Can SSPX members receive communion in other Catholic Churches?

[maurin]

Of course! I was intentionally ignoring that relatively minor detail. After all, it is about the only thing those two groups have in common, that and breathing.

It was not the Pope, it was the local bishop, with the support of the Vatican. Anyway, I myself do not think it is that important of an event. I honestly do not know why the Vatican would care.

http://bestsmileys.com/darwin/1.gif
Doctor it hurts when I do that!

yes, minor little problems…disobedient Bishops, the Pope caving in to their disobedience and enshrining that disobedience into normalized practice. I agree–it’s happened so often, it is tiring.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

You’ve got that backwards, Claire. The SSPX passes on what Catholics have always received prior to the Council–authentic Catholic Teaching. If the SSPX is wrong now, the Church was wrong then. If the Church was right then, these teachings are right now. It is not the SSPX who has changed the teachings.

So, according to you, the Church changed the teachings?

This thread** Can someone help me with these seeming contradictions?** does a good job of explaining how it can be a false perception that some teachings have been changed. Some of the previous declarations were in direct response to a particular historical situation or threat to the faith. At the time the statement or anathema was made, it was obvious what it referred to. Reading the statement itself without the historical reference gives a false impression of what it means.

I trust the pope and the bishops in union with him to teach me today. Since the bishops of the SSPX aren’t yet back in union with the pope I don’t trust them to teach me. The bishop of my diocese is in union with the pope.

 

[rpp]

So, according to you, the Church changed the teachings?

This thread** Can someone help me with these seeming contradictions?** does a good job of explaining how it can be a false perception that some teachings have been changed. Some of the previous declarations were in direct response to a particular historical situation or threat to the faith. At the time the statement or anathema was made, it was obvious what it referred to. Reading the statement itself without the historical reference gives a false impression of what it means.

I trust the pope and the bishops in union with him to teach me today. Since the bishops of the SSPX aren’t yet back in union with the pope I don’t trust them to teach me. The bishop of my diocese is in union with the pope.

The Church has not changes. The SSPX focuses on more traditional expressions of faith and rejects the abuses introduced after V-II and using V-II as an excuse. There is some debate within the SSPX as to whether V-II was a valid council. The SSPX leans towards the position that V-II was not a valid ecumenical council for a variety of reasons too many to go into here.

The priests in the SSPX have not been completely rehabilitated by the Holy See and are still suspended. Their Mass and other sacraments are valid, but not licit. There have been some letters from Vatican officials that clearly state that SSPX is NOT in schism, but that the relationship with the Holy See is, for the time being, irregular. The faithful are permitted to meet their Sunday Obligations at an SSPX Mass, but they are reminded not to adopt a schismatic mindset that some of the more extreme members of SSPX may project. The faithful are encouraged to attend Mass at a regular parish (one in full communion with Rome) if one is available.

Thus attending an SSPX Mass does not constitute either a schismatic or sinful act. The lay faithful who regularly attend SSPX Masses are under the same restrictions for receiving Holy Communion when they attend another parish (for instance, when traveling) as any other Catholic.

 

[maurin]

The Church has not changes. The SSPX focuses on more traditional expressions of faith and rejects the abuses introduced after V-II and using V-II as an excuse. There is some debate within the SSPX as to whether V-II was a valid council. The SSPX leans towards the position that V-II was not a valid ecumenical council for a variety of reasons too many to go into here.

somebody needs to tell the SSPX Priests, then. All I have heard from Sermons is there is no question that the Council was valid, and that all of the Teachings, save a couple, can be interpreted in the light of 2 millenia of Tradition. Hence "the upcoming ‘talks’ "

If you don’t know what the Society’s positions are, it would be better not to pretend that you do.

You are misrepresenting the Society’s pov, rpp.

The priests in the SSPX have not been completely rehabilitated by the Holy See and are still suspended. Their Mass and other sacraments are valid, but not licit. There have been some letters from Vatican officials that clearly state that SSPX is NOT in schism, but that the relationship with the Holy See is, for the time being, irregular.

This is all accurate.

The faithful are permitted to meet their Sunday Obligations at an SSPX Mass, but they are reminded not to adopt a schismatic mindset that some of the more extreme members of SSPX may project.

this is true also. There’re a couple of the older Parishioners at the Chapel I go to that fit that bill.

The faithful are encouraged to attend Mass at a regular parish (one in full communion with Rome) if one is available.

for too many of us a “regular parish” which “fits” the description you put forward doesn’t exist.

Thus attending an SSPX Mass does not constitute either a schismatic or sinful act. The lay faithful who regularly attend SSPX Masses are under the same restrictions for receiving Holy Communion when they attend another parish (for instance, when traveling) as any other Catholic.

 

[maurin]

So, according to you, the Church changed the teachings?

.

No, according to the Church, it is the Church who changed some of the Teachings, Claire.
I guess the changed subsisted in the old?

 

[Claire_from_DE]

rpp;5423614:

now, rpp, let us not now forget the context of Claire’s curious posts which was the catalyst of our little conversation (which I am enjoying–your sincerity comes through, and it is appreciated!): Claire advocates in at least two posts interCommunion with members of schismatic Churches. (No, I didn’t ‘advocate’ intercommunion with schismatic churches, I merely noted that the Catholic church permits it in certain limited

circumstances.)

I asked, “what’s next, intercommunion with Protestants?” (Of course not. That would be dangerous to their souls because of not recognizing it’s really the body of Christ and not being in communion with the Church.)

The Society declares filial loyalty to the Pope, (and yet they still resist him)but according to Claire are schismatic,(I am not the poster who said that) and it is sinful(I didn’t say that) for a lay follower of the Society to receive Communion if they do so desire in a NO Parish, without having first Confessed the SSPX Masses they have assisted at.(they could only do that if they were conscious of, and repentant for, deliberately attending a mass celebrated by someone who the pope said could not licitly administer the sacraments)

She then curiously advocates that under certain conditions it is lawful for a member of a schismatic Orthodox Church who denies the Papacy to receive Communion in the same NO (or EF) Parish(Yes, this is what the Catholic church says may be done in extremely unusual circumstances, not I.), without any need for Confession. ( I don’t know what would be done about confession. Obviously, if they are conscious of being in mortal sin, confession would be necessary.)

maurin,

Are you deliberately mis-quoting me or do you just not get it? Anyone following this thread can see what I’ve said.

To respond to the OP, SSPX ‘members’ can receive communion in other Catholic churches. I question whether they should. They may if they aren’t conscious of grave sin. To receive a definitive response, the OP should ask the Experts. I would be interested to see what they say.

Claire

 

[maurin]

yes Claire, anyone CAN scroll back and see what you said. But for convenience I posted it below, and highlighted the pertinent passages:

I don’t know the pope’s position on this.

**But if he has said that the SSPX priests’ masses are not licit, the laity who persist in attending them knowing they aren’t licit show an attitude of '" just don’t give a dern what the pope says, he is wrong, I will do it anyway!". Is this attitude toward the pope’s lawful authority sinful? Should it be confessed before receiving communion in a church in union with the pope?

If they do receive communion in a Catholic church which is in union with the pope, wouldn’t that indicate a unity which they don’t have**?

 

[maurin]

Claire,

You stated that I misrepresented you by not fully quoting you, but you did that inside of a quote, so I couldn’t reproduce that here. You are correct. In that particular quote, I was guilty of “selectively quoting” you. I apologize and hope that you noticed I corrected that in a subsequent post before you raised your objection. see below:

She then curiously advocates that under certain conditions it is lawful for a member of a schismatic Orthodox Church who denies the Papacy to receive Communion in the same NO Parish, without any need for Confession.

 

[sparkielee]

Or simply practicing Catholicism. Trads tend to do that you know. They do crazy stuff like celebrate Ascension Thursday on… Ascension Thursday

That’s the day to celebrate Ascension Thursday is Ascension Thursday. Who has heard of Ascension Sunday? I’ve thumbed through the 1962 daily Missal I got from Angelus Press, which is SSPX, and found out that Corpus Christi was observed on a weekday (I think it’s Friday)-not Sunday. Now I want to celebrate it on the weekday itself.

I really appreciate our Latin Mass priest driving many miles to our parish so that we could have a Traditional Mass for Ascension Thursday and Ash Wednesday.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

The Church has not changes. The SSPX focuses on more traditional expressions of faith and rejects the abuses introduced after V-II and using V-II as an excuse. There is some debate within the SSPX as to whether V-II was a valid council. The SSPX leans towards the position that V-II was not a valid ecumenical council for a variety of reasons too many to go into here.

The priests in the SSPX have not been completely rehabilitated by the Holy See and are still suspended. Their Mass and other sacraments are valid, but not licit. There have been some letters from Vatican officials that clearly state that SSPX is NOT in schism, but that the relationship with the Holy See is, for the time being, irregular. ** The faithful are permitted to meet their Sunday Obligations at an SSPX Mass, but they are reminded not to adopt a schismatic mindset that some of the more extreme members of SSPX may project.** The faithful are encouraged to attend Mass at a regular parish (one in full communion with Rome) if one is available.

Thus attending an SSPX Mass does not constitute either a schismatic or sinful act. The lay faithful who regularly attend SSPX Masses are under the same restrictions for receiving Holy Communion when they attend another parish (for instance, when traveling) as any other Catholic.

rrp,

Thanks so much for posting this, especially the part I have bolded. Rome has spoken; that settles the question for me.

Claire

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Claire,

You stated that I misrepresented you by not fully quoting you, but you did that inside of a quote, so I couldn’t reproduce that here. You are correct. In that particular quote, I was guilty of “selectively quoting” you. I apologize and hope that you noticed I corrected that in a subsequent post before you raised your objection. see below:

				Originally Posted by **maurin** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5423718#post5423718) 				
			*

She then curiously advocates that under certain conditions it is lawful for a member of a schismatic Orthodox Church who denies the Papacy to receive Communion in the same NO Parish, without any need for Confession.
*

Well, the Catechism says it is lawful, but not in mortal sin! I knew that in high school, before Vatican II, before the current catechism too. It was probably something I read in SIGN magazine, a very orthodox and well written magazine which I regret is no longer published.

To reproduce a quote, highlight it, go up to ‘edit’ and copy, go to your post, go up to ‘edit’ and paste.

 

[maurin]

Originally Posted by maurin forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*

She then curiously advocates that under certain conditions* it is lawful for a member of a schismatic Orthodox Church who denies the Papacy to receive Communion in the same NO Parish, without any need for Confession.

Well, the Catechism says it is lawful, but not in mortal sin! I knew that in high school, before Vatican II, before the current catechism too. It was probably something I read in SIGN magazine, a very orthodox and well written magazine which I regret is no longer published. you still miss the point, Claire. but, as the door turns on its hinges, and the lazy man in his bed…

To reproduce a quote, highlight it, go up to ‘edit’ and copy, go to your post, go up to ‘edit’ and paste.

waaaaaaay too much work.

 

[sparkielee]

The Church has not changes. The SSPX focuses on more traditional expressions of faith and rejects the abuses introduced after V-II and using V-II as an excuse. There is some debate within the SSPX as to whether V-II was a valid council. The SSPX leans towards the position that V-II was not a valid ecumenical council for a variety of reasons too many to go into here.

The priests in the SSPX have not been completely rehabilitated by the Holy See and are still suspended. Their Mass and other sacraments are valid, but not licit. There have been some letters from Vatican officials that clearly state that SSPX is NOT in schism, but that the relationship with the Holy See is, for the time being, irregular. The faithful are permitted to meet their Sunday Obligations at an SSPX Mass, but they are reminded not to adopt a schismatic mindset that some of the more extreme members of SSPX may project. The faithful are encouraged to attend Mass at a regular parish (one in full communion with Rome) if one is available.

(Italics and underlining in this last sentence mine.)

Thus attending an SSPX Mass does not constitute either a schismatic or sinful act. The lay faithful who regularly attend SSPX Masses are under the same restrictions for receiving Holy Communion when they attend another parish (for instance, when traveling) as any other Catholic.

I have overheard one of the men who attends our Latin Mass say that in order to have a schism that the group that broke off from the church would have to have its own diocese set up. I haven’t heard of the SSPX running a diocese but I don’t know everything about them.

I hope the SSPX members do become "completely rehabilitated and can again be in full communion with the church, even if their beliefs are closer to mine than those of a lot of “cafeteria” & liberal Catholics I know.

Claire from DE:
I didn’t say or mean that attending the SSPX mass is in itself a mortal sin or any kind of sin. I would be happy to attend the SSPX mass except the pope has said those masses are said by illicitly ordained priests. This is a valid mass but it is said illicitly and I don’t want to associate myself with a group that does this when there is a licit mass available even if is the OF. Where I live there is a TLM available within a 45 minute drive and many more if I drive an additional hour. Also the OF mass in my parish is reverent and said according to the GIRM. So, for myself, there would be no excuse to attend the SSPX mass.

If I still had my car and weren’t so close to an FSSP Mass on Sundays, I’d be willing to drive an extra few miles to get to such a Mass.

But transportation can sometimes be a challenge for me even if the FSSP Mass is just 2-3 miles from here. It is quite early in the morning-7:45 and sometimes the weather is nasty-especially in the winter. Unless you have a car load of people riding to Mass with you, maybe you ought to invite a Roman Catholic who likes the TLM but has no wheels to go to Mass with you.

I’ll be happy to have more FSSP priests ordained and other Roman Catholic priests trained to do the Tridentine Mass. That may make it easier for many people to attend a Traditional Mass that’s not SSPX.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

yes Claire, anyone CAN scroll back and see what you said. But for convenience I posted it below, and highlighted the pertinent passages:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire from DE forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*I don’t know the pope’s position on this.

**But if he has said that the SSPX priests’ masses are not licit, the laity who persist in attending them knowing they aren’t licit show an attitude of '" just don’t give a dern what the pope says, he is wrong, I will do it anyway!". Is this attitude toward the pope’s lawful authority sinful? Should it be confessed before receiving communion in a church in union with the pope?

If they do receive communion in a Catholic church which is in union with the pope, wouldn’t that indicate a unity which they don’t have**?

I said I didn’t know the pope’s position. Now that rrp has posted that it is permitted to attend SSPX masses, my speculations are irrelevant. But they were logical given the information I had. And I phrased them in the form of a question because I don’t know how sinful such attitudes might be for the people involved. It appears that it is the clerics that are under censure for breaking unity, not the laity, who are reminded not to adopt a schismatic mindset.
*

 

[n4mgr]

On the other hand, the Pope himself said for the second time this year that the clergy of SSPX do NOT minister licitly as Catholic clergy.

Those faithful who frequent their services are possibly committing an act of schism.

The Holy Father did not say this and I don’t think it is any more schismatic than a Latin rite Priest in communion with Rome to experiment with the Mass. Are those who frequent these experimentalist parishes also schismatic due to the illicit and possible invalid Mass, err Mess that goes on. There are several things from what I understand required for a Sacrament to be valid, one of these is intent. If the Priest doesn’t have the right intention then is it not a fact that those parishioners did not fulfill there Sunday obligation. Also, all the Bishops are not in union with Rome, especially here in the US. Those Bishops who condone abortion, refuse to discipline Notre Dame for the Obama debacle and other schismatic acts have separated themselves from the Holy Father as well as the Church. You can’t pick and choose what you want to believe, teach or preach and still truly remain Catholic. It is either all or none and I know that will offend a lot of people, but you’ll have to take it up with the Church as that isn’t my department.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I have overheard one of the men who attends our Latin Mass say that in order to have a schism that the group that broke off from the church would have to have its own diocese set up. I haven’t heard of the SSPX running a diocese but I don’t know everything about them.

I hope the SSPX members do become "completely rehabilitated and can again be in full communion with the church, even if their beliefs are closer to mine than those of a lot of “cafeteria” & liberal Catholics I know.

If I still had my car and weren’t so close to an FSSP Mass on Sundays, I’d be willing to drive an extra few miles to get to such a Mass.

But transportation can sometimes be a challenge for me even if the FSSP Mass is just 2-3 miles from here. It is quite early in the morning-7:45 and sometimes the weather is nasty-especially in the winter. Unless you have a car load of people riding to Mass with you, maybe you ought to invite a Roman Catholic who likes the TLM but has no wheels to go to Mass with you.

I’ll be happy to have more FSSP priests ordained and other Roman Catholic priests trained to do the Tridentine Mass. That may make it easier for many people to attend a Traditional Mass that’s not SSPX.

I don’t live in town; I’d have to go a ways to find someone to ride with me. Since the masses are in regular Catholic churches, I don’t even know if the celebrants are members of a society or are diocesan priests. I usually prefer just to go to mass in my OF parish where I’m a member of the RCIA team. (and we demonstrate how to receive communion both ways and stress that it is always permitted to receive on the tongue) My pastor has been very orthodox but we just got a new pastor this week so we will see what we will see.

 

[maurin]

I said I didn’t know the pope’s position. I know, I included in the quote.

Now that rrp has posted that it is permitted to attend SSPX masses, my speculations are irrelevant. But they were logical given the information I had. And I phrased them in the form of a question because I don’t

that’s funny… it seems like you’re either assuming the rest of us liars, since we’ve been posting what the Pope says for a looooooooong time now, or you’ve never participated in another thread on this forum before, which I suppose is possible. But thank goodness you believe rpp.

It doesn’t fail to amaze me that people would post information, and insist on it, when they, as you have admitted, didn’t have all the facts. I’ve made some doosies myself. But I have always admitted it and taken responsibility for it. And apologized to those I offended. I’m just saying…

 

[rpp]

somebody needs to tell the SSPX Priests, then. All I have heard from Sermons is there is no question that the Council was valid, and that all of the Teachings, save a couple, can be interpreted in the light of 2 millenia of Tradition. Hence "the upcoming ‘talks’ "

If you don’t know what the Society’s positions are, it would be better not to pretend that you do.

You are misrepresenting the Society’s pov, rpp.

Ah, you are correct. I went back and looked up a Catholic World News article where I had gotten this information and I misunderstood it. Thank you for the correction. For the record, Marcel LeFebvre DID accept that Vatican II was a valid eccumenical council (he signed the documents as well). My mistake and I apologize for it.

I should add that I have great deal of respect for SSPX and I pray for the day when the relationship with the Holy See has been completely healed.

This is all accurate. this is true also. There’re a couple of the older Parishioners at the Chapel I go to that fit that bill. for too many of us a “regular parish” which “fits” the description you put forward doesn’t exist.

I do realize that I am fortunate, especially here in the Pacific Northwest. Sometimes an SSPX chapel is the only way to get away the guitar Masses with middle-aged ladies in purple spandex pant-suits, hair shorter than a US Marine’s and Obama bumper stickers on their cars passing out Holy Communion like they were tossing candy from a float in a parade.

I will add that I was quite surprised on a recent trip to New York that several parishes right there in Manhattan appear to be very careful about proper catechesis and following the norms of the liturgy. I was quite impressed with the Church of Our Savior and St. Agnes Church, both near Grand Central Station in Manhatten. Oh my the beauty of the nave and sanctuary is almost heart-breaking. And both have regularly scheduled OF and EF Masses.

 

[maurin]

Ah, you are correct. I went back and looked up a Catholic World News article where I had gotten this information and I misunderstood it. Thank you for the correction. For the record, Marcel LeFebvre DID accept that Vatican II was a valid eccumenical council (he signed the documents as well). My mistake and I apologize for it.

thanks, rpp. you have no idea how much I appreciate your honesty!!!

I should add that I have great deal of respect for SSPX and I pray for the day when the relationship with the Holy See has been completely healed.

we pray hard for a proper end to the problems.

 

[sparkielee]

I don’t live in town; I’d have to go a ways to find someone to ride with me. Since the masses are in regular Catholic churches, I don’t even know if the celebrants are members of a society or are diocesan priests. I usually prefer just to go to mass in my OF parish where I’m a member of the RCIA team. (and we demonstrate how to receive communion both ways and stress that it is always permitted to receive on the tongue) My pastor has been very orthodox but we just got a new pastor this week so we will see what we will see.

I’m glad that your RCIA demonstrates both ways of receiving communion. I hope things work out ok with your new pastor and that he’d be open to tradition, not just the newer ways.

I was just as unaware of your situation as you were of mine. Unless you have someone living with or near you who wants to go (also not in town) or a guest staying with you I can see where it could be difficult to give someone a ride.

After I started going to the Latin Mass the choir director for the English Mass told my friends from that Mass that she’d like me to sing in the choir again. They told her I now go to the Latin Mass so I called her and said I’d like to sing for her. So I sang in the English choir for Holy Thursday and a priest’s 25th anniversary, so I sometimes go back to the English Mass for occasions like that.

-sparkie:thumbsup: