father by rejecting his authority to change the Mass, and you are rejecting attending a licit and valid Mass of the Church for an illicit schismatic Mass instead.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

im pretty sure we have had this conversation. lets not have it again.

[ironmonk]

[quote][b]Vatican has replaced faith, SSPX bishop charges  [/b]

Mar. 18 (CWNews.com) - A bishop of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has said that he and Vatican officials "belong to two different religions."


In a monthly email message to supporters, Bishop Richard Williamson disclosed that he made that observation to Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos (bio - news), the prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, during a meeting in Rome in August 2000. When Cardinal Castillon Hoyos replied that he and the SSPX leader shared a common faith in the Eucharist and the doctrines of the Catholic Church, Bishop Williamson recalled, he answered that "we do and we don't; mainly we don't." [/quote]


[quote][url="http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6572361&cKey=1143149011000"]http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.htm...y=1143149011000[/url]
FOCUS ON TRADITIONALISTS

The main topic at the morning session was how to bring an ultra-traditionalist Catholic movement known as the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) back into the Church.

The SSPX, founded by the late French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, rejects many of the reforms of the 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council and is the only group to break away from Rome because of them.

It sticks to the old Latin Mass and opposes recognising the validity of other religions, particularly non-Christians.

"Our arms are open for the Lefebvrists, but we are studying the best method" to reintegrate them, said Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, the Vatican official negotiating with them.

The late Pope John Paul sanctioned the excommunication of the traditionalist leaders in 1988 when Lefebvre defied his warnings and ordained four bishops without papal permission.

Under Benedict, the Vatican has been trying to open new lines of dialogue for a reconciliation with the traditionalists, who number about 1 million members or supporters worldwide. One cardinal said any reconciliation would take years.[/quote]


Ok, the Mass is valid...
[url="http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm"]http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm[/url]


but they are still excommunicated... Pope Benedict has not lifted it yet.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Apr 2 2006, 02:20 PM']Cam has already cited the actual document. The Commission stated the following:

If your primary reason for attending [the traditional Mass at a chapel of the SSPX] were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.
As is sufficiently clear, assisting at a Mass of the SSPX, for the sake of assisting at a traditional Mass, is by no means sinful. It would be sinful, of course, to assist at such a Mass with the intention of separating oneself from the Pope. There are very few Catholics who assist at SSPX Masses with the intention of separating from the Roman Pontiff. Most of those who deny the authenticity of the current Pope assist at sedevacantist chapels. In any event, as the document makes clear, to assist at such a Mass, certainly under the conditions enumerated by St. Thomas More, is not sinful. While it is not formally recommended by Rome, it is not forbidden, and it is not sinful.
[right][snapback]933402[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

True, I missed that when reading it before. So it looks like Rome is even more okay with it, just as long as you don't support the schismatic order that does the Mass.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 2 2006, 08:45 PM']Why would you adore a piece of bread?

I do not believe that they have the Eucharist.
[right][snapback]933697[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Even Rome says their Mass is valid...

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 2 2006, 08:47 PM']SSPX has been ecommunicated. Their masses are not valid.
[right][snapback]933702[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's not what the Church documents stored in EWTN's library says. They are excommunicated but valid Mass.

Edited April 3, 2006 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 2 2006, 09:26 PM']Ok, the Mass is valid...
[url="http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm"]http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm[/url]
but they are still excommunicated... Pope Benedict has not lifted it yet.
[right][snapback]933737[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Okie, that's cleared up. True Dat

[Amator Veritatis]

[quote]His letter is not the final and difinitive (sic) word on the matter. While I agree that attending a SSPX Mass in not a sin only if it is the only Mass offered within reasonable distance to travel to, it is a sin to atttend (sic) simply because you cannot go to an indult, and dont like the Novus Ordo. This is what the Church has expressed. This letter does not necesarily (sic) reflect this perfectly, because the wording makes it seem as if it is alright to go to one for the sake of attending a TLM. [/quote]

In what manner has the Church expressed that one cannot go to the SSPX simply to assist at a traditional Mass, in the event that there be no other traditional Mass within a reasonable distance? The point made in this letter is precisely that one can assist at Mass at an SSPX chapel for the sake of assisting at a traditional Mass. The letter does not represent the contrary view whatsoever, and the wording makes it clear that this is the case. Could you provide the place where the Church, in any capacity, has said that one may not assist at an SSPX Mass in order simply to assist at the traditional Mass out of devotion?


[quote]However, if you are attending one because you don't like the NO or think it is of "questionable validity", then you are separating yourself from the Holy Father by rejecting his authority to change the Mass, and you are rejecting attending a licit and valid Mass of the Church for an illicit schismatic Mass instead. [/quote]

This scenario, also, is not necessarily the case. A person who assists at an SSPX Mass because he believes that the [i]Novus Ordo Missae [/i]is questionably valid, at least according to what has been written by the [i]Ecclesia Dei [/i]Commission, does not separate himself from the Holy Father or the Church necessarily. If one were to hold that the vernacular forms of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae [/i]were questionably valid as a result of the improper rendering of the Consecration of the Chalice as [i]pro omnibus[/i] rather than [i]pro multis[/i], he would not only fail to reject the authority of the Church--for the vernacular translations are not the promulgated form of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae [/i]but merely translations written by various commissions approved, in some manner, by the Church--but would act morally by refusing to assist at such a Mass. For one to commit an act against his conscience, even if he have an erroneous conscience, is a sin. That much is a principle of moral theology. Besides, regarding the Sacraments, the Church has already spoken that one is forbidden to assist at a questionably valid Sacrament, even if the Sacrament be probable. In addition, such a person would not be rejecting a licit and valid Mass of the Church, at least in his own mind. He would refuse, rather, to assist at a questionably valid Mass. Besides, even if the SSPX Mass is illicit, that is, contrary to law, it is not schismatic. The Mass is still Catholic, offered by a Catholic priest who is within the Church but, as a letter previously cited states, is suspended [i]a divinis[/i], which is precisely the reason the Mass is contrary to the law of the Church. In any event, such a person would be acting in a moral manner insofar as the Church permits Catholics to assist at Masses of the SSPX for the sake of assisting at a traditional Mass and as a result of the fact that he could not morally assist at a [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] as a result of his conscience, whether erroneous or otherwise.


By the way, Paphnutius, thank you for the comment regarding my signature. I am glad I did not confuse everyone with it.

[Dave]

You forget that while the vernacular translations may not be in themselves infallible or even the best translations, the Church DID approve them, which means the Church considers vernacular Novus Ordo Masses valid. Thus, we're to do so as well lest we sin (a threefold mortal sin of blasphemy, heresy, and schism). "Following one's conscience" is no excuse to avoid the Novus Ordo Mass because we have to form a CORRECT conscience, that is, one that is faithful to the Church in all matters of dogma, doctrine, AND discipline. Anyone whose conscience tells them it's a bad thing to attend Novus Ordo Masses for whatever reason doesn't have a correct conscience but rather an erroneous conscience ... or maybe even a dead conscience.

I could talk about the issue of "pro multis" vs. "pro omnibus," but that would probably hijack the thread even worse than I've already hijacked it. So for that it would be better to start a new thread ... if anyone wants to discuss that.

[Amator Veritatis]

I am unaware of any proclamation or applied principle that would hold a Catholic guilty of blasphemy, heresy or schism for having doubts regarding the validity of a given Sacrament. If a person were to hold that the Consecration of the Chalice in the vernacular languages, for example, were questionably valid, in what manner would he commit a blasphemy against God? He has uttered nothing of the sort. He has simply expressed his reservations regarding a form which deviates from the promulgated form of the Church and from the definition of the Council of Florence, the teaching of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the principles established in [i]De Defectibus formae [/i]from [i]De Defectibus in celebratione Missarum occurrentibus[/i]. N.B., [i]Si quis autem aliquid diminueret, vel immutaret de forma Consecrationis Corporis, et Sanguinis, et in ipsa veborum immutatione verba idem non significarent, non conficeret Sacramentum[/i], i.e., If anyone, however, were to lessen or were to alter the form of Consecration of the Body and of the Blood, and by the alteration of the words, the words were not to signify the same meaning, he would not confect the Sacrament.


In addition, to committing no sin of blasphemy, such a person has not committed an act of heresy either. There is not even an Article of Faith in question which he might reject. Finally, he would not commit a mortal sin of schism, for he has in no way separated himself from the Church. He has merely expressed moral reservations in the participation of a doubtful Sacrament. To state that the very act of assuming doubt in such a matter would constitute schism is unsubstantiated. If you would like, perhaps you could expound this point more fully. I would be likely to disagree, and perhaps this would be a point which might be discussed in the thread you have suggested. Regardless of any circumstances, however, such a person would commit neither the sin of blasphemy nor the sin of heresy. In any event, as you have stated, this discussion might be better engaged on a different thread. Perhaps I shall start a thread for this purpose, if it be permissible according to the norms of these forums.


N.B., the above translation is my own and is a direct translation from the Latin. I have seen the following given as a non-direct translation of the meaning: If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of consecration of the Body and Blood, involving a change of meaning, the consecration is invalid. Cf., [i]On the Mass [/i]from [i]The Angelus[/i], September 1978, Volume I, Number 9.

Edited April 3, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[son_of_angels]

I might reply that the words of consecration, properly, are "This is my body" and "This is the cup of my blood" when, by intent, referring properly to Jesus.

I feel that the translation should be "for many" as does any good reader of Latin, but that is immaterial to the consecration's validity, only to the ability of the various translators to separate their social/theological agendas from the actual text.

As to whether or not to attend SSPX, one should know that, as they are not subject and do not have proper authorization to perform the sacraments, the sacraments are illicit. Go somewhere else. If you are going to their mass just to see a traditional mass, but do not receive communion, it is ok.

However, you should NOT receive Confession from them, as it is rendered invalid by their relationship to the local ordinary.

[Amator Veritatis]

Filius Angelorum, please see the new thread which I have begun both to discuss the former matter more precisely and to avoid changing the purpose of this thread.

[popestpiusx]

no (to answer the original question)

[Resurrexi]

Could I recieve Communion from the SSPX?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Apr 3 2006, 09:39 PM']Could I recieve Communion from the SSPX?
[right][snapback]934749[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

they are going to say no. i am going to say yes. if you have a problem with the SSPX just go to the indult.

[Amator Veritatis]

If one is permitted to assist at Mass, it would follow logically that he is permitted to assist completely, including the reception of Holy Communion.