Attending SSPX Daily Mass

[SoulSurvivorJMJ]

I have recently relocated to an area that only has the EF Mass on Sundays. I was wondering if it would be a sin for me to attend daily Mass at an SSPX chapel and not take Holy Communion and then attend a licit Mass for Sundays and Holy Days.

Advice?

 

[CatholicGuy22]

How about attending a Novus ordo Mass

 

[CarlosBarrera]

Yes I would say that it’s better to attend a Novus Ordo, rather than attending an SSPX mass that you aren’t sure is ok. You’re better off attending a somewhat liberal mass (though not all NO’s are) than attending an illicit mass.

Carlos

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have recently relocated to an area that only has the EF Mass on Sundays. I was wondering if it would be a sin for me to attend daily Mass at an SSPX chapel and not take Holy Communion and then attend a licit Mass for Sundays and Holy Days.

Advice?

Its okay I guess. Since you are not trying to fulfill an obligation to the Church and the Mass the present is a valid whilst illicit. I would compare it to going to an Orthodox Liturgy.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

St. Ignatius of Antioch:

Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine , he has no part in the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.

Schism is a mortal sin and no one has any business attending a schismatic Mass. The SSPX is in schism and if they weren’t then the Vatican would not be working on reunion.
The idea that you aren’t going to go to Mass because it doesn’t fit your liturgical aesthetic taste is very arrogant. I’d rather receive the Lord in the ugliest OF in union with Rome and perhaps comfort the Sacred Heart through my reverence amongst irreverence (of which there will hopefully be none) then at a beautiful EF offered by schismatics and present myself to the Lord as unfaithful to the bride. The liturgy has nothing to do with us and our taste, it’s about God. I love the EF as much as the next liturgy enthusiast, don’t get me wrong, but lately I’ve been getting absolutely sick of the attitudes of EF enthusiasts who will sometimes go as far as to skip Mass (i.e. break the third commandment under a pseudo-intellectual pretense) if there is no EF around.

OP, this is not an accusation against you, this is an accusation against what I’ve ran into so many times, and I’m not saying that you are guilty of any sin.

Just go to the OF. The Mass is the Mass no matter what language, form, or rite it is offered under, and the same victim is immolated on the altar under both forms. We are only to be hearing Mass said in union with Rome, this is not an option.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Lets be fair here, the SSPX are not in schism and the Vatican is working on their regularization, not reunion.

Given my earlier statement and after some careful thought, I think its not fair to compare the situation of the SSPX with the Orthodox. The Orthodox are in schism, therefore they are not subject to the laws of the Catholic Church. The SSPX still claim to be Catholic, therefore they are subject to the laws of the Catholic Church. Since the Catholic Church says they do not have any active ministry in the Church right now, therefore they should not be holding a Mass. Therefore any good standing Catholic should not attend their Mass.

 

[At_Trent]

I have recently relocated to an area that only has the EF Mass on Sundays. I was wondering if it would be a sin for me to attend daily Mass at an SSPX chapel and not take Holy Communion and then attend a licit Mass for Sundays and Holy Days.

Advice?

If the EF fills your own spiritual need, go to the SSPX Mass during the week. As far as Communion, if you are going to the SSPX Mass there is no reason not to receive there. But if you feel a Spiritual Communion would be better for your own peace of mind, that’s fine too.

 

[Zacdecat]

why is it an ILLICIT and/or SCHISMATIC Mass…it is neither, it is a Catholic Mass!!!

 

[CarlosBarrera]

why is it an ILLICIT and/or SCHISMATIC Mass…it is neither, it is a Catholic Mass!!!

No, it’s not. The SSPX defied Pope John Paul II and had four bishops consecrated without permission. Catholics are loyal to the Pope, the SSPX is not.

 

[Aramis]

I have recently relocated to an area that only has the EF Mass on Sundays. I was wondering if it would be a sin for me to attend daily Mass at an SSPX chapel and not take Holy Communion and then attend a licit Mass for Sundays and Holy Days.

Advice?

While it’s not automatically a sin, it’s probably not advisable.

First: the priest is committing grave error by saying the mass. He’s suspended a divinis, by virtue of his membership in the SSPX, so saying the mass with more than just 1 server is in fact a denial of his suspension.

Second: attendance encourages the SSPX in its continued disobedience. One of the common SSPX claims is that they have no shortage of the faithful picking them over the OF. (Even in places where the EF is available licitly from diocesan priests they make this claim.)

Third, SSPX masses have a tendency to draw the sedevaticanists as well. People who will, given the chance, try to convince you that there is no valid pope. These people are not the SSPX, nor particularly welcome in the eyes of the SSPX, but they are often drawn to the SSPX celebration because they accept the '62 missal. (Well, some sedes don’t even accept the '62 changes… I’ve met some who believe Pp. John XXIII was an antipope; I’ve even met one sede who claims the last valid pope was Pope Leo XIII, as Pp. St. Pius X created separate dioceses for the Eastern Catholics in Union in the US…)

Fourth, some SSPX priests preach against the OF and/or the Church. Some of their complaints are grounded in truth, but instructing the faithful to not attend an OF using parish on sunday if they can’t get to an SSPX chapel is encouragement to commit a sin. I’ve not heard an SSPX priest say this, but I’ve heard credible reports of it from individuals I know (and it’s why they quit attending the local SSPX chapel).

So, if you go, you need to ask the following questions:

1. will your attendance cause any scandal?
2. Will your attending encourage the SSPX priest to continue his illicit ministry?
3. Will you be worse for exposure to the other elements of dissent the SSPX masses draw?

If any of these is a yes, then your attending might be a sin.
If you do go and hear any preaching against the church, it’s time to not go back. A priest should never be preaching about the errors of a bishop. He should be quietly reproaching the bishop directly and in private, but publicly supporting the diocese.

 

[Danquayle76]

This is what Ecclesia Dei said regarding attending SSPX chapels (this is back in 1999, so some of the information is a little outdated):

Dear Mr. Rebbert,
We wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter to His Eminence Cardinal
Ratzinger. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing
with matters that come within our particular competence.
With regard to the schismatic Society of St. Pius X we can say the
following:

1. The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained,
   but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions
   because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious
   institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. canon 265) and also
   because those ordained after the schismatic episcopal ordinations were
   ordained by an excommunicated bishop. They are also excommunicated if
   they adhere to the schism (cf. Ecclesia Del, #5, c). While up to now the
   Holy See has not defined what this .adherence consists in, one could point
   to a wholesale condemnation of the Church since the Second Vatican Council
   and a refusal to be in communion with it (cf. canon 751 on the definition
   of schism). Further, it is likely that these priests, after eleven years
   in a society whose head is now an excommunicated bishop, effectively adhere
   to the schism. . .
2. Concretely this means that the Masses offered by the priests of
   the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to Canon
   Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the
   priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since
   that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It
   remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the
   priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have the proper faculty to
   absolve, the Church supplied these faculties so that the sacrament was valid
   (cf. Code of Canon Law c. 144).
3. The situation of the faithful attending chapels of the Society of
   St. Pius X is more complicated. They may attend Mass there primarily
   because of an attraction to the earlier form of the Roman Rite in which
   case they incur no penalty. The difficulty is that the longer they
   frequent these chapels, the more likely it is that they will slowly imbibe
   the schismatic mentality which stands in judgement of the Church and
   refuses submission to the Roman Pontiff and communion with the members of
   the Church subject to him. If that becomes the case, then it would seem
   that they adhere to the schism and are consequently excommunicated.
   For these reasons this Pontifical Commission cannot encourage you
   to frequent the chapel of the Society of St. Pius X. On the other hand it
   would seem that you are among those who attend Mass in chapels
   of the Society of St. Pius X because of the
   reverence and devotion which they find there, because of their
   attraction to the traditional Latin Mass and not because
   they refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff or reject communion with the
   members of the Church subject to him. At the same time it must be admitted
   that – this is an irregular situation, even if the circumstances which have
   caused it have come about through no fault of your own, and it should be
   remedied as soon as circumstances permit.
   With prayerful best wishes I remain
   Sincerely yours in Christ,
   Msgr. Camille Perl
   Secretary

 

[TrueLight]

Third, SSPX masses have a tendency to draw the sedevaticanists as well. People who will, given the chance, try to convince you that there is no valid pope. These people are not the SSPX, nor particularly welcome in the eyes of the SSPX, but they are often drawn to the SSPX celebration because they accept the '62 missal. (Well, some sedes don’t even accept the '62 changes… I’ve met some who believe Pp. John XXIII was an antipope; I’ve even met one sede who claims the last valid pope was Pope Leo XIII, as Pp. St. Pius X created separate dioceses for the Eastern Catholics in Union in the US…)

Fourth, some SSPX priests preach against the OF and/or the Church. Some of their complaints are grounded in truth, but instructing the faithful to not attend an OF using parish on sunday if they can’t get to an SSPX chapel is encouragement to commit a sin. I’ve not heard an SSPX priest say this, but I’ve heard credible reports of it from individuals I know (and it’s why they quit attending the local SSPX chapel).

So, if you go, you need to ask the following questions:

1. will your attendance cause any scandal?
2. Will your attending encourage the SSPX priest to continue his illicit ministry?
3. Will you be worse for exposure to the other elements of dissent the SSPX masses draw?
   .

These are good points, especially number 3. I think one’s thinking will tend to change over time if one is attending regularly.

Nevertheless, I wish there was one in NYC that I could visit at least once.

 

[ProVobis]

Schism is a mortal sin and no one has any business attending a schismatic Mass. The SSPX is in schism and if they weren’t then the Vatican would not be working on reunion.

Not quite. What they’re working on is a canonical “reunion.” The excommunications of the bishops have been lifted. What they’re trying to prevent is a schism. It’s still an “internal matter” and details have not been revealed to the public. Any such accusations of schism at this point border on slander.

I think the general consensus is that any OF or EF Mass is okay if it’s to your spiritual advantage and not in any danger to your faith or belief in the Church. In fact, there are many who feel it’s okay to go to Protestant events as long as they still fulfill their Sunday obligation at a valid Catholic Mass.

 

[At_Trent]

No, it’s not. The SSPX defied Pope John Paul II and had four bishops consecrated without permission. Catholics are loyal to the Pope, the SSPX is not.

Then you defy the Holy See, which has stated the SSPX Mass is valid.

You also infer the SSPX is not Catholic, therefore you refuse to accept that only Catholics can have excommunications lifted. Again, you are not in communion with Rome on that count.

Therefore, you are just as “schismatic”, and display the same qualities you so passionately despise.

That my friend, is hypocrisy.

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

There is no sin in attending an SSPX Mass or receiving Communion there. It also fulfills your Sunday/Holy Day obligation. You should know the issues before going to confession there though.
Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos (President of PCED at the time):

Catholics who frequent the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X do not incur any sin or canonical delict by doing so.

Msgr. Camille Perl (Secretary of PCED at the time):

… you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

Schism is a mortal sin and no one has any business attending a schismatic Mass. The SSPX is in schism and if they weren’t then the Vatican would not be working on reunion.

PCED has affirmed several times that the SSPX are not in schism.
Card. Castrillon Hoyos:

I reject the term “ecumenism ad intra”. The Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics.

The idea that you aren’t going to go to Mass because it doesn’t fit your liturgical aesthetic taste is very arrogant.

Choosing not to attend the New Mass is not a matter of “liturgical aesthetic taste”. The Liturgy is not about aesthetics.

The liturgy has nothing to do with us and our taste, it’s about God.

Exactly. So why do you try to make it about personal taste?

I love the EF as much as the next liturgy enthusiast, don’t get me wrong, but lately I’ve been getting absolutely sick of the attitudes of EF enthusiasts who will sometimes go as far as to skip Mass (i.e. break the third commandment under a pseudo-intellectual pretense) if there is no EF around.

It is no sin against the Third Commandment if there are physical or moral impediments to assisting at Sunday Mass.

The Mass is the Mass no matter what language, form, or rite it is offered under, and the same victim is immolated on the altar under both forms.

While this is a true statement, it does not address the real issues.

We are only to be hearing Mass said in union with Rome, this is not an option.

SSPX Masses are offered in union with the Holy Father.

 

[SoulSurvivorJMJ]

While it’s not automatically a sin, it’s probably not advisable.

First: the priest is committing grave error by saying the mass. He’s suspended a divinis, by virtue of his membership in the SSPX, so saying the mass with more than just 1 server is in fact a denial of his suspension.

Second: attendance encourages the SSPX in its continued disobedience. One of the common SSPX claims is that they have no shortage of the faithful picking them over the OF. (Even in places where the EF is available licitly from diocesan priests they make this claim.)

Third, SSPX masses have a tendency to draw the sedevaticanists as well. People who will, given the chance, try to convince you that there is no valid pope. These people are not the SSPX, nor particularly welcome in the eyes of the SSPX, but they are often drawn to the SSPX celebration because they accept the '62 missal. (Well, some sedes don’t even accept the '62 changes… I’ve met some who believe Pp. John XXIII was an antipope; I’ve even met one sede who claims the last valid pope was Pope Leo XIII, as Pp. St. Pius X created separate dioceses for the Eastern Catholics in Union in the US…)

Fourth, some SSPX priests preach against the OF and/or the Church. Some of their complaints are grounded in truth, but instructing the faithful to not attend an OF using parish on sunday if they can’t get to an SSPX chapel is encouragement to commit a sin. I’ve not heard an SSPX priest say this, but I’ve heard credible reports of it from individuals I know (and it’s why they quit attending the local SSPX chapel).

So, if you go, you need to ask the following questions:

1. will your attendance cause any scandal?
2. Will your attending encourage the SSPX priest to continue his illicit ministry?
3. Will you be worse for exposure to the other elements of dissent the SSPX masses draw?

All good points. I guess Our Lord wants this to be a penitential time to grow closer to Him. I’ll “offer it up.”

Thanks for the feedback.
If any of these is a yes, then your attending might be a sin.
If you do go and hear any preaching against the church, it’s time to not go back. A priest should never be preaching about the errors of a bishop. He should be quietly reproaching the bishop directly and in private, but publicly supporting the diocese.

 

[VivaCristoRey27]

While it’s not automatically a sin, it’s probably not advisable.

First: the priest is committing grave error by saying the mass. He’s suspended a divinis, by virtue of his membership in the SSPX, so saying the mass with more than just 1 server is in fact a denial of his suspension.

This assumes that the suspensions are valid and applicable (i.e. that there is no crisis).

Additionally, most suspended priests (incl. the SSPX priests) are only forbidden to say public Masses, they can still say private Masses, which is what I think you are trying to get at here except this is not a definition of a private Mass (Mass said with only one server). A private Mass could have a dozen altar servers and hundreds of faithful assisting. It regards public announcement of the Mass. So if it’s not on the sign out front or in a bulletin, it’s a private Mass.

Second: attendance encourages the SSPX in its continued disobedience. One of the common SSPX claims is that they have no shortage of the faithful picking them over the OF.

That would assume one did not support the SSPX. It would indeed be strange for someone opposed to the SSPX to assist at an SSPX Mass.

(Even in places where the EF is available licitly from diocesan priests they make this claim.)

Because that isn’t the only issue.

Third, SSPX masses have a tendency to draw the sedevaticanists as well. People who will, given the chance, try to convince you that there is no valid pope. These people are not the SSPX, nor particularly welcome in the eyes of the SSPX, but they are often drawn to the SSPX celebration because they accept the '62 missal. (Well, some sedes don’t even accept the '62 changes… I’ve met some who believe Pp. John XXIII was an antipope; I’ve even met one sede who claims the last valid pope was Pope Leo XIII, as Pp. St. Pius X created separate dioceses for the Eastern Catholics in Union in the US…)

Almost irrelevent. Most sedes actively oppose the SSPX and the SSPX actively opposes sedevacantism. To a sedevacantist, there isn’t really any difference between a SSPX Mass and an FSSP Mass. Would you also tell someone to avoid assisting at FSSP Masses in case there might be a sedevacantist present?

Fourth, some SSPX priests preach against the OF and/or the Church. Some of their complaints are grounded in truth, but instructing the faithful to not attend an OF using parish on sunday if they can’t get to an SSPX chapel is encouragement to commit a sin. I’ve not heard an SSPX priest say this, but I’ve heard credible reports of it from individuals I know (and it’s why they quit attending the local SSPX chapel).

It is not encouragement to commit a sin if one considers assisting at an NO Mass while being aware of its problems to be sinful (as Abp. Lefebvre taught). It is encouraging one not to sin, to not endanger their faith.

I just have tried to forget that the NO exists, traditionalists don’t really consider it a viable option simply because it may be closer.

If you do go and hear any preaching against the church, it’s time to not go back.

Since it is far more likely for an NO priest to preach against Church teaching than for an SSPX priest to do so, why do you not give the same warning about assisting at an NO Mass?

 

[ConstantineTG]

This assumes that the suspensions are valid and applicable (i.e. that there is no crisis).

They are valid, the Pope says they do not have a ministry in the Church, therefore they don’t. Being the final interpreter of Canon Law, what the Pope says, goes.

Additionally, most suspended priests (incl. the SSPX priests) are only forbidden to say public Masses, they can still say private Masses, which is what I think you are trying to get at here except this is not a definition of a private Mass (Mass said with only one server). A private Mass could have a dozen altar servers and hundreds of faithful assisting. It regards public announcement of the Mass. So if it’s not on the sign out front or in a bulletin, it’s a private Mass.

It is not up to us to engage in verbal gymnastics and try to justify with our own definition of what is a private or public Mass. The authority on Liturgy in a given diocese is the Bishop. If the Bishop says that Mass is public and illicit, then it is.

 

[TemplarJPN]

Not at all. SSPX isn’t schismatic yet. They are working on reunion with Rome. By all means indulge.

Pax Christi

TemplarJPN :knight2: