Can SSPX members receive communion in other Catholic Churches?

[Cider]

Claire, you’re trying to fool us if you don’t think what you just got finished saying doesn’t apply to many many Parishes around the world supposedly in Communion with His Holiness. Google pronouncements made by the president of the German Bishops. Google the Corpus Christi Procession in one of the Dioceses in Germany who had a female protestant minister lead, with the priest, the procession. It’s all quite telling.

No kidding, I’d be thrilled if only the priests and bishops of the Catholic Church would follow the teachings of the Church.

 

[I_Believe]

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 freqent their services are possibly committing an act of schism.

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

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Claire, could you explain how what you are saying makes sense? I’m trying to follow your logic, and am not successful. You’re saying ok to interCommunion with schismatic Churches which absolutely deny the Papacy and declaring it sinful for the lay people of a Society that openly professes loyalty to the Pope who may wish to receive Communion.

How does this make sense?

The members of the Orthodox churches usually have been raised in that Church. They usually aren’t conscious of schism or responsible for it. This is not a sinful state to be in. The Catholic Church recognizes this and will give them the consolation of the sacraments in an emergency situation. Both they and the church recognize that they are in an imperfect union with one another.

You say the SSPX professes loyalty to the papacy. But they have defied the last several popes. It is splitting hairs to say they are loyal to the papacy if they aren’t actually loyal to the pope. Benedict is doing all he can to keep the doors open to them coming back into union. Apparently he is trying to keep this an internal church matter and not put them in the position of openly going into schism.

The OP asked ‘can SSPX members receive communion in other Catholic churches?’ I assume the question doesn’t mean in an emergency situation. It asks if SSPX members (not those who have attended one of their masses once or twice) who reject the disciplines of the church and deliberately follow bishops who have illicitly ordained priests who are illicitly saying mass are free to attend mass and receive communion in a regular Catholic church. I cannot judge the subjective condition of each person’s conscience. But I would say they would be professing a unity that doesn’t exist. Of course, they would still be obligated to attend mass on Sunday.

I also would say that a ‘regular’ Catholic shouldn’t receive communion at a SSPX mass for the same reason.

 

[Walking_Home]

But this would be allowed only in the specific situation in which they have no church of their own which they can attend, they feel an intense need for the sacraments, and they ask the pastor for permission. The Orthodox churches don’t permit their members to receive the Catholic church sacraments.

---

Gee --fancy that. A Church that actually believes in unity of Faith.

 

[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.

Do you realize (of course you do!) that you are saying the SSPX is the Catholic church (without the pope) and the Catholic church (with the pope) is in error. I could agree that there was too much experimentation with the liturgy following Vatican II. But it seems you mean more than that. Do you also disagree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Do you think that John XXIII, Paul VI, JP1, JP2, and Benedict were/are false popes?

 

[n4mgr]

Do you realize (of course you do!) that you are saying the SSPX is the Catholic church (without the pope) and the Catholic church (with the pope) is in error.

If you read the documents of V2, you will find it very hard to find the traditional teachings of the Church due to the severe influence by the modernist who had/have infiltrated the Church. It is possible for some in the Church to teach error without the Church herself teaching error. There are heretical Bishops and clergy out there, but this is not for me to condemn, but the Holy Father to correct. The SSPX is not the Church, but a part just as Christ is the Head, the Society is a part of the body. Pope Benedict XVI is not in error, we/you do not know the goings on at the Vatican and can not say that this situation is or is not being dealt with properly. The Society’s mission is to protect the Faith, this includes the Traditional teachings of the Church because they CAN NOT be changed. The anathemas of Trent still stand, you may want to read them as they can never be removed or changed as they are dogmatic and doctrinal in nature. Vatican 2 was not a council that defined dogma and does not have the same force as those that do. The heretical “Spirit of Vatican 2” has really done a number on the Church and it will take decades to fix what Comrade Bugnini and his evil minions started. Communism, Fremasonry and the like are still condemned by the Church and will continue to be. If you only abide by V2 and not the whole Traditional teachings of the Church, you cease to be Catholic as you can not cut off your head and continue to live.

I could agree that there was too much experimentation with the liturgy following Vatican II. But it seems you mean more than that. Do you also disagree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Do you think that John XXIII, Paul VI, JP1, JP2, and Benedict were/are false popes?

There is no doubt as to the legitimacy of the aforementioned Popes, though the Episcopal consecrations after 1968 are questionable as they stop consecrating Bishops and only ordained.

 

[sparkielee]

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’m very fortunate that the Traditional Mass in my area is done by an FSSP-not an SSPX priest-so I don’t have to make that decision to either go to an SSPX chapel or back to an English or Novus Ordo Mass.

This is the best answer. The odds that someone attending the SSPX having developed a mortal sin of schism and still wanting to attend another Catholic Mass sounds like a contradition that would never happen. All things being equal, this sin should not be presumed just because someone attends the SSPX chapels.

I feel that if the Tridentine Mass said by the non SSPX priest is unavailable but the SSPX Mass is I must not be committing a mortal sin. I’d be doing it because I feel a need for the Traditional Mass not because I “just don’t give a dern”.

I think I’m going to stay in the city I’m in now and try to support the Latin Mass community I’m in now.

I asked our FSSP what the laity can do during the Year of the Priest. He said to pray for him and other priests. We can certainly pray for the seminarians in his community and donate money to help them expand their seminary to accommodate the large number of vocations they attract. And we can always thank God for sending us these priests.

-sparkie:thumbsup:

 

[maurin]

Do you realize (of course you do!) that you are saying the SSPX is the Catholic church (without the pope) and the Catholic church (with the pope) is in error. I could agree that there was too much experimentation with the liturgy following Vatican II. But it seems you mean more than that. Do you also disagree with the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Do you think that John XXIII, Paul VI, JP1, JP2, and Benedict were/are false popes?

Without the Pope? Clearly Claire you are uninformed, yet clearly you don’t mind asserting your poorly formed opinions as if you are informed. And further, it is clear you are not embarrassed to assert such foolishness.

 

[maurin]

The members of the Orthodox churches usually have been raised in that Church. They usually aren’t conscious of schism or responsible for it. This is not a sinful state to be in. The Catholic Church recognizes this and will give them the consolation of the sacraments in an emergency situation. Both they and the church recognize that they are in an imperfect union with one another.

this applies to most protestants. What’s next Claire? Intercommunion with the protestants?

You say the SSPX professes loyalty to the papacy. But they have defied the last several popes. It is splitting hairs to say they are loyal to the papacy if they aren’t actually loyal to the pope. Benedict is doing all he can to keep the doors open to them coming back into union. Apparently he is trying to keep this an internal church matter and not put them in the position of openly going into schism.

Actually, Claire, they have defied only JPII by Consecrating Bishops. However Claire it was the Bishops of Canada who (as Bob Crawley reminds us) supposedly in Communion with His Holiness, Paul VI, who openly dissented–and openly defied Paul VI-- from Humane Vitae. It was the Bishops of the United States who openly defied Paul VI–and allowed Communion in the hand. That’s the law now. Are you seriously talking “defiance” and think we can take you seriously?

The OP asked ‘can SSPX members receive communion in other Catholic churches?’ I assume the question doesn’t mean in an emergency situation. It asks if SSPX members (not those who have attended one of their masses once or twice) who reject the disciplines of the church and deliberately follow bishops who have illicitly ordained priests who are illicitly saying mass are free to attend mass and receive communion in a regular Catholic church. I cannot judge the subjective condition of each person’s conscience. But I would say they would be professing a unity that doesn’t exist. Of course, they would still be obligated to attend mass on Sunday.

I also would say that a ‘regular’ Catholic shouldn’t receive communion at a SSPX mass for the same reason.

Thank God you don’t feel able to judge the subjective condition of others’ consciences, Claire, although it is surprising because you certainly feel able to judge so many other things you clearly exhibit that you certainly don’t understand.

 

[James_Miller]

What could AFAIK possible mean?

 

[maurin]

“as far as I know.”

 

[giuseppeTO]

The members of the Orthodox churches usually have been raised in that Church. They usually aren’t conscious of schism or responsible for it. This is not a sinful state to be in. The Catholic Church recognizes this and will give them the consolation of the sacraments in an emergency situation. Both they and the church recognize that they are in an imperfect union with one another.

You say the SSPX professes loyalty to the papacy. But they have defied the last several popes. It is splitting hairs to say they are loyal to the papacy if they aren’t actually loyal to the pope. Benedict is doing all he can to keep the doors open to them coming back into union. Apparently he is trying to keep this an internal church matter and not put them in the position of openly going into schism.

The OP asked ‘can SSPX members receive communion in other Catholic churches?’ I assume the question doesn’t mean in an emergency situation. It asks if SSPX members (not those who have attended one of their masses once or twice) who reject the disciplines of the church and deliberately follow bishops who have illicitly ordained priests who are illicitly saying mass are free to attend mass and receive communion in a regular Catholic church. I cannot judge the subjective condition of each person’s conscience. But I would say they would be professing a unity that doesn’t exist. Of course, they would still be obligated to attend mass on Sunday.

I also would say that a ‘regular’ Catholic shouldn’t receive communion at a SSPX mass for the same reason.

Claire,

It is amazing how you can get wrapped around the axle and turn a VERY simple question about the condition one must be in to receive the Blessed Sacrament, into a discussion of the licitity of a Mass offered by an SSPX priest.

This very simple question has a very simple answer, answered in the first couple of postings. No laity who has attended an SSPX Mass nor SSPX priest has ever been excommunicated - only the Consecrating Bishops. But these facts are irrelevant to the question, the answer to which is that any Catholic may receive the Blessed Sacrament if their soul is in the state of Sanctifying Grace. Period. And you cannot personally make that determination, nor speculate on the state of one’s soul based on where they went to Mass last week.

 

[rpp]

this applies to most protestants. What’s next Claire? Intercommunion with the protestants?

That is not correct. The Orthodox Churches in the East we founded by Apostles and, therefore, have preserved Apostolic Succession. Not only that, but their doctrine and teachings are, with a few exceptions, nearly identical with Catholic teachings and like the Catholic Church, those teachings have not changed. As such, the Orthodox Churches can rightly be called “Churches”. The Protestant groups that began tearing themselves away from the Catholic Church during the Protestant revolt do not have apostolic succession and have radically different and heretical teachings in many core areas. Because of this, they cannot right be called “Churches” but rather “faith communities”.

Additionally, in both of these non-Catholic groups, the individuals who grew up in them or came into them without knowledge of the Catholic Church cannot be said to be in schism or rebellion with the Church because they are ignorant and not responsible for the separation.

This was clarified by the Cardinal William Levada of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in July of 2007. Here is the link. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html#_ftnref20

Actually, Claire, they have defied only JPII by Consecrating Bishops. However Claire it was the Bishops of Canada who (as Bob Crawley reminds us) supposedly in Communion with His Holiness, Paul VI, who openly dissented–and openly defied Paul VI-- from Humane Vitae. It was the Bishops of the United States who openly defied Paul VI–and allowed Communion in the hand. That’s the law now. Are you seriously talking “defiance” and think we can take you seriously?

This is also not accurate. Last month several priests were ordained in Germany against the express wishes of the Holy See.

I am sure these were honest mistakes and I hope you can appreciate that this is nothing other than well-meaning and well intended correction.

 

[maurin]

That is not correct.

what isn’t correct? that most Orthodox were born and raised in their Tradition, and that they are not responsible for the schism, or even aware of it? That’s what I was responding to in Claire’s post. I agree I could have made that clearer.

The Orthodox Churches in the East we founded by Apostles and, therefore, have preserved Apostolic Succession.

Have I made a statement to the contrary?

Not only that, but their doctrine and teachings are, with a few exceptions, nearly identical with Catholic teachings and like the Catholic Church, those teachings have not changed.

the context of Claire’s post revolves around obedience to the Papacy. My responses all included that, so what’s *your * point, rpp?

As such, the Orthodox Churches can rightly be called “Churches”.

I have only referred to them as Churches. Are you implying that I haven’t?

The Protestant groups that began tearing themselves away from the Catholic Church during the Protestant revolt do not have apostolic succession and have radically different and heretical teachings in many core areas. Because of this, they cannot right be called “Churches” but rather “faith communities”.

thank you for the lesson…Summorum Pontificum already explained that for us.

Additionally, in both of these non-Catholic groups, the individuals who grew up in them or came into them without knowledge of the Catholic Church cannot be said to be in schism or rebellion with the Church because they are ignorant and not responsible for the separation.

This was clarified by the Cardinal William Levada of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in July of 2007. Here is the link. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html#_ftnref20

Yeah, we know. We got all this from SP, but again, thank you for the repeat presentation.

This is also not accurate. Last month several priests were ordained in Germany against the express wishes of the Holy See.

Business as usual, rpp. Where did the Pope say, “do not go ahead with the Ordinations?” Please provide us with the link. Otherwise the Ordinations went ahead with the same caveats as the last 20 years of Ordinations. The only difference is that the Bishops ordaining are no longer excommunicated.

I am sure these were honest mistakes and I hope you can appreciate that this is nothing other than well-meaning and well intended correction.

the misunderstandings were yours. I admit, I could have been clearer.

I do want to remind you, though, rpp, because you addressed everything from my post except for this following, that CITH was taught against by Paul VI, and then made into law when Bishops did it anyway here in the US.

 

[rpp]

what isn’t correct? that most Orthodox were born and raised in their Tradition, and that they are not responsible for the schism, or even aware of it? That’s what I was responding to in Claire’s post. I agree I could have made that clearer. Have I made a statement to the contrary? the context of Claire’s post revolves around obedience to the Papacy. My responses all included that, so what’s *your * point, rpp? I have only referred to them as Churches. Are you implying that I haven’t? thank you for the lesson…Summorum Pontificum already explained that for us.

Yeah, we know. We got all this from SP, but again, thank you for the repeat presentation.

When you suggested that Clare was promoting intercommunion with Protestants, it appeared you were equating Protestants with Orthodox Churches. I was merely pointing out that it is not correct to do that.

Business as usual, rpp. Where did the Pope say, “do not go ahead with the Ordinations?” Please provide us with the link. Otherwise the Ordinations went ahead with the same caveats as the last 20 years of Ordinations. The only difference is that the Bishops ordaining are no longer excommunicated.

Here is a link to a discussion on this forum about this. Apparently you missed it as I did not see that you made any posts. There are some links to news article regarding the matter on that thread as well. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=348623

More news from a reliable Catholic news organizations.
catholicreview.org/subpages/storyworldnew-new.aspx?action=6335
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=3245&repos=4&subrepos=2&searchid=487861

the misunderstandings were yours. I admit, I could have been clearer.

Again, not entirely correct, my friend.

I do want to remind you, though, rpp, because you addressed everything from my post except for this following, that CITH was taught against by Paul VI, and then made into law when Bishops did it anyway here in the US.

CITH? Communion in the Hand? Yes, that is a problematic issue. Certainly one which demonstrated a resistance of some bishops to remain obedient to Rome. I suppose (speculation on my part) that Pope John Paul II only permitted that practice to avoid scandal.

The same is probably true about JPII approving female alter servers. Both practices should be repudiated, but for me, it is a tiring subject.

I suspect you and I fall on the same side on those issues. I have only received in the hand two or three times since my confirmation, and then only when I was ill. Now that I understand things a little better, I receive on the tongue even when I am ill. I am also very peased to attend a parish where the pastor does not permit female alter servers, lectors or ushers and we receive kneeling a rail.

 

[maurin]

When you suggested that Clare was promoting intercommunion with Protestants, it appeared you were equating Protestants with Orthodox Churches. I was merely pointing out that it is not correct to do that.

And all I did was point out that both groups deny the Papacy. Or do you advocate glossing over that little item? (smilie added to let you know I’m not trying to be snarky…)

Here is a link to a discussion on this forum about this. Apparently you missed it as I did not see that you made any posts. There are some links to news article regarding the matter on that thread as well. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=348623

More news from a reliable Catholic news organizations.
catholicreview.org/subpages/storyworldnew-new.aspx?action=6335
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=3245&repos=4&subrepos=2&searchid=487861

nope you misunderstand again. please provide a link where the Pope says “cease and desist from Ordaining Priests.” If you can’t provide that, my comment stands, rpp. Nothing of the situation of the SSPX has changed since 1988 except for 2 things: the excommunications have been lifted from the Bishops by a Pope who is willing to listen.

Again, not entirely correct, my friend.

The door swings on its hinges…

CITH? Communion in the Hand? Yes, that is a problematic issue. Certainly one which demonstrated a resistance of some bishops to remain obedient to Rome. I suppose (speculation on my part) that Pope John Paul II only permitted that practice to avoid scandal.

The same is probably true about JPII approving female alter servers. Both practices should be repudiated, but for me, it is a tiring subject.

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.

I suspect you and I fall on the same side on those issues. I have only received in the hand two or three times since my confirmation, and then only when I was ill. Now that I understand things a little better, I receive on the tongue even when I am ill. I am also very peased to attend a parish where the pastor does not permit female alter servers, lectors or ushers and we receive kneeling a rail.

any lectors at all, or just female lectors?

if the former, that’s a huge step in the right direction. If the latter, how many women in congregation feel degraded, ignored and/or inferior? (sincere question. I’m willing to bet they don’t feel any of those things, as their grand mothers, great grandmothers, great-great grandmothers, etc. before them didn’t).

and reception on the tongue at the rail? is this a NO Mass? if so, let your Pastor know he is appreciated. if not, and you assist at the Holy Traditional Mass, let your Pastor know he is appreciated!

 

[RosaryCrusader]

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 freqent their services are possibly committing an act of schism.

This holds equally true (if not more) for the novus ordo as the risk of ‘schismatic’ attitude is far greater there than anywhere else.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I’m very fortunate that the Traditional Mass in my area is done by an FSSP-not an SSPX priest-so I don’t have to make that decision to either go to an SSPX chapel or back to an English or Novus Ordo Mass.

God bless the FSSP, loyal to the magisterium and not divisive.

I feel that if the Tridentine Mass said by the non SSPX priest is unavailable but the SSPX Mass is I must not be committing a mortal sin. I’d be doing it because I feel a need for the Traditional Mass not because I “just don’t give a dern”.

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.

I think I’m going to stay in the city I’m in now and try to support the Latin Mass community I’m in now.

I asked our FSSP what the laity can do during the Year of the Priest. He said to pray for him and other priests. We can certainly pray for the seminarians in his community and donate money to help them expand their seminary to accommodate the large number of vocations they attract. And we can always thank God for sending us these priests.

-sparkie:thumbsup:

 

[rpp]

And all I did was point out that both groups deny the Papacy. Or do you advocate glossing over that little item? (smilie added to let you know I’m not trying to be snarky…)

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.

nope you misunderstand again. please provide a link where the Pope says “cease and desist from Ordaining Priests.” If you can’t provide that, my comment stands, rpp. Nothing of the situation of the SSPX has changed since 1988 except for 2 things: the excommunications have been lifted from the Bishops by a Pope who is willing to listen.

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.

The door swings on its hinges…

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.

any lectors at all, or just female lectors?

if the former, that’s a huge step in the right direction. If the latter, how many women in congregation feel degraded, ignored and/or inferior? (sincere question. I’m willing to bet they don’t feel any of those things, as their grand mothers, great grandmothers, great-great grandmothers, etc. before them didn’t).

and reception on the tongue at the rail? is this a NO Mass? if so, let your Pastor know he is appreciated. if not, and you assist at the Holy Traditional Mass, let your Pastor know he is appreciated!

The parish is also a Dominican priory. Most Masses are OF but on certain special occasions, such as the feasts of St. Dominic, St. Francis, Corpus Christie, Our Lady of the Rosary, they will celebrate a Dominican Rite (very similar to the EF) Mass.

For NO Masses there are male lectors. Ladies and girls are not permitted to be ushers or alter servers. I think the only women who might feel “oppressed” in that parish would probably not hang around long enough to learn that policy. You see, none of the priests there take any liberties at all with the liturgy and in many of the Masses, all the responses are in Latin so that drives away some and attracts others. I have never seen a parish, except the local SSPX chapel where I went until I learned of the canonical difficulties, have I seen so many women with headcoverings of some sort, usually a mantilla. In the last two years, the Parish has had two of her sons ordained priests, one a Dominican, the other FSSP. I believe there are 6 to 10 men, members of the parish, in seminary somewhere. The parish has about 1500 families I believe.

http://bestsmileys.com/oneofakind/12.gif

This is how I feel when I travel and attend Mass at a parish where they forget that Mass is not intended to entertain.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

I’m very fortunate that the Traditional Mass in my area is done by an FSSP-not an SSPX priest-so I don’t have to make that decision to either go to an SSPX chapel or back to an English or Novus Ordo Mass.

God bless the FSSP, loyal to the magisterium and not divisive.

I feel that if the Tridentine Mass said by the non SSPX priest is unavailable but the SSPX Mass is I must not be committing a mortal sin. I’d be doing it because I feel a need for the Traditional Mass not because I “just don’t give a dern”.

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.

I think I’m going to stay in the city I’m in now and try to support the Latin Mass community I’m in now.

I asked our FSSP what the laity can do during the Year of the Priest. He said to pray for him and other priests. We can certainly pray for the seminarians in his community and donate money to help them expand their seminary to accommodate the large number of vocations they attract. And we can always thank God for sending us these priests.

-sparkie:thumbsup: