Attending “Friends of the Society of St. Pius X” Chapel does not fulfill Sunday obligation!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Big_Feet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have always thought that the letters on the topic that have been made public were addressed to individuals and were intended to respond to those individuals’ particular situations.
Personally, regardless of the response of PCED in this case, I don’t see how attending mass at an SSPX chapel can fail to meet the obligation, as the canon says:

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

And there is no doubt that SSPX priests are Catholic priests and celebrate a Catholic rite.

However, as I don’t attend SSPX chapels anyway, it’s not something I have to worry about.
 
Big_Feet said:
From Fr. Z’s Blog:

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/05/fulfilling-mass-obligation-at-sspx-chapels-has-there-been-a-reversal/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wdtprs%2FDhFa+%28Fr.+Z%27s+Blog±+What+Does+The+Prayer+Really+Say%3F%29

What are your thoughts?

Fr. Z does stipulate:
Click to expand...
The title that you are using is misleading at best. You would be better off if you were to follow the same process that is used for the news section when referring to an internet article. In the article and in the letter that he refers to it talks about a “Friends of the Society of St. Pius X” chapel.
 
Cristiano said:
The title that you are using misleading at best. You would be better off if you were to follow the same process that is used for the news section when referring to an internet article. In the article and in the letter that he refers to it talks about a “Friends of the Society of St. Pius X” chapel.
Click to expand...
Duly noted and corrected.
 
Cristiano said:
The title that you are using misleading at best. You would be better off if you were to follow the same process that is used for the news section when referring to an internet article. In the article and in the letter that he refers to it talks about a “Friends of the Society of St. Pius X” chapel.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is remarkable how the person who scanned and posted the letter managed to redact the vital information that would allow us to interpret it – namely, was it actually about an SSPX chapel, or not?
 
It had been my opinion that the SSPX Priest who celebrated the Mass would incur whatever penalty is applicable in this situation. I thought the people were in the clear since the SSPX Mass is a valid Mass. The ilicitness is on the part of the Priest celebrating the Mass and not on the congregation.

Thats how I saw it anyway. Maybe I was wrong.:confused:

As an aside I have never even heard of the Friends of the SSPX and don’t have a clue what it is.
 
The response certainly seems clear to me. THe way I read the letter you cannot substitute your Sunday obligation by attending one of these Chapels. You can still attend, but it does not meet the requirements of the Sunday obligation. Am I understanding that correctly?

Thanks in advance.
 
Boulder257 said:
The response certainly seems clear to me. THe way I read the letter you cannot substitute your Sunday obligation by attending one of these Chapels. You can still attend, but it does not meet the requirements of the Sunday obligation. Am I understanding that correctly?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. I somehow suspect that the Friends of the SSPX and the SSPX itself are two distinct and separate entities.
 
I read it went like this: if you go without a schismatic attitude but rather with a love for the old rite, it’s OK.

My addendeum: if the priest preaches edifying sermons, keep going but if he’s always banging on about the Novus Ordo and the post-Conciliar Church, move on.
 
RogerDeCourcy said:
I read it went like this: if you go without a schismatic attitude but rather with a love for the old rite, it’s OK.

My addendeum: if the priest preaches edifying sermons, keep going but if he’s always banging on about the Novus Ordo and the post-Conciliar Church, move on.
Click to expand...
Yes, but according to Responsum #2, as long as you’ve fulfilled your obligation elsewhere, there are no sinful acts to be committed.
 
wasserfall said:
I have always thought that the letters on the topic that have been made public were addressed to individuals and were intended to respond to those individuals’ particular situations.
Personally, regardless of the response of PCED in this case, I don’t see how attending mass at an SSPX chapel can fail to meet the obligation, as the canon says:

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

And there is no doubt that SSPX priests are Catholic priests and celebrate a Catholic rite.

However, as I don’t attend SSPX chapels anyway, it’s not something I have to worry about.
Click to expand...
This is where it gets sticky. It is not within your authority to interpret the Canons. That is the Church’s job. Fr Z clearly points this out when he said;
The Church gets to determine how we fulfill our obligations. The Church gets to interpret law.
 
ByzCath said:
This is where it gets sticky. It is not within your authority to interpret the Canons. That is the Church’s job. Fr Z clearly points this out when he said;
The Church gets to determine how we fulfill our obligations. The Church gets to interpret law.
Click to expand...
As as Rorate points out, different letters from PCED to different individuals have said opposite things. From my point of view, this is a letter to a private individual, just as the previous one was, and is applicable to that private individual.

It hardly matters to me since, as I said, I don’t attempt to fulfill mass obligations at SSPX masses.
 
wasserfall said:
It hardly matters to me since, as I said, I don’t attempt to fulfill mass obligations at SSPX masses.
Click to expand...
Always good advice to go to a local bishop approved, licit mass or divine liturgy whenever possible, so there is absolutely no question in anyone’s mind!
 
wasserfall said:
As as Rorate points out, different letters from PCED to different individuals have said opposite things. From my point of view, this is a letter to a private individual, just as the previous one was, and is applicable to that private individual.

It hardly matters to me since, as I said, I don’t attempt to fulfill mass obligations at SSPX masses.
Click to expand...
I agree. The original letter which everyone touts that seems to give say that attendance at an SSPX Mass fills the Sunday Obligation is to a private individual and IMHO applies only to that individual.

What is different in this case is that we are given what appears to be the letter that was written as well as the response from PCED. The original one we are not given the letter that was sent but only the response.

The letter sent in this case seems to be a general question. We do not have the letter in the other case which to me is very suspicious. It raises the question in my mind as to what was actually asked and if there were certain conditions laid out by that individual for their case.

But than as you say, I do not attend an SSPX Chapel so it does not matter to me. But as I am a representative of the Church I am interested in knowing what the Church thinks in this manner so I may respond if I am ever asked though I have yet to be asked as I do not normally circulate in the areas where this question may pop up.
 
ByzCath said:
The letter sent in this case seems to be a general question…
Click to expand...
The specific question asked was: 1) Strictly considering the aforementioned canon, would a Catholic fulfill his Mass obligation by assisting at Holy Mass by attending this “Friends of the Society of St. Pius X” chapel called __________ Roman Catholic Church in ,?

So, the writing is asking about attending a single specific chapel, not about SSPX chapels in general.

Rorate is now reporting that the chapel in question is not actually a true SSPX chapel at all (that is, not on the list of SSPX chapels in the U.S. available at sspx.org)
 
Big_Feet said:
here is the link to the Rorate article:

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/for-record-new-pced-letter-on-sspx.html

How do they know which chapel is being indicated? I am just curious where they are getting their information…
Click to expand...
Clarification (2100 GMT): Following our request for a clarification, we have been informed by the US District of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) that the chapel mentioned in the letter below is not a chapel of the Society and that, while its specific name was expressly mentioned by the sender in the deleted data, it is NOT included in the public list of chapels, including in those other chapels identified by the Society publicly as ‘Friends of the Society of St. Pius X’. It is very possible that this information, easily researched online on the website of the U. S. District, might have led someone in the Commission to believe that this specific chapel, which is friendly to the SSPX but not listed by them and not one of the “Friends of the Society of Saint Pius X” or “other traditional (non-SSPX) venues”, is a venue with no affiliation whatsoever to the SSPX and led to this different appraisal by the Commission.

It seems like they are getting their information from the SSPX.
 
wasserfall said:
It seems like they are getting their information from the SSPX.
Click to expand...
I would prefer the information come from the organization with the authority. I think until there is something concrete from that source, I will continue to stay away for the “obligation” piece. I may attend from curiosity, just as I might another ecclesiastical community (church) or religion, but I will get my complete nourishment from a “proven” and identifiably approved source.
 
Big_Feet said:
I would prefer the information come from the organization with the authority. I think until there is something concrete from that source, I will continue to stay away for the “obligation” piece. I may attend from curiosity, just as I might another ecclesiastical community (church) or religion, but I will get my complete nourishment from a “proven” and identifiably approved source.
Click to expand...
I thought we were asking whether or not the chapel mentioned in the letter is an SSPX chapel or not. That is something that the SSPX itself would know better than the PCED.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top