Attending mass at an SSPX chapel

[Moore11]

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.

True, very true. But one can certainly argue that 10 years and the lifting of excommunications and the recent talks along with the many times the SSPX have had Masses in which many faithful Catholics have attended have changed the response. In fact the response was clarified above. I take no position except to say that 2002 is probably not a good reference to if a Catholic can go to Mass at an SSPX chapel. I do not and would not attend an SSPX Mass until it was regularized. However, I think the entire premise in which that letter was presented in this thread was a misrepresentation.
I would argue the status has changed though no one really know what to yet. We live in interesting times as I can’t even think of a situation in the history of the Church that parallels this. I just pray that the SSPX can humble themselves enough to kneel before Peter. I think the week long silence is a good sign.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

I believe it’s no PUBLIC ministry in the Church. They are allowed to celebrate Mass in the Vatican and a few other places, we were told. (Or whatever “allowed” means these days.)

 

[giuseppeTO]

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

I agree with Son here. I believe the number of SVs that assist at SSPX Masses to be very minimal for the reasons stated above. And they certainly hold no sway among the laity to the extent that they can convince them that the Pope is an anti-pope.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I don’t know what SSPX means,explain please.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s officially the FSSPX (Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X) or “Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X” in the English.

 

[pnewton]

I believe it’s no PUBLIC ministry in the Church. They are allowed to celebrate Mass in the Vatican and a few other places, we were told. (Or whatever “allowed” means these days.)

Yes, of course. Thank yo for the correction. They have no public ministry in the Catholic Church, as in a public Mass.

 

[JReducation]

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.

True, very true. But one can certainly argue that 10 years and the lifting of excommunications and the recent talks along with the many times the SSPX have had Masses in which many faithful Catholics have attended have changed the response. In fact the response was clarified above. I take no position except to say that 2002 is probably not a good reference to if a Catholic can go to Mass at an SSPX chapel. I do not and would not attend an SSPX Mass until it was regularized. However, I think the entire premise in which that letter was presented in this thread was a misrepresentation.
I would argue the status has changed though no one really know what to yet. We live in interesting times as I can’t even think of a situation in the history of the Church that parallels this. I just pray that the SSPX can humble themselves enough to kneel before Peter. I think the week long silence is a good sign.

The status of the mass at an SSPX chapel has not changed. The canonical status of the bishops has changed. They are no longer excommunicated.

The celebration of the mass is not affected by the excommunication, but by the status of the priest presiding. The priests of the SSPX and their bishops continue suspended until further notice. The celebration of mass by a suspended priest is illicit (illegal).

Canon Law is based on Roman Law. We’re used to dealing with US Law which is built on English Law. English Law allows for extrapolations and precedents. Roman Law, on the other hand, has a tradition of being very literal and allowing no deviations from the tradition of the law.

This is a very important point. There is a tradition of the law in Canon Law. This means that one has to read it not with an American mind or a French mind, etc. One has to read the words according to the meaning of the Canon Lawyer, not the common usage.

In such a case, the lifting of the excommunications only affects those who are excommunicated, which were the four bishops, not the deacons and priests. They are suspended for accepting ordination from a bishop who does not have the right to ordain. There is a law that allows priests to celebrate mass in private as long as they are validly ordained and in the clerical state. It says nothing about suspensions in the rule.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Moore11]

The status of the mass at an SSPX chapel has not changed. The canonical status of the bishops has changed. They are no longer excommunicated.

The celebration of the mass is not affected by the excommunication, but by the status of the priest presiding. The priests of the SSPX and their bishops continue suspended until further notice. The celebration of mass by a suspended priest is illicit (illegal).

Canon Law is based on Roman Law. We’re used to dealing with US Law which is built on English Law. English Law allows for extrapolations and precedents. Roman Law, on the other hand, has a tradition of being very literal and allowing no deviations from the tradition of the law.

This is a very important point. There is a tradition of the law in Canon Law. This means that one has to read it not with an American mind or a French mind, etc. One has to read the words according to the meaning of the Canon Lawyer, not the common usage.

In such a case, the lifting of the excommunications only affects those who are excommunicated, which were the four bishops, not the deacons and priests. They are suspended for accepting ordination from a bishop who does not have the right to ordain. There is a law that allows priests to celebrate mass in private as long as they are validly ordained and in the clerical state. It says nothing about suspensions in the rule.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

thank you for the clarification. I do have a question. I dont understand how something can be deemed illegal by the Church (the celebration of an SSPX Mass) but we are given the ok to go. How does that work. Is it “illegal” by letter of the law with no punishment until the Vatican would choose to punish?

 

[JReducation]

thank you for the clarification. I do have a question. I dont understand how something can be deemed illegal by the Church (the celebration of an SSPX Mass) but we are given the ok to go. How does that work. Is it “illegal” by letter of the law with no punishment until the Vatican would choose to punish?

The Cardinal’s letter is not really giving permission. He’s discussing sin. He is saying that if one attends the SSPX mass, because one subscribes the Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions, which are schismatic, then one is culpable of sin.

On the other hand, if one simply attends, because one feels a need for the Extraordinary Form, there is no sin. Why not? Because the intent is not to endorse the actions of the Archbishop and the four bishops who allowed him to ordain them, which was schismatic.

The intent is to go to a Tridentine mass. The same person would attend a Tridentine mas at the local parish, if there were one.

This is really important. There are people who drive past an EF mass in a diocesan parish to attend the EF at an SSPX chapel, which is being celebrated illegally. They know that it is illegal and they know that there is an EF mass at a diocesan parish. In those cases, there is a question of motive. The motive may be very benign or it can be a defiant attitude.

I have seen both. I have seen people pass up the EF mass at a diocesan parish to attend one at the SSPX chapel, because of non sinful reasons, such as “my parents are there.”

I have seen people pass up the EF mass at a diocesan parish to attend one at the SSPX chapel, because they could care less what the Church says about the legality of the mass. In this case, you have some serious moral issues going on. There is an attitude of defiance. These are the folks that you’ll hear saying, “It’s just illicit, but it’s valid.”

Well guess what? There is no such thing as “Just illegal”. Illegal is serious business. Try telling that to an ecclesiastical tribunal. As I said before, moral law looks at motive. Why am I attending an illegal mass?

The letter is addressing, the motive. It’s not justifying the actions of the priest who celebrates an illicit mas. It’s not encouraging people to attend mass at the SSPX chapel. It’s saying, “In this situation, it would be a sin and in that situation, it would not be a sin.” It’s also addressing charity. “A modest donation would be appropriate.” He’s not telling the faithful to take their parish donation and give it to the SSPX. Your fist financial obligation is to your parish.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[1AugustSon7]

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

That principle does not override the Church’s principal mission, which is the salvation of souls. It would be virtually idolatrous to place the principle of subsidiarity over and above the salvation of souls.

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.

I would agree to that if we stipulated that it was for a just reason.

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.

This does not change the fact that the Pope, as the superior of the Bishops, could always provide something and oblige others to follow that provision. This does not exclude the possibility of caveats, as it were, or exceptions and the like.

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.

Yes, I also imagine that to be the likely case.

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 believe we are obliged to confess to our own priests: I suspect that the reason for this may well also be for reasons of prudence: another priest may not have the faculties, for example. Again, Saint Thomas takes for granted that the Church teaches we are to confess to our own priests. Neither he or I deny that there can be exceptions, especially in cases of necessity.

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.

I’m not denying this, but what I am saying is that the Pope is also the Shepherd of the whole flock; he can, therefore, provide faculties.

 

[JReducation]

This is all speculative. If we look at the Church’s tradition in these matters and this particular pope’s thoughts on some things, we can come to an approximate guess of how this may go down.

That principle does not override the Church’s principal mission, which is the salvation of souls. It would be virtually idolatrous to place the principle of subsidiarity over and above the salvation of souls.

Pope Benedict has a history of defending subsidiarity. Even during the sex abuse scandal, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, it was Pope John Paul that told Cardinal Ratzinger to deal with it. Cardinal Ratzinger’s first reaction was to send it back to the bishops on the grounds of subsidiarity. It was when they realized how big the problem was, that Cardinal Ratzinger became aggressively involved. Even then, he became involved in the dioceses. He let the religious superior handle their own issues on the grounds of subsidiarity.

I would agree to that if we stipulated that it was for a just reason.

The key here is to remember that “just reason” is defined by law or by the pope. We may not agree with what he considers just reason. That being said, only religious superiors can suspend without having to go through the process. Diocesan bishops must go through a canonical process. There are specific instances in the law that allows the bishop to bypass the first steps and proceed directly to suspension. This are not many.

This does not change the fact that the Pope, as the superior of the Bishops, could always provide something and oblige others to follow that provision. This does not exclude the possibility of caveats, as it were, or exceptions and the like.

This is true, but I think we had not better let our love for traditionalism or the SSPX get in the way of how the Vatican really functions. There are three groups with which the Vatican deals with very diplomatically: diocesan bishops, religious superiors of men and Eastern patriarchs. There is nothing to keep a bishop from resigning if he feels that his toes on being stepped on. Such a resignation creates a problem for the Vatican and for several congregations at the Vatican. There have been cases in history where the bishop has resigned and his priests have followed in protest. It’s been very messy to clean up. Fortunately, it’s a rare event.

I believe we are obliged to confess to our own priests: I suspect that the reason for this may well also be for reasons of prudence: another priest may not have the faculties, for example. Again, Saint Thomas takes for granted that the Church teaches we are to confess to our own priests. Neither he or I deny that there can be exceptions, especially in cases of necessity.

There is no law that requires a penitent to confess to any particular priest. The law says that Catholics have the right to receive the sacraments. It says that every Catholic priest, with faculties, must hear the confession of any Catholic who requests it, within reason. There are no juridical boundaries that bind the penitent. You can even go to a priest of another Church for confession, such as Melkite, Greek, Chaldean or Maronite. He has to hear your confession. No priest can send you back to your parish priest.

I’m not denying this, but what I am saying is that the Pope is also the Shepherd of the whole flock; he can, therefore, provide faculties.

The pope can, but it has never happened. It’s very hard to believe that Pope Benedict will break with this practice. I believe that he will politely ask the bishops to grant them faculties and go from there for the future.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[pnewton]

That principle does not override the Church’s principal mission, which is the salvation of souls. It would be virtually idolatrous to place the principle of subsidiarity over and above the salvation of souls.

I think “idolatry” is a bit of a stretch. No one puts subsidiarity above the salvation of souls, rather subsidiarity is the Church’s prudent position to effect the salvation of souls. I do not think anyone here is worshipful of their methods over their goals.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I think “idolatry” is a bit of a stretch. No one puts subsidiarity above the salvation of souls, rather subsidiarity is the Church’s prudent position to effect the salvation of souls. I do not think anyone here is worshipful of their methods over their goals.

No I think it would still be idolatrous: you would be placing human preferences above divine commandments.

 

[1AugustSon7]

This is all speculative. If we look at the Church’s tradition in these matters and this particular pope’s thoughts on some things, we can come to an approximate guess of how this may go down.

Yes, I observe we all agree that we are speculating on what actions might be taken, assuming certain things (i.e. a reconciliation).

Pope Benedict has a history of defending subsidiarity. Even during the sex abuse scandal, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, it was Pope John Paul that told Cardinal Ratzinger to deal with it. Cardinal Ratzinger’s first reaction was to send it back to the bishops on the grounds of subsidiarity. It was when they realized how big the problem was, that Cardinal Ratzinger became aggressively involved. Even then, he became involved in the dioceses. He let the religious superior handle their own issues on the grounds of subsidiarity.

That’s all well and fine, but I don’t think it reasonable to expect Bp. Fellay to agree to something that necessitates getting permission(s) from every diocese the SSPX presently or may in future operate in. I expect they will want full faculties given them, with some mechanism, commission or rule governing future expansion or difficulties in dioceses.

The key here is to remember that “just reason” is defined by law or by the pope.

Yes, that’s the sense I meant it in: i.e., a licit reason.

There is no law that requires a penitent to confess to any particular priest. The law says that Catholics have the right to receive the sacraments. It says that every Catholic priest, with faculties, must hear the confession of any Catholic who requests it, within reason. There are no juridical boundaries that bind the penitent. You can even go to a priest of another Church for confession, such as Melkite, Greek, Chaldean or Maronite. He has to hear your confession. No priest can send you back to your parish priest.

This raises the question of jurisdiction. If jurisdiction is so irrelevant, then why not simply grant universal faculties to hear confession? Why can’t SSPX priests licitly hear Confession as such? Also, how can a priest be certain of the status of any given layman, who may be excommicate (for example) or labour under some other impediment?

The pope can, but it has never happened. It’s very hard to believe that Pope Benedict will break with this practice. I believe that he will politely ask the bishops to grant them faculties and go from there for the future.

Is that not effectively commanding them?

 

[pnewton]

No I think it would still be idolatrous: you would be placing human preferences above divine commandments.

I must have missed that commandment whereby one is only allowed to seek salvation by certain administrative methods. Well, if you thing something is idolotry, that is your right to avoid it as a matter of conscience, as long as you don’t accuse others of that.

 

[1AugustSon7]

I must have missed that commandment whereby one is only allowed to seek salvation by certain administrative methods. Well, if you thing something is idolotry, that is your right to avoid it as a matter of conscience, as long as you don’t accuse others of that.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about. In Catholic theology, idolatry is typically ideological and not, for example, the adoration of images. Greed, for example, is idolatrous and can even become idolatry proper. Idolatry is always, as is frequently the case in any sin, an abuse of some good or perceived good: if someone were to sacrifice a soul for the sake of an ideological preference, then you have a case of idolatry. There is harmony and an heirarchy of goods and more important principles take precedence over less important, subsidiary principles; our Faith informs us about the proper ordering of things, otherwise we would have been given a false or defective morality.

 

[Lujack]

That’s all well and fine, but I don’t think it reasonable to expect Bp. Fellay to agree to something that necessitates getting permission(s) from every diocese the SSPX presently or may in future operate in. I expect they will want full faculties given them, with some mechanism, commission or rule governing future expansion or difficulties in dioceses.

Why would it be unreasonable for the SSPX to have to receive permission from every diocese they want to operate in?

 

[JReducation]

That’s all well and fine, but I don’t think it reasonable to expect Bp. Fellay to agree to something that necessitates getting permission(s) from every diocese the SSPX presently or may in future operate in. I expect they will want full faculties given them, with some mechanism, commission or rule governing future expansion or difficulties in dioceses.

If he accepts a prelature, these priests must get their faculties from the diocesan bishop that hosts them. Opus Dei is the only prelature right now. Every Opus Dei priest must get faculties from the local bishop.

The prelature is autonomous. The local bishop does not govern it or make policies for the prelature. However, the laity is not autonomous. The laity belongs to the bishop of the diocese where the layman resides. It is the bishop’s role to decide who can and who cannot hear the confessions of the people for whom he’s responsible. He’s not interfering in the affairs of the prelature in any way.

If the prelature were to be given faculties in every diocese, then the prelature would be overstepping the rights of the local bishops to protect their laity. This is why Opus Dei asks for faculties. It wants to minister to the people who approach them, but it also respects the right of the bishop to know and decide who is ministers to his people in his jurisdiction.

This raises the question of jurisdiction. If jurisdiction is so irrelevant, then why not simply grant universal faculties to hear confession?

Each diocese constitutes an autonomous local Church. You can’t have universal faculties, since there is no such thing as one universal diocese. Every bishop is an Apostle and every Apostle is the legal head of his Church. They govern in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

The issue of jurisdiction is not about where the penitent goes to confession, but who is hearing the confession and where he is hearing it. Jurisdiction controls the confessor, not the penitent.

Why can’t SSPX priests licitly hear Confession as such?

Currently, the SSPX cannot hear confessions validly. Liceity does not even enter into the picture. We worry about something being legal, when it’s valid. When it’s invalid, there is not need to worry about law.

The answer is the same. Only an Apostle with Ordinary Jurisdiction can grant a priest permission to absolve except in danger of death. In danger of death, the Church supplies. This means that death must be imminent. It does not mean that I may die today, if I were to be hit by a bus. That does not constitute danger of death.

The other way that the Church supplies is when the penitent approaches a priest for confession, not knowing that the priest has no faculties. In the case of a suspended priest, which applies to the SSPX, he has an obligation to tell the person that he cannot hear his confession. There are other situations in which a priest may not have faculties, but he can assume that the Church will provide, since he is in good standing with the Church.

Even if the SSPX priests were not suspended, they still need a bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction to grant them faculties. None of the bishops of the SSPX have Ordinary Jurisdiction. Even if these bishops were not suspended, their status would be like an auxiliary bishop. Auxiliary bishops cannot grant faculties, unless the Ordinary delegates them to do so.

That’s the advantage of the prelature. One of the SSPX bishops would become the Prelate. He runs the prelature as if it were a diocese without boundaries. This allow them to minister around the globe. It also allows them to have their own seminary and their own clergy. However, because the Prelate cannot be an Ordinary, he cannot grant faculties and he must ask permission of the local bishop to enter his diocese.

Why can’t he be an Ordinary? Because to be an Ordinary you must be either the Ordinary of the Diocese or a male religious superior. These to can grant faculties in their respective jurisdictions.

The term Prelate means that he is the pope’s vicar. Hence the term Personal Prelature. The pope is really the head of the prelature. The prelate answers to him. The relationship between the pope and the prelate is much more intimate than that between the pope and the diocesan bishops. Like everything in life, it has its pros and cons.

Also, how can a priest be certain of the status of any given layman, who may be excommicate (for example) or labour under some other impediment?

He can’t. He has to take what the penitent says at face value. The law does not require that the confessor know this. The law requires that the confessor hear the confession and grant absolution if the person says that he’s sorry for his sins. If the penitent deceives the confessor, the absolution is invalid. It’s that simple.

Is that not effectively commanding them?

Politely requesting is not the same as commanding. Politely requesting is done through the Nuncio. It’s a diplomatic dialogue between the Holy Father and the local bishop. Like all diplomatic dialogues, there is the element of persuasion and the element of compromise on both parts.

In a command, there is no attempt to persuade the other person to see the benefit of what you want. You’re simply giving an order, nor are you willing to compromise with the other person in order to get what you want.

The tradition of the Church for the past 100+ years has been that popes, bishops and religious superiors reserve commands only for situations when dialogue is no longer an option.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Cider]

Why would it be unreasonable for the SSPX to have to receive permission from every diocese they want to operate in?

So the local Bishop can close down their chapel that is thriving in a diocese where there is no other EF available within a 5 hour drive?

Yea, that sounds reasonable to me. Not.

 

[JReducation]

That’s all well and fine, but I don’t think it reasonable to expect Bp. Fellay to agree to something that necessitates getting permission(s) from every diocese the SSPX presently or may in future operate in. I expect they will want full faculties given them, with some mechanism, commission or rule governing future expansion or difficulties in dioceses.

I came back to read this and I had a few thoughts that you may want to consider.

1. Bishop Fellay has no right to make demands on the Holy See. Legally, he doesn’t even enjoy collegiality with the other bishops, much less is he an equal to Cardinal Levada or the Holy Father to tell them what he will or will not accept. This can hurt his case more than help, if he does so. Especially, because this is not even a doctrinal or a moral concern. This is a legal matter.
2. He would be asking the Holy See to amend Canon Law to accommodate to the SSPX. This is not unknown. The Holy See has amended Canon Law to accommodate to Opus Dei, Societies of Apostolic Life, Secular Institutes, and many religious orders. They have not demanded it, nor have they said to the Holy See that the expectations of the law were unreasonable. What they have done is approach the Holy Father, very humbly, almost groveling, and basically said, “We have a problem and we need your help.” In some instances the best help was to amend Canon Law or grant an indult for a specific group. The Jesuits come to mind. They have indults for indults and no one holds it against them. It’s their right to ask for help and it’s the pope’s right to grant them indults. Asking for help, is not the same as saying, “I will not accept that.”
3. The other consideration here is that the SSPX is not a Church in schism. I’ll give you an example. Some of the Eastern Catholic Churches were in schism. In the dialogue for reunification with Rome, they made some demands and rejected some demands that Rome made on them. However, the Catholic Church considered this appropriate, because it was a dialogue between equals. There were two valid Church, both Apostolic, with a valid and licit hierarchy. Each side gave a little. For example, the Filioque. In some Eastern Churches they omit it rather than use the Latin form. There is one Church that has no words on institution in its anaphora and it’s consecration is valid.

The dialogue between the SSPX and the Holy See is not two Churches equally apostolic with hierarchies of equal rank. It’s Roman Catholic bishops who are under penalty and the Holy See trying to help them get back what they have lost. It’s a vertical dialogue, not a horizontal dialogue, if you get what I mean. The Holy Father wants to protect them from falling into schism by throwing them a life preserver. When you’re in that situation, you don’t turn around and say, “This life preserver is unacceptable, go find another.”

1. Finally, there is nothing to stop Bishop Fellay from putting this before the Holy See as a need, rather than as a condition or as demand. He does not have to take the high road and say, “That’s unacceptable.” He can take the same road as the rest of us take and say, “Your Holiness, here’s our problem. What can be done about this?” The latter position is vertical while the former is horizontal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV