A SSPX celebration of the Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Big_Feet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JReducation said:
You do not need faculties to celebrate mass. You need faculties to preach. However, since you’re celebrating mass in a private setting, such faculties are not required.

As to the Orthodox celebrating Divine Liturgy in St. Peter’s that’s not comparable. The Orthodox are not suspended. Their mass is valid and licit. They have faculties to preach given to them by their Patriarch. The pope has no authority over them.

The simply need to request permission from the administration of the basilica to celebrate Divine Liturgy. They do it quite often, not only at St. Peter’s. They celebrate Divine Liturgy in other Catholic basilicas and churches. In Jerusalem, it is very common for the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics to take turns at a given church or shrine. The Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Latin Archbishop have no problems with it, because they are in good standing with the Orthodox and the Catholic Church.

The schism is not over, but the excommunications and anathemas are over and done with. We (Catholics and Orthodox) have to get this through our heads. Our leaders are over this whole nonsense and we the faithful are still dragging this around. In the meantime, our leaders are doing more and more together getting more enthusiastic about reunification.

It would not surprise me if when the resolution to the SSPX crisis came, the laity became the obstacle. That seems to be the case with the Orthodox and the Catholics. The laity is being a pain about this, not the Patriarchs on either side.

It really bothers me that we react to people as if they had small pox.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
Click to expand...
I wish there were a way that the Vatican could communicate to common Catholics all around the world in a way that we all understand what’s going on in our Church.

The internet should make things easier, but it really doesn’t. There are literally thousands of “Catholic” websites and tens of thousands of “Christian” websites. Who do we trust? :confused:

I think a lot of the problems among Christians (or any group, for that matter) happen because of failure in communication. This forum is evidence of that. A question is posed, and dozens of different answers are posted. How do we know which answer is correct? Even in this forum, there are obviously many different “understandings” and interpretations of what the Catholic Church teaches about the SSPX.

I tend to accept as truth what JR Education says because he is a religious brother, and that gives him more authority (and knowledge) than the layperson. But I know that this is probably not wise of me because I don’t personally KNOW JR Education or anyone on this board. Also, I know that JR Education can and does make mistakes–he would probably be the first one to admit that.

So in the end, I accept what my bishop says. He writes a weekly column in our diocescan newspaper and also has a weekly radio program. If there is a matter that the Church wishes to communicate with all Catholics, our bishop makes a video and requests that it be played in ALL Masses. He also sends out letters to the Churches and requests that they be read in ALL Masses, and sometimes he will send out letters to all Catholics registered in the diocese.

It is also possible to call the office at the diocese and talk to one of his staff about any pressing questions, and they will give good, clear answers.

BTW, I have seen my bishop contradict some of the things that the Catholic Answers organization has posted, even the things that the CAF priest has posted. When this happens, I trust my bishop. He has just celebrated 50 years as a priest and has a gigantic list of diplomas, certificates, commendations, etc., plus many years as a bishop in a good diocese.

I’m pretty certain that one “truth” that the Catholic Church teaches is that our bishops have authority over us.

However, one issue that I still don’t understand is when the bishop teaches something that seems to be contrary to the “church documents.” E.g., for some Catholics, it appears that singing a Marty Haugen song at Mass is forbidden, and they point out quotes from various Church documents to “prove” their point.

At this point, I think that it is always proper to obey the bishop, especially a priest with 50 years of experience, because he sure knows more about “church documents” than any layperson. I think that if there is a contradiction between what my bishops says and what someone on CAF (or any layperson) says, I would tend to believe my bishop rather than a layperson that does not have 50 years of full-time Christian service under their belt.

But like I said, I do heartily wish that the Vatican could put out crystal clear communications and say, “Attention all Catholics–THIS is the place to learn what is happening right now in the Catholic Church and receive an explanation that has been adjusted for your specific culture so that you can understand and comprehend what is going on.”

I think this would be helpful in curbing the conflicts, debates, and misunderstandings among Catholics.

Probably the “answer” to my question is “the bishop is our source of truth.”

I’m guessing that people on this section of CAF who don’t have me on ignore will post or PM me with all kinds of sites claiming that they are “that authoratative place for Catholics to go for the right answers.” 🙂

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, our bishop says to stay away from the SSPX.
 
JReducation said:
You do not need faculties to celebrate mass. You need faculties to preach. However, since you’re celebrating mass in a private setting, such faculties are not required.

As to the Orthodox celebrating Divine Liturgy in St. Peter’s that’s not comparable. The Orthodox are not suspended. Their mass is valid and licit. They have faculties to preach given to them by their Patriarch. The pope has no authority over them.

The simply need to request permission from the administration of the basilica to celebrate Divine Liturgy. They do it quite often, not only at St. Peter’s. They celebrate Divine Liturgy in other Catholic basilicas and churches. In Jerusalem, it is very common for the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics to take turns at a given church or shrine. The Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem and the Latin Archbishop have no problems with it, because they are in good standing with the Orthodox and the Catholic Church.

The schism is not over, but the excommunications and anathemas are over and done with. We (Catholics and Orthodox) have to get this through our heads. Our leaders are over this whole nonsense and we the faithful are still dragging this around. In the meantime, our leaders are doing more and more together getting more enthusiastic about reunification.

It would not surprise me if when the resolution to the SSPX crisis came, the laity became the obstacle. That seems to be the case with the Orthodox and the Catholics. The laity is being a pain about this, not the Patriarchs on either side.

It really bothers me that we react to people as if they had small pox.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that Eastern Catholics have no presence in the Holy Land. The deal that grants reciprocity for Liturgies is only between those who have a presence, that is the Roman Catholic Church and the various Orthodox Churches. The Roman Catholic shrines may allow a visiting Eastern Catholic to celebrate a Divine Liturgy but the Orthodox do not. The Orthodox allow the Roman Mass at the places they control but it can not be a sung liturgy.
 
ProVobis said:
Such as?
Click to expand...
Sorry, can’t recall any specifics. Nothing major, though.

One thing I do remember is that our bishop said that the term “Tridentine Mass” is incorrect when referring to the TLM. He described the historical reasons for his statement–interesting stuff.
 
JReducation said:
First of all, let’s clarify one misconception. The Holy Father has no control over St. Peter’s Basilica. St. Peter’s is not a parish church nor a cathedral. The Holy Father’s parish is St. John Lateran. He is it’s pastor. Therefore, he has no idea who celebrates mass in the Basicilica, nor is he consulted or informed. The Basilica has its own rector. Permission to celebrate mass in the Basilica is obtained through the Basilica’s administration, just like any other basilica.:
Click to expand...
I remember hearing somewhere that only Bishops can celebrate at the main altar of St. Peter’s. Priests must have a dispensation to celebrate at the main altar.
 
Irish_Polock said:
Yeah, after searching the web, there seems to be hundreds of different versions of this story - attributed to Scott Hahn, although, I haven’t found any with any further info in regards to said priest. Odd.

Point taken though.
Click to expand...
Actually, ex-Fr. John Corapi would tell that story. The priest was a classmate of his. According to Corapi, the priest returned to ministry after the event and is a priest in the Diocese of Rome.
 
ByzCath said:
I am pretty sure that Eastern Catholics have no presence in the Holy Land. The deal that grants reciprocity for Liturgies is only between those who have a presence, that is the Roman Catholic Church and the various Orthodox Churches. The Roman Catholic shrines may allow a visiting Eastern Catholic to celebrate a Divine Liturgy but the Orthodox do not. The Orthodox allow the Roman Mass at the places they control but it can not be a sung liturgy.
Click to expand...
Lol, that reminds me of that huge brawl that the Greek Orthodox and the Armenian monk’s had at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. 😛
 
PacoG said:
I remember hearing somewhere that only Bishops can celebrate at the main altar of St. Peter’s. Priests must have a dispensation to celebrate at the main altar.
Click to expand...
Generally, only the reigning pope can celebrate mass at the altar, and it’s commonly known as the Papal Altar. However, there have been (like one or two) instances in which the reigning pope has granted the use of it to a cardinal or two.
 
PacoG said:
Actually, ex-Fr. John Corapi would tell that story. The priest was a classmate of his. According to Corapi, the priest returned to ministry after the event and is a priest in the Diocese of Rome.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Scott Hahn said his spiritual adviser told him the story, and he knew the man personally. …but again, no name, such is the case with Mr. Corapi. Apparently everybody knows the man, but somehow everyone forgot his name.

I am starting to think the story a product of someones imagination. 🤷

Sorry for bringing it up, kinda off topic.
 
Cat said:
I wish there were a way that the Vatican could communicate to common Catholics all around the world in a way that we all understand what’s going on in our Church.
Click to expand...
Always pay special attention to your bishop. Very often, the documents will say something and people tend to be very literal, whereas the writers of the document did not intend it to be interpreted that way. Church writing tends to be very nuanced and at times it deliberately aims for ambiguity to allow latitude in certain areas. Bishops generally know how to read them or have people on their staff who know how to read them. The average layman pulls out a document and says, “See, it says here that you can only use red wine at mass.” Whereas a bishop may read it, but know that the writers were speaking to some large group that was using apricot wine some silly thing like that. The real issue was not the color of the wine, but the fact that it has to be grape wine. Little things like that often happen.

There are other sources of information directly from the Vatican. The Vatican puts out a daily buleting that you can sing up for. At times it does not have much in it, but sometimes it has important stuff in it. Also, at the Vatican website, there is a news section and there are several sections on papal statement and statements made by the different departments and secretariats at the Vatican.

Don’t understimate the of the secretariats or the sacred congregations. They have the authority to speak for the pope, particularly the sacred congregations. For example, when Cardinal Levada at the Congregation for the Faith says to the SSPX, “Here is the Preamble. Read it and tell us what you plan to do,” you don’t take it lightly. It’s not something that you say, “Well it was only a cardinal and not the pope.” No. This cardinal is a prefect. This means that he speaks for the pope and when he tells you to do something or not do something, you had better pay attention. Unless the pope overrules him, what he says is legally binding. When Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect he made many decisions and issued many decrees Motu Proprio. The pope never saw them until they were a done deal.

Those are good sources of information: Vatian Bulletin, the Sacred Congregations, and the Vatican news section at the Vatican site. Remember, things come out as they happen. You’re always going to get bits and pieces, because that’s how things happen, it bits and pieces.

I too have heard that several bishops around the world are telling people to stay away from the SSPX and I heard that some are imposing canonical penalties to those who disobey. MY GUESS is that the issue in the Philippines brought things to a head. The SSPX handled that situation very poorly. They should have just backed down when the bishop told them that they did not have permission to enter his diocese. It raise a very real question. “How can a group that identifies itself as Catholic feel free to violate canon law, because it claims to have some divine mission, when every other religious order, religious congregation and society of apostolic life complies with these rules no matter how seriously they believe in their divine mission?”

The question has validity. If you want to be treated like everyone else, you have to deal with the diocesan bishop as everyone else does.

I could be completely wrong, but I believe that particular situation raised many eyebrows, especially because some diocese are providing the EF either through their own priests or one of the Ecclesia Dei institutes.

The way that particular superior responded to the bishop did not do much for their public image. It made them look defiant and as if they were claiming to have an exemption that others don’t have.

When people do things like this, it does not help the situation. Even though this is one superior among I don’t know how many there are in the SSPX, but the situation is already tense. The law was on the bishop’s side. I have not heard a bishop say, “Stay away.” However, when people say that they have heard it, it does not surprise me in light of this event, which was rather public.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:
 
Cat said:
Sorry, can’t recall any specifics. Nothing major, though.

One thing I do remember is that our bishop said that the term “Tridentine Mass” is incorrect when referring to the TLM. He described the historical reasons for his statement–interesting stuff.
Click to expand...
I would agree with him on that. Apparently other posters do as well. 😉

Interesting, once I attended the EF in Rockford and the priest told the congregation that the bishop (yours, incidently) required him to install the cloth on the communion rail, indicating that (paraphrased) this was the practice in the early church. It was quite pleasing to hear that, actually.
 
ProVobis said:
I would agree with him on that. Apparently other posters do as well. 😉

Interesting, once I attended the EF in Rockford and the priest told the congregation that the bishop (yours, incidently) required him to install the cloth on the communion rail, indicating that (paraphrased) this was the practice in the early church. It was quite pleasing to hear that, actually.
Click to expand...
I love it when they have cloths on the rails. I’ve only been to one church with a rail cloth.
 
Can anyone tell me specifically where Rome has said attending Mass at an SSPX chapel fulfills your obligation? I’ve never been able to find that but if I could I’d probably go to the SSPX affiliate chapel down the road from me. I agree with about 90% of what the SSPX has to say but I won’t attend their Masses because I was under the impression that an SSPX Mass did not fulfill your obligation. What about going to an SSPX chapel for daily Mass? Is that bad? Is it a sin to go to an SSPX Mass because I have been led to believe that it is?
 
paul11b said:
Can anyone tell me specifically where Rome has said attending Mass at an SSPX chapel fulfills your obligation? I’ve never been able to find that but if I could I’d probably go to the SSPX affiliate chapel down the road from me. I agree with about 90% of what the SSPX has to say but I won’t attend their Masses because I was under the impression that an SSPX Mass did not fulfill your obligation. What about going to an SSPX chapel for daily Mass? Is that bad? Is it a sin to go to an SSPX Mass because I have been led to believe that it is?
Click to expand...
Code of Canon Law

Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and ⇒ can. 861, §2.

§2. 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.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.
 
Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a **catholic rite **either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.

The EF, which the FSSPX celebrates, is a catholic rite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top