A question for those Traditionalists who attend Catholic Churches not in union with Rome...In light of Code of Canon Law 844.2

[StMarina303ad]

Code of Canon Law 844.2 reads: Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid. 844.3 explains that this is refering to the (“Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church”)

**My question is (again to those who attend the Traditional Catholic Churches not in union with Rome) why do you not attend one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches in your area since it would allow you personally (& family) to remain “in union” with the Roman Catholic Church by following the Code of Canon Law? **From what I understand from Traditional Catholics who are not in union with the Roman Catholic Church is that you do not attend Churches in union with Rome for “Moral” Reasons which according to CCL 844.2 is a valid reason for attending an Eastern Church.

Side note: Plus, if you really want to be a Traditionalist, you’d want to attend a Church which maintains the Original Liturgy as it was said in Rome prior to the 700’s when the Church of Rome switched the service from Greek to Latin. All of the Eastern Orthodox Churches continue to use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which has been unchanged since the early 400’s & the Liturgy of St. Basil which as been unchanged since the 300’s - which was itself was shortened from St. James’ Divine Liturgy - *the very first Christian Liturgy *created by the Apostle St. James himself!

Can’t get any more Traditional than that!

Just Curious as to the thought process in this matter for those who find themselves faced with this situation: Being a Traditional Catholic not in union with the Pope of Rome.

 

[Dauphin]

We Latin Catholics have an ancient and venerable tradition of our own. Latin Catholics attending the Divine Liturgy regularly is as bad as Eastern Catholic Churches latinizing all their devotions. The division between the Church’s diverse rites should be maintained.

Members of the SSPX would tell you that the Eastern Othodox teach heresy, while the SSPX does not - and that the whole point of not attending the Pauline Mass would be defeated if they attended an EO Divine Liturgy (ie. to escape heresy).

 

[StMarina303ad]

We Latin Catholics have an ancient and venerable tradition of our own. Latin Catholics attending the Divine Liturgy regularly is as bad as Eastern Catholic Churches latinizing all their devotions. The division between the Church’s diverse rites should be maintained.

Members of the SSPX would tell you that the Eastern Othodox teach heresy, while the SSPX does not - and that the whole point of not attending the Pauline Mass would be defeated if they attended an EO Divine Liturgy (ie. to escape heresy).

At the Catholic bookstore I work for I run into many Traditionists who come in tell me that the only reason they attend Traditional Catholic Church which is not in communion with Rome is simply because there are not any Tradition Catholic Churches in union with Rome in their area. If there were, they tell me they’d attend them instead. I’m am merely wondering why someone in that situation would not remain in union with Rome by availing themselves of the Roman Code of Canon Law 884.2.

I would see this as a “temporary work around” until a Traditional Catholic Church becomes available in their area.

 

[Dauphin]

At the Catholic bookstore I work for I run into many Traditionists who come in tell me that the only reason they attend Traditional Catholic Church which is not in communion with Rome is simply because there are not any Tradition Catholic Churches in union with Rome in their area. If there were, they tell me they’d attend them instead. I’m am merely wondering why someone in that situation would not remain in union with Rome by availing themselves of the Roman Code of Canon Law 884.2.

I would see this as a “temporary work around” until a Traditional Catholic Church becomes available in their area.

The reason one would not take advantage of this is because the Church does not consider the SSPX to be in schism, and says clearly that the faithful may attend their Masses and fulfill the Sunday obligation without committing sin or incuring any canonical penalty. However, Eccesia Dei strongly recommends against attending, saying that one may develop a “schismatic mindset”.

 

[StMarina303ad]

The reason one would not take advantage of this is because the Church does not consider the SSPX to be in schism, and says clearly that the faithful may attend their Masses and fulfill the Sunday obligation without committing sin or incuring any canonical penalty. However, Eccesia Dei strongly recommends against attending, saying that one may develop a “schismatic mindset”.

Wow, your understanding is quite different from my fellow co-workers who are Traditional Catholics who attend a Catholic Church which IS in union with Rome. They, who are very well read and in direct contact with the local Bishop and the Catholic University, etc., advise those Traditionalists who come to the bookstore that attend the Catholic Churches not in union with Rome that their church is in schism and that they must, if they truly want to be remain Catholic they must attend a Traditionalist Church in union with Rome regardless of how far away it is and how many hours they must drive each Sunday to get there.

Are you a Traditional Catholic not in union with Rome? If not, remember, my original question is for those who are.

 

[Dauphin]

Wow, your understanding is quite different from my fellow co-workers who are Traditional Catholics who attend a Catholic Church which IS in union with Rome. They, who are very well read and in direct contact with the local Bishop and the Catholic University, etc., advise those Traditionalists who come to the bookstore that attend the Catholic Churches not in union with Rome that their church is in schism and that they must, if they truly want to be remain Catholic they must attend a Traditionalist Church in union with Rome regardless of how far away it is and how many hours they must drive each Sunday to get there.

Are you a Traditional Catholic not in union with Rome? If not, remember, my original question is for those who are.

I have never attended a Mass not in union with the Church - only the Pauline Mass and Traditional Latin Masses celebrated by approved institutes. I avoid the SSPX because Eccesia Dei recommends against attending, not because I would sin in attending their Masses.

The only authority that matters on this subject is the Eccesia Dei commission, which is the Papal commission responsible for the Traditional Latin Mass, relationships with Traditional communities, and implementation of the Motu Proprio. They say that the SSPX is not in schism and that no sin is committed or canonical penalty incurred by attending their Masses.

 

[Dauphin]

Here’s the official judgment by Ecclesia Dei, as reported on Fr. Z’s blog. It confirms what I’ve said:

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/guest-contribution-qa-with-the-pont-comm-ecclesia-dei-about-sspx-schism-and-sacraments/

 

[I_Believe]

I have never attended a Mass not in union with the Church - only the Pauline Mass and Traditional Latin Masses celebrated by approved institutes. I avoid the SSPX because Eccesia Dei recommends against attending, not because I would sin in attending their Masses.

The only authority that matters on this subject is the Eccesia Dei commission, which is the Papal commission responsible for the Traditional Latin Mass, relationships with Traditional communities, and implementation of the Motu Proprio. They say that the SSPX is not in schism and that no sin is committed or canonical penalty incurred by attending their Masses.

Right, and Cardinal Hoyos has stated the situation is an “internal matter”, indicating that the SSPX is not in formal schism.
…
(not directing the following at anyone who has posted on this thread)
Really, IMO, being he(H.E.Hoyos) has said it is an internal matter, and considering that, traditionally, a catholic would tend to keep his/her mouth shut on matters such as these, would anyone who keeps harping on the matter be considered a traditional catholic ?

 

[StMarina303ad]

Here’s the official judgment by Ecclesia Dei, as reported on Fr. Z’s blog. It confirms what I’ve said:

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/guest-contribution-qa-with-the-pont-comm-ecclesia-dei-about-sspx-schism-and-sacraments/

I will let my Traditional Catholic friends know. I’m sure they will be shocked as will their Bishop of Sacramento.

In Carmichael is a parish, St. Michael’s which the Bishops office has advised the Catholic Faithful is in schism for celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass after Vatican II before the Church began to “allow” masses to be said in Latin.

If you were to call St. Michael’s, as I have, they would tell you the same thing they told me - they are in schism with the Roman Catholic Church. That one day they may be reunited, but for now there is schism.

 

[Dauphin]

I will let my Traditional Catholic friends know. I’m sure they will be shocked as will their Bishop of Sacramento.

In Carmichael is a parish, St. Michael’s which the Bishops office has advised the Catholic Faithful is in schism for celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass after Vatican II before the Church began to “allow” masses to be said in Latin.

If you were to call St. Michael’s, as I have, they would tell you the same thing they told me - they are in schism with the Roman Catholic Church. That one day they may be reunited, but for now there is schism.

St. Michael’s may not be a church of the SSPX, so they may be correct. They could be a sedevacantist community, in which case they certainly are in schism. However, no church is in formal schism simply for celebrating the TLM without the Bishop’s permission (before the Motu Proprio). Such a parish would be disobedient, but not necessarily schismatic.

 

[I_Believe]

I will let my Traditional Catholic friends know. I’m sure they will be shocked as will their Bishop of Sacramento.

In Carmichael is a parish, St. Michael’s which the Bishops office has advised the Catholic Faithful is in schism for celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass after Vatican II before the Church began to “allow” masses to be said in Latin.

If you were to call St. Michael’s, as I have, they would tell you the same thing they told me - they are in schism with the Roman Catholic Church. That one day they may be reunited, but for now there is schism.

Unless the Bishop has not read Summum Pontificum and the accompaning letter to the Bishops, he won’t be shocked. He’ll be irritated.

Here is the thing. The SSPX issue is one of disobedience and schismatic action.

Now, after reading the Summum Pontificum of H.H. Benedict XVI, we must ask ourselves if the Bishops who are ignoring, and in some cases blocking, the implimentaion of the SP, are diplaying disobedience themselves ?

It’s no secret. Many Bishops hope this will just blow over. Many hope the laity will remain ignorant of the Motu Propio’s existence.

But it’s not going to blow over, and in the letter written for the Bishops concerning the SP, the Pope has requested that the Bishops let him know in three years how things are going. (3 yrs from Sept '07)

Also consider the fact that the same sentiments heard from the pulpits of the SSPX are also being heard from the pulpits of diocean parishes. Not all, but some.

Listen to this sermon for an example…
ewtn.edgeboss.net/download/ewtn/audiolibrary/benediction_12122004.mp3

Today, there are two different mindsets. Two catholic worldviews. Teachings heard from our pulpits that are contrary to Catholic Doctrine. Double standards. Thus the division.

In my opinion, we now have a Pope who sees this, and it is obvious from the words of those he has surrounded himself with, that the crisis we’ve found ourselves in, must be addressed.

 

[Dauphin]

But it’s not going to blow over, and in the letter written for the Bishops concerning the SP, the Pope has requested that the Bishops let him know in three years how things are going. (3 yrs from Sept '07)

But we know exactly what most of them are going to say, don’t we? “Nothing’s changed - nobody wants the old Mass; there was no need for the Motu Proprio - better rescind it.”

 

[giuseppeTO]

This is a pretty tough question to answer because the core of the matter is very personal and as such, doesn’t translate well into an email 'or board posting. But here goes and I am speaking only for myself and am implicating no one else who assists at an SSPX chapel or imply that this is what the majority of folks such as myself who assist at an SSPX chapel think.

First of all, I pray every single day that what I, and my wife, and my children are doing in our spiritual lives, including where and how we assist at Mass is pleasing to Christ and will not bring down condemnation on us. I don’t need to tell anyone on this board that these are confusing times and my prayer is simply that if we are choosing incorrectly, that our Lord judge our hearts, which I am counting on. I would bet that most who worship in non-regularized chapels feel the same in their heart-of-hearts.

I assist at Mass at an SSPX chapel:

1. because the teaching from the pulpit is rock solid on faith and morals and does not contradict anything that was taught before the modernizing spirit overtook the church since the mid-60s. This was not the case at the indult Mass.
2. because the Mass is always the same and the parishioners all hold the same Catholic faith and morals. If my children are around any other adults or their children, they will not run into a pro-choice Catholic or one who believes women should be ordained, or that salvation is independent of religious beliefs.
3. I love the Holy Father and I pray for him as hard as I pray for myself. I hold to all beliefs that he and other Pontiffs have made part of the Magisterium. Even the Council, which is part of the Magisterium, holds no heretical teachings since its pronouncements were pastoral. The problem has come with how they have been implemented with practices not always executed to the delight of Rome. I separate the priest’s Canonical condition from my own. I have committed no excommunicatable sin (that I know of) and do regularly go to Confession in a diocesan church if I know and trust the confessor to be ‘solid’. I particularly do this to refrain from developing a schismatic attitude.
4. Most of all, I want my children exposed to Traditional sermons with priests who are not afraid to talk about our tendency to modern sins (sterilization, homosexuality, pornography) and will consistently exhort the faithful to regular Confession, Communion, and traditional devotions.

I can’t be more specific than that. I was brought up in the Latin rite and if I can attend Mass in that rite, I would not leave it for the eastern rite unless it were the only option. The fruits of my actions on my wife and children is phenominal - if you knew us ten years ago, you might not recognize us.

God have mercy on all of our souls and guide us.

 

[I_Believe]

But we know exactly what most of them are going to say, don’t we? “Nothing’s changed - nobody wants the old Mass; there was no need for the Motu Proprio - better rescind it.”

Sure they will, but to what avail ?

One example…
Cardinal Hoyos goes to Westminister, prays the Gregorian Rite, and no Bishops show up. Not deterred, he then proceeds to say that every parish in the UK needs to have an EF to expose the faithful to it. And the recent news of 60 priests in the UK are now training to pray the EF shows that Cardinal Hoyos’ words have been heard. Every single parish may not have one, but many will.

It’s all up to the priests at this point. And many are going to take the SP and run with it.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi giuseppeTO,

A couple of questions:

I notice that you mentioned assisting at an SSPX chapel, but not whether you communion or not. Did you not say simply because it wasn’t relevant to the point of your post? Or do you prefer not to share that? (If so, I completely understand.)

I assist at Mass at an SSPX chapel:

1. because the teaching from the pulpit is rock solid on faith and morals and does not contradict anything that was taught before the modernizing spirit overtook the church since the mid-60s. This was not the case at the indult Mass.

What’s your take on the practice of giving children First Communion prior to Confirmation? (Or perhaps I should say “delaying Confirmation until after First Communion”.) Does the fact that that practice predates the 1960s by a couple decades (not exactly sure how many) make it alright?

 

[Peter_J]

I can’t be more specific than that. I was brought up in the Latin rite and if I can attend Mass in that rite, I would not leave it for the eastern rite unless it were the only option. The fruits of my actions on my wife and children is phenominal - if you knew us ten years ago, you might not recognize us.

God have mercy on all of our souls and guide us.

So, are you saying that you would rather go to an SSPX chapel than an Eastern Catholic parish that’s in full communion with Rome? If so, I find that a little odd (no offense intended).

 

[lintpick1]

So, are you saying that you would rather go to an SSPX chapel than an Eastern Catholic parish that’s in full communion with Rome? If so, I find that a little odd (no offense intended).

Why would that be odd? Many Eastern Catholic Parishes have also been effected by modernism (girl altar boys, less than orthodox preaching, etc.)

If a diocesan bishop went off and got married, the faithful in that diocese wouldn’t be excommunicated, just the bishop. The faithful would still go to Mass just like normal. That’s just what the SSPX parishioners are doing. They are going to Mass.

 

[giuseppeTO]

Hi giuseppeTO,

A couple of questions:

I notice that you mentioned assisting at an SSPX chapel, but not whether you communion or not. Did you not say simply because it wasn’t relevant to the point of your post? Or do you prefer not to share that? (If so, I completely understand.)

Well I’ve never been excommunicated and I believe that I follow all of the infallible teachings that every Pope up through Pope Benedict XVI has promulgated. As I said in previous post, I will seek Confession at a diocesan church and I do financially support diocesan causes. In fact, I believe I am probably more in communion with Rome than the 60% of American Catholics who don’t attend weekly Mass.

What’s your take on the practice of giving children First Communion prior to Confirmation? (Or perhaps I should say “delaying Confirmation until after First Communion”.) Does the fact that that practice predates the 1960s by a couple decades (not exactly sure how many) make it alright?

I made my First Communion at the age of 8 and my Confirmation at the age of 12. I think that waiting until a child is 16 instead of 12, as the Church has done since V2 is unfortunate.

Receiving both at 8 years old would be a bit too early to appreciate the enormity of the sacrament, especially if one were to receive them at the same time.

So 8 and 12 for Communion and Confirmation are, IMHO, the best choices.

 

[giuseppeTO]

So, are you saying that you would rather go to an SSPX chapel than an Eastern Catholic parish that’s in full communion with Rome? If so, I find that a little odd (no offense intended).

I was brought up in the Latin rite and learned to serve Mass in that rite and I found it most profound.

Neither the Latin rite nor the Eastern rite churches look favorably upon people switching rites.

 

[Peter_J]

I notice that you mentioned assisting at an SSPX chapel, but not whether you communion or not.

Oops … I left out the verb from the last part of that sentence. Meant to ask whether you receive communion at the SSPX chapel.

I made my First Communion at the age of 8 and my Confirmation at the age of 12. I think that waiting until a child is 16 instead of 12, as the Church has done since V2 is unfortunate.

Receiving both at 8 years old would be a bit too early to appreciate the enormity of the sacrament, especially if one were to receive them at the same time.

So 8 and 12 for Communion and Confirmation are, IMHO, the best choices.

So you’re a modernist who attends an SSPX chapel?