Attending mass at an SSPX chapel

[1AugustSon7]

Yes, it’s a possibility, but if I were a betting man I wouldn’t bet on it.

In general, the Pope won’t go over the head of diocesan bishops. Especially for something like confessions, it would not be his place to get involved. The sacraments (with few exceptions, and assuming they are following the rubrics) are local matters that the principle of subsidiarity says should be handled by local ordinaries (ie bishops).

Well, as you have admitted we are but only speculating on what might or will happen, then all I will say is that the Pope has a duty to ensure the salvation of souls and the peace of the Church and, to that end, would or at least should do all in his power to effect that: This might involve overiding the local ordinaries, which they may not necessarily take issue with or perceive as a slight, if the ordinaries perceived that otherwise managing the situation themselves could produce endless difficulties or problems.

What if, for example, some ordinaries simply refused to provide the faculties? Would that not effectively - at least in some dioceses - negate the reconciliation? Would that not practically force the SSPX to be bound to the Diocesan parishes? After all, we are obligated to confess to our own priests: how can we refer to our confessor as our own priest when the only time we see him is on occassion or even just once a year (in order to confess)?

 

[fpt]

I have been wanting to attend the Extraordinary form of the mass for a while. I am a recent convert (been Catholic about two weeks). There is an SSPX chapel that is about only 40 minutes away from me. Are the SSPX in schism? Is it okay to attend mass there? Is it okay to receive the Eucharist there?

By this time, it is not okay to go to the mass celebrated by a priest of SSPX. The mass is valid but illicit. In addition, The priest can be truly “vagus” or in link with SSPX, officialy or not (it is a big difference). This priest , perhaps, non una cum (real sedevacantist or half sedevacantist).

The catholic prudence says to avoid an active participation. No attending on sunday mass.
If you have to go here, for instance, for a wedding with mass, you have to stay passive, no holy communion. It is not prudent.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

half sedevacantist

? Is this a person who thinks the Pope is only half on the chair?

• PAX

 

[1AugustSon7]

By this time, it is not okay to go to the mass celebrated by a priest of SSPX. The mass is valid but illicit.

This is a false depiction of the reality. Please read through this thread and innumerable others on the subject. It has been well established that the Vatican does not say that assisting at an SSPX Mass is necessarily illicit: there are situations or conditions that make it perfectly licit.

What is illicit according to the Vatican and from what I have gathered here, is receiving the other sacraments from them: the sacrament of confession, owing to a want of faculties (jurisdiction), is said to be both invalid and illicit; the other sacraments would, in general, be valid but illicit.

In addition, The priest can be truly “vagus” or in link with SSPX, officialy or not (it is a big difference). This priest , perhaps, non una cum (real sedevacantist or half sedevacantist).

I have never heard this before and it sounds like a confused thought; SSPX priests must mention Benedict XVI in the appropriate place of the Canon: it is non-negotiable. Their Masses, therefore, all mention Benedict XVI in the Canon; Sedevacantists, of course, do not. That is a dividing line between them.

The catholic prudence says to avoid an active participation. No attending on sunday mass.

That is a highly subjective opinion. If Catholic prudence said not to attend SSPX Masses, then why is the Vatican saying it is okay for the laity to attend them in certain situations?

 

[fpt]

? Is this a person who thinks the Pope is only half on the chair?

• PAX

Complete sedevacantists: John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul I, John-Paul II and Benedict XVI are all the impostors.

By half sedevacantists, I mean sedeprivatists (they are Pope materially but not formally (Thesis of Cassiciacum rewriten by Guérard des Lauriers)

 

[ProVobis]

By this time, it is not okay to go to the mass celebrated by a priest of SSPX. The mass is valid but illicit. In addition, The priest can be truly “vagus” or in link with SSPX, officialy or not (it is a big difference). This priest , perhaps, non una cum (real sedevacantist or half sedevacantist).

The catholic prudence says to avoid an active participation. No attending on sunday mass.
If you have to go here, for instance, for a wedding with mass, you have to stay passive, no holy communion. It is not prudent.

Weddings currently are DEFINITELY not valid there. That’s one I would avoid. I’ll let someone else address your other points.

 

[Moore11]

By this time, it is not okay to go to the mass celebrated by a priest of SSPX. The mass is valid but illicit. In addition, The priest can be truly “vagus” or in link with SSPX, officialy or not (it is a big difference). This priest , perhaps, non una cum (real sedevacantist or half sedevacantist).

The catholic prudence says to avoid an active participation. No attending on sunday mass.
If you have to go here, for instance, for a wedding with mass, you have to stay passive, no holy communion. It is not prudent.

When advising on a delicate matter like this, I don’t think it is wise to make up your own terms or status for things that are as complicated as this.

 

[fpt]

This is a false depiction of the reality. Please read through this thread and innumerable others on the subject. It has been well established that the Vatican does not say that assisting at an SSPX Mass is necessarily illicit: there are situations or conditions that make it perfectly licit.

Under which conditions?

What is illicit according to the Vatican and from what I have gathered here, is receiving the other sacraments from them: the sacrament of confession, owing to a want of faculties (jurisdiction), is said to be both invalid and illicit; the other sacraments would, in general, be valid but illicit.

The validity and the liceity of a sacrament is function of the own rules of sacrament

I have never heard this before and it sounds like a confused thought; SSPX priests must mention Benedict XVI in the appropriate place of the Canon: it is non-negotiable. Their Masses, therefore, all mention Benedict XVI in the Canon; Sedevacantists, of course, do not. That is a dividing line between them.

The great majority of priest of SSPX is not sedevacantist. But, inside of SSPX there are a small number that is in reality sedevacantist.

That is a highly subjective opinion. If Catholic prudence said not to attend SSPX Masses, then why is the Vatican saying it is okay for the laity to attend them in certain situations?

 

[fpt]

Weddings currently are DEFINITELY not valid there. That’s one I would avoid. I’ll let someone else address your other points.

I am okay with you. I talked about friends of future couple ot the family. A catholic couple has to refuse the wedding in the SSPX chaptel.

 

[fpt]

When advising on a delicate matter like this, I don’t think it is wise to make up your own terms or status for things that are as complicated as this.

Ask you confessor , he will say to you: By principle, it is not prudent and it is not recommended to attend SSPX mass in the active way. Passive way, why not, but under very special conditions.

Since 2009, the situation is so difficult. The canon law has to be interpreted very carefully

 

[1AugustSon7]

fpt:
Dear fpt,

Please don’t reply inside of a quote. It makes responding difficult.

It is your duty to determine the conditions of liceity; I have already informed you that this information is available on CAF. Use the search.

“The validity and the liceity of a sacrament is function of the own rules of sacrament”

This appears to be another confused thought; it is dependent upon what I repeated above.

There are obviously rules related to Canon Law that govern the liceity of an act. Validity is another question altogether.

Further, from what has been written here, only Confession and Matrimony are said to be invalid by the Vatican; the remainder are illicit except, under certain circumstances, assisting at Mass; if you have documents from the Vatican declaring otherwise, then please enlighten us.

The great majority of priest of SSPX is not sedevacantist. But, inside of SSPX there are a small number that is in reality sedevacantist.

This is a highly speculative opinion and nothing more.

Sedevacantists, at least in the United States, are already fairly well established and have their own body of apologetic literature: if someone in the SSPX was in reality a Sedevacantist, then they could easily find a home with those Sedevacantists.

Further, Sedevacantists teach that attending an una cum Mass is illicit, immoral and hypocritical; if these secret Sedevacantists secretly trying to swing the Society over to Sedevacantism are in actuality *bona fide *Sedevacantists, then they will be in for a hard time with their co-religionists in trying to justify their conduct: Sedevacantists do not permit assisting at *una cum *Masses under any circumstances.

 

[fpt]

Dear fpt,

Please don’t reply inside of a quote. It makes responding difficult.

It is your duty to determine the conditions of liceity; I have already informed you that this information is available on CAF. Use the search.

“The validity and the liceity of a sacrament is function of the own rules of sacrament”

This appears to be another confused thought; it is dependent upon what I repeated above.

There are obviously rules related to Canon Law that govern the liceity of an act. Validity is another question altogether.

Further, from what has been written here, only Confession and Matrimony are said to be invalid by the Vatican; the remainder are illicit except, under certain circumstances, assisting at Mass; if you have documents from the Vatican declaring otherwise, then please enlighten us.

The great majority of priest of SSPX is not sedevacantist. But, inside of SSPX there are a small number that is in reality sedevacantist.

This is a highly speculative opinion and nothing more.

Sedevacantists, at least in the United States, are already fairly well established and have their own body of apologetic literature: if someone in the SSPX was in reality a Sedevacantist, then they could easily find a home with those Sedevacantists.

Further, Sedevacantists teach that attending an una cum Mass is illicit, immoral and hypocritical; if these secret Sedevacantists secretly trying to swing the Society over to Sedevacantism are in actuality *bona fide *Sedevacantists, then they will be in for a hard time with their co-religionists in trying to justify their conduct: Sedevacantists do not permit assisting at *una cum *Masses under any circumstances.

for information:

• May a Catholic attend a Mass celebrated by a SSPX priest or a priest from a community close to this Society and receive Holy Communion on a Sunday ?

No. Holy Mass must be offered in communion with the Church, the Pope and the local Bishop. Attendance at Masses offered by priests who are not in union with the Church is allowed only in extraordinary circumstances, when access to a Mass offered in union with the Church is impossible. Now, the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are not in union with the Church because of their adhesion to the schism that Archbishop Lefebvre created when consecrating bishops against the will of the Pope, who called this act, accomplished on June 30, 1988, a schismatic act. (Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” of July 2, 1988, n° 3-4)

• Does the absence of an Indult Mass in one’s diocese allow a Catholic to attend Mass in the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X ?

No. For in every Catholic diocese are offered Masses in union with the Church. The rite as such is not a decisive factor in this matter. Where, for instance, there are only Masses offered by Catholic priests in the Byzantine-Ukrainian rite, the Catholic must prefer these Masses to the schismatic Latin rite Masses.

• May we lean upon canon 844 to justify participation in the sacraments in the chapels and houses of the Society St. Pius X, considering that the lack of an Indult Mass in the vicinity constitutes a “case of spiritual necessity” and a “moral impossibility to have recourse to a Catholic minister?”

No. The canon referred to speaks of “the physical and moral impossibility to have recourse to a Catholic minister” and not of the absence of a Mass in one rite rather than in another. There is no absolute right to a determined rite.

• If for a serious reason one must attend a SSPX Mass (wedding, funerals, school feast day…) must one abstain from receiving Holy Communion ?

Yes. For Eucharistic Communion is also a communion with the Catholic Church (”The Church makes the Eucharist and the Eucharist makes the Church”), from which those priests are separated.

• Is it a sin to depart from the discipline of the Church regarding the Sunday obligation and the manner of fulfilling it ?

Yes. The obligation is clearly defined and explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n° 2180-2183.
Rome, April 15, 2002
Signed by Mgr Perl, Secretary

 

[Moore11]

Ask you confessor , he will say to you: By principle, it is not prudent and it is not recommended to attend SSPX mass in the active way. Passive way, why not, but under very special conditions.

Since 2009, the situation is so difficult. The canon law has to be interpreted very carefully

Nor did I ever say it was. I was however pointing out that you seem to be writing your own terminology and rules on this one. Which does not help the discussion.

 

[Moore11]

for information:

• May a Catholic attend a Mass celebrated by a SSPX priest or a priest from a community close to this Society and receive Holy Communion on a Sunday ?

No. Holy Mass must be offered in communion with the Church, the Pope and the local Bishop. Attendance at Masses offered by priests who are not in union with the Church is allowed only in extraordinary circumstances, when access to a Mass offered in union with the Church is impossible. Now, the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are not in union with the Church because of their adhesion to the schism that Archbishop Lefebvre created when consecrating bishops against the will of the Pope, who called this act, accomplished on June 30, 1988, a schismatic act. (Motu Proprio “Ecclesia Dei” of July 2, 1988, n° 3-4)

• Does the absence of an Indult Mass in one’s diocese allow a Catholic to attend Mass in the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X ?

No. For in every Catholic diocese are offered Masses in union with the Church. The rite as such is not a decisive factor in this matter. Where, for instance, there are only Masses offered by Catholic priests in the Byzantine-Ukrainian rite, the Catholic must prefer these Masses to the schismatic Latin rite Masses.

• May we lean upon canon 844 to justify participation in the sacraments in the chapels and houses of the Society St. Pius X, considering that the lack of an Indult Mass in the vicinity constitutes a “case of spiritual necessity” and a “moral impossibility to have recourse to a Catholic minister?”

No. The canon referred to speaks of “the physical and moral impossibility to have recourse to a Catholic minister” and not of the absence of a Mass in one rite rather than in another. There is no absolute right to a determined rite.

• If for a serious reason one must attend a SSPX Mass (wedding, funerals, school feast day…) must one abstain from receiving Holy Communion ?

Yes. For Eucharistic Communion is also a communion with the Catholic Church (”The Church makes the Eucharist and the Eucharist makes the Church”), from which those priests are separated.

• Is it a sin to depart from the discipline of the Church regarding the Sunday obligation and the manner of fulfilling it ?

Yes. The obligation is clearly defined and explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n° 2180-2183.
Rome, April 15, 2002
Signed by Mgr Perl, Secretary

2002 huh, hmmmmmm what was the difference in situations between then and now. I’ll give you a hint. It starts with excommunications and ends with lifted.

 

[fpt]

2002 huh, hmmmmmm what was the difference in situations between then and now. I’ll give you a hint. It starts with excommunications and ends with lifted.

Today, SSPX is not in full communion, there is a great problematic between the Holy See and SSPX concerning different topics of the catholic Faith. Morally speaking and canonically speaking, you cannot attend mass at an SSPX chapel in the active way.

By prudence, I keep this interpretation of 2002, even if the situation is not the same. The fact of going to the mass at a chaptel of SSPX, is very active and is against a truly catholic behavior.

The problem with this topic is that the debate will be forever. Thus, I am waiting for the decision of the Pope Benedict XVI who has the power and the right from God to give the ultimate judgement.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

The problem with this topic is that the debate will be forever. Thus, I am waiting for the decision of the Pope Benedict XVI who has the power and the right from God to give the ultimate judgement.

It doesn’t sound like you are waiting, but are actively arguing for one side and against the other.

• PAX

 

[curlycool89]

Well, as you have admitted we are but only speculating on what might or will happen, then all I will say is that the Pope has a duty to ensure the salvation of souls and the peace of the Church and, to that end, would or at least should do all in his power to effect that: This might involve overiding the local ordinaries, which they may not necessarily take issue with or perceive as a slight, if the ordinaries perceived that otherwise managing the situation themselves could produce endless difficulties or problems.

Subsidiarity my friend. Look it up. It’s the principle the Church operates on.

What if, for example, some ordinaries simply refused to provide the faculties? Would that not effectively - at least in some dioceses - negate the reconciliation?

The reconciliation is to reconcile the SSPX with the Church. Bishops can deny faculties to anyone if they had an good reason, that does not mean the person is not in communion or anything.

The problem here is with the fact that the SSPX has pre-existing chapels. In the future (speculating again), the SSPX will need the permission of the ordinary to enter and do public ministry in any diocese. Usually that would have been done, and it’s implicitly understood that if they’re allowed in they’re going to receive faculties.

My own feeling is that faculties will be granted to currently existing priests. If there are any holdouts, they’ll have to answer personally to the Pope.

Would that not practically force the SSPX to be bound to the Diocesan parishes? After all, we are obligated to confess to our own priests: how can we refer to our confessor as our own priest when the only time we see him is on occassion or even just once a year (in order to confess)?

Again, there is no obligation to confess to a certain priest. You can confess to any priest anytime. If you wanted to, you could never confess to your parish priest every in your life and that would be fine.

I think you’re misunderstanding the reason for the faculties. The laity of the diocese are part of the bishop’s flock; the bishop is shepherd of that flock (and as I and others have said, there are no SSPX laity). It is the bishop’s job to take care of his flock, including deciding who can minister to them. And there is only one shepherd per diocese.

? Is this a person who thinks the Pope is only half on the chair?

Do we call those people Cafeteria Sedevacantists?

Complete sedevacantists: John XXIII, Paul VI, John-Paul I, John-Paul II and Benedict XVI are all the impostors.

By half sedevacantists, I mean sedeprivatists (they are Pope materially but not formally (Thesis of Cassiciacum rewriten by Guérard des Lauriers)

That just sounds non-sensical. The existence of a Pope is a binary answer: either yes or no.

Weddings currently are DEFINITELY not valid there. That’s one I would avoid. I’ll let someone else address your other points.

My understanding is that confirmations are valid (but illicit) so long as they were performed by a bishop (Bp. Fellay or one of the others). Confirmations by an SSPX priest would be invalid however (again, no faculties, and there’s no exceptions for that one).

 

[Moore11]

Today, SSPX is not in full communion, there is a great problematic between the Holy See and SSPX concerning different topics of the catholic Faith. Morally speaking and canonically speaking, you cannot attend mass at an SSPX chapel in the active way.

By prudence, I keep this interpretation of 2002, even if the situation is not the same. The fact of going to the mass at a chaptel of SSPX, is very active and is against a truly catholic behavior.

The problem with this topic is that the debate will be forever. Thus, I am waiting for the decision of the Pope Benedict XVI who has the power and the right from God to give the ultimate judgement.

And you have every right to this opinion. However you do not have the right to extend that opinion as some sort of authority.

 

[TrueLight]

Rome, April 15, 2002
Signed by Mgr Perl, Secretary

Okay FPT.

Except there was a … clarification

Pontificia Commissio “Ecclesia Dei” January 18, 2003

Greetings in the Hearts of Jesus & Mary! There have been several inquiries about our letter of 27 September 2002. In order to clarify things, Msgr. Perl has made the following response.

Oremus pro invicem.

In cordibus Jesu et Mariæ, Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins

Msgr. Camille Perl’s response:

Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.

In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.

1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.

2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.

Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was “Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass” and our response was:

“1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.”

His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:

“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.”
**
His third question was: “Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass” to which we responded:

“3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.”

Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:

"This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the ‘traditional’ Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.

“You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a ‘right’ to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a ‘right’. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church’s law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice.”

We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.

With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ, Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/830510/posts

Note the parts in bold especially this one:

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."

So in other words, if I only attend the EF and there is no EF near me and there is an SSPX chapel, according to Msgr Perl, I can attend the SSPX chapel.

The Vatican has not said that Catholics are not allowed to attend and has not recommended we attend. Hence the confusion.

Hopefully, this will all be cleared soon.

 

[pnewton]

2002 huh, hmmmmmm what was the difference in situations between then and now.

Because we all know that the Church moves all a blinding speed!

The excommunications being lifted have nothing to do with the status of anyone except the people on whom they were lifted. The SSPX still has no ministry in the Catholic Church. *Their *status is unchanged.