C
- Status
C
commenter
Guest
Questions like this should be asked of your pastor.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
No.
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…
taken together with this:
In order to make this clear once again…the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
–HH Pope Benedict w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
“do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church” is the exact opposite of a “Catholic minister.”
So, the answer is “no.”
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I can see how that can certainly pertain to the Eucharist. Though I think we can disagree about if someone could for love of the ef and not contributing to defiance could receive.
Since the situation is fluid do are the answers. For instance they technically DO have a ministry in the church with the sacrament of confession.
Plus there is at least one instance in Italy where they are granted permission to celebrate the EF at the request of the Catholic Church.
Personally if I was at the funeral I probably would receive.
However if one has not been accustomed to reception in the EF there may be some awkward confusion…
What a quandary, could one receive and then confess receiving to the very priest who just distributed?
C
commenter
Guest
Prudence is our most forgotten virtue. When you go an SSPX service, you reinforce with the priest that he is right to continue defying the Church. Regardless of your own motivation, you influence others, who may have different motivations, to go there.
Pope Francis did not grant SSPX priests a *new *ministry in the Church. Addressing laity, he said, in effect, if they already confessed sins to that priest, they (the sins) are forgiven. That priest always had the potential to forgive sins in event of emergency anyway. This is an extension of that.
There are many people now who have grown up in SSPX, who really have not known anything else. They are not defying the Catholic Church, anymore than Lutherans are today. It would not occur to them to ask the question, that the O. P. did. Those who are unaware of the imprudence of an action are not held accountable. Others are.
I cringe when I see the words “since the situation is fluid…” How many other places have you seen that wording, followed by something about contraception, celibacy, etc. etc.? Is there a slipperyer slope anywhere?
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Except in this case the situation is fluid. In others it is not.
Do I think attendance at the SSPX regularly is a good idea? No. But here there will be a funeral. The op will be in attendance and Jesus will be on the altar.
There really is no comparison to other situations. The op could in good conscience choose either option. Though, I’ll tell you the weight of the father on this thread should carry the most influence. I may see it differently but my respect for father David would outweigh my own personal take on the subject.
If it was me, I probably wouldn’t have asked the question, but if I did and someone as trusted as Fr David said no, I’d probably obey him as a spiritual director. Especially if I were a newer Catholic. This is a complicated matter.
C
commenter
Guest
Every year, there are a few SSPX clergy who “swim the Tiber”, get reinstated in full unity with their diocese and/or a religious community in union with Rome. That means they probably were considering such a move for a few years leading up to that. It also means there may be other priests considering this move, but did not do so - at least not this year. Good Priestly decisions are sometimes postponed if the seats are filled today. Even occasional attenders fill seats, and help postpone good priestly decisions.
Yes, Jesus is on the altar. But Jesus would also be on the altar at that new ****FSSP ****parish they can’t open up yet, without more priests.
Prudence.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
No.
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…
F
FrDavid96
Guest
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…[except for certain danger of death situations]
There’s nothing fluid about what the OP is asking.
Which still does not change this
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…
There really is no comparison to other situations. The op could in good conscience choose either option.
Not when canon law says this
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…
Though, I’ll tell you the weight of the father on this thread should carry the most influence. I may see it differently but my respect for father David would outweigh my own personal take on the subject.
It’s not about me. It’s about what the Church says, especially in canon law.
Thank you for posting that, but again, it’s not about what I write here. It’s about what the Church teaches us and about the law of the Church.
Yes and no. The situation of the SSPX is a complicated matter. The question of a Catholic receiving Communion there is not. The law could not be more clear.
Again, I’ll quote Pope Benedict
How is that not clear?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Seriously think about that for a moment. Really.
When we attend funerals, traditionally we “offer our own Communion” for the sake of the departed soul. Right?
Now, there’s no single way of doing this or expressing it, however, one fairly typical way is that people offer a quick prayer (before Mass, during Mass, it doesn’t matter) that goes something like this “I offer this Communion for the repose of the soul of so-and-so.”
Think about that act of receiving Communion. Think about what’s being done.
When combine the actions with the description of what’s happening, we get this:
“I offer this act of defiance against the Catholic Church for the soul of…”
or maybe
“I offer this act of disobedience to canon law for the soul of…”
You see what I mean?
Even if the consecration is valid (and there’s no reasonable doubt on that) it doesn’t change the fact that the act itself is one that objectively and very specifically defies the law of the Catholic Church.
C
camkutz
Guest
Thank you all for your responses, I’ll take a spiritual communion at the requiem mass. I usually go to a diocesan EF mass funnily enough it’s celebrated by an ex-SSPX priest who now also says the new mass
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
That sounds like a good plan.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Oh I get what you mean. It’s why I don’t attend the SSPX. But it’s a fine line to think that way. If I equated defiance of the authority of Rome willful or not, with receiving, well I wouldn’t be able to receive much at all. Pray for those of us who struggle. Pray for those of us who are hungry and longing. I’ve lived in many places. I’ve seen the good and the bad. Some of us are in the desert.
It would be unhealthy for me to equate the licitness of the sacrament with the reception.
- Status