Clear Info Needed!

[Brendan]

Which is exactly why I wonder

Nowadays Catholics who want to have the Roman Rite Mass celebrated in the Extraordinary Form can gather in a stable community (no minimum number of faithful mentioned in the Summorum Pontificum) and ask the Pastor, if not, the Bishop…and if the Bishop does not want to, the Holy See ."

Part of the issue there is that a priest cannot be compelled to celebrate the Mass in the Extraordinary Form, and the Bishop may certainly invite one of the Orders of priests whose charism it is to celebrate Mass in this Form, but there is no guarantee that they can comply.

At least, here in Detroit, I know of close to a dozen diocesan priests ( and even two of our former auxillary bishops) who have taken it upon themselves to learn and offer the Mass in the Extraordinary Form.

 

[triumphguy]

Or, as Cardinal Hoyos noted, you can go, but it is not recommended, and in determining the as you put it, a Prefect of the appropriate Congregation (King of Diamonds) or a the Commission that exists to examine the SSPX (Queen of Hearts) trumps a Jack of Clubs local Orindary (Jack of Clubs) .

(and Pope Benedict has said nothing to the contrary,)

I wouldn’t rely on that since it is a 9 years old statement. And circumstances have changed. And the local Bishop may not approve, and he is the chief liturgist in his diocese.

So OP: If you want to know categorically phone your Chancery and do not rely on what you hear here.

Also you may want to consider this as you are dialing the number:

1. The Masses they celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called “Tridentine” Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

1. While it is true that the participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute “formal adherence to the schism”, such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a mentality which separates itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. (Msgr. Camille Perl PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO ECCLESIA DEI N. 117/95 )

 

[triumphguy]

And here is a very clear article by Father Edward McNamara (dated 2011-06-21), professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university citing all the relevent documents and private correspondance.

MASS WITH THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X .zenit.org/article-32905?l=english

His bottom line based on all the relevent documents::

I would say, therefore, that a conscientious Catholic should not knowingly attend a Mass celebrated by a priest not in good standing with the Church. Doing so deprives participation at Mass of that fullness of communion with Christ and his Church which the Mass, by its very nature and in all its forms, is called to express.
Therefore, the first thing to do would be to investigate the availability of Mass (in the ordinary or extraordinary form) in another locale during your visit. If it is not available, then you could attend any Eastern Catholic celebration.
Only if there is objectively no alternative should one attend the Mass celebrated by a priest from the Society of St. Pius X. If one has to do so, then I would say that one may go in good conscience.

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

Thanks so much for all the help!!

Could somebody please also answer these questions:

(1) Are SSPX members Catholic? Are they Roman Catholic?

(2) Does SSPX accept the authority of the Pope?

I guess that’s the main thing. If they don’t accept the authority of the Pope - I certainly ain’t having anything to do with them!

 

[Dolezal]

And here is a very clear article by Father Edward McNamara (dated 2011-06-21), professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university citing all the relevent documents and private correspondance.

MASS WITH THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X .zenit.org/article-32905?l=english

His bottom line based on all the relevent documents::

I would say, therefore, that a conscientious Catholic should not knowingly attend a Mass celebrated by a priest not in good standing with the Church. Doing so deprives participation at Mass of that fullness of communion with Christ and his Church which the Mass, by its very nature and in all its forms, is called to express.
Therefore, the first thing to do would be to investigate the availability of Mass (in the ordinary or extraordinary form) in another locale during your visit. If it is not available, then you could attend any Eastern Catholic celebration.
Only if there is objectively no alternative should one attend the Mass celebrated by a priest from the Society of St. Pius X. If one has to do so, then I would say that one may go in good conscience.

Yes, this is exactly how it is. I am a supporter of the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but we are not allowed to go to a Mass of the Society of St. Pius X if there are alternatives, including the ordinary form.

Every Catholic should know the extraordinary form! If you are lucky the Fraternity of Saint Peter or your diocese offers it. If the extraordinary form is not offered in your region or diocese, petition your pastor. Your pastor is required to offer the extraordinary form if there is sufficient interest from a stable group of parishioners. If this fails, petition your diocesan bishop. And if this also fails, the matter should referred to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. As long as there is stable group of parishioners that is attached the extraordinary form, it is their right, according Summorum Pontificum, to have the extraordinary form available to them.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

There is a lovely long thread in the Traditional area about this also.

The answer has been given here though - if you have other alternatives, don’t go. It isn’t even worth going just out of curiosity in my opinion. I know a few folks who’ve gone as a sort of ‘field trip’, but Ijust don’t get why.

If the root of all this is tradition, it isn’t very traditional at all to deliberately disobey the Pope either with the first action of ordaining FOUR bishops or with the continued action of illicitly saying Mass each week (let alone other sacraments).

I have also recently learned of the unorthodox way they have structured the organization which seems to be more in order to create a romantic, sentimental view of ‘traditional’ ways, than to in fact actually practice things as they traditionally were.

Anyway, it seems to me that time is better spent attending Mass offered by a priest in communion with the local bishop and praying for the reconcilliation of the SSPX priests.

 

[Brendan]

And here is a very clear article by Father Edward McNamara (dated 2011-06-21), professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university citing all the relevent documents and private correspondance.

MASS WITH THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X .zenit.org/article-32905?l=english

His bottom line based on all the relevent documents::

I would agree with that.

Now note one thing. When it is not possible to attend a Catholic Mass to fulfill ones obligation, the obligation is removed ( really technically there is no obligation at all to attend Mass when it it not possible to do so)

But look at what is being said here. If a Catholic Mass of any form is available, including the Ordinary Form or an Eastern Rite, one shouild attend. But if there is not and an SSPX Mass is available, one should attend an SSPX Mass. A Catholic Mass is available, and thus the obligation exists and must be fulfilled.

Which answers the OP’s question, attendance at an SSPX Mass fulfills the obligation

 

[R_C]

(1) Are SSPX members Catholic? Are they Roman Catholic?

(2) Does SSPX accept the authority of the Pope?

1. yes (I don’t get the difference But yes, as far as I know, Catholic in the Latin sui iuris church)
2. July 2012:

Chapter members formally affirmed their faith in the Roman Catholic Church and its hierarchical structure in which “the supreme power of government over the universal Church belongs only to the Pope, vicar of Christ on earth.”

Fr Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, said the Vatican did not consider the statement to be “a formal response” by the SSPX …] “The Holy See has taken note of this declaration, but awaits the forthcoming official communication” of the society as its “dialogue with the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’ continues,” he said.

So it seems they acknowledge the authority of the Pope, but at this point are not yet subject to his authority.

 

[runningdude]

I don’t think so. Could you provide an authoritative (Vatican) source for this?

No authoritative source exists, nor should it. The church does not dictate the minutiae of our spiritual lives.

This is simply the prevailing the opinion expressed by the CAF staff apologist on the subject.

 

[triumphguy]

I would agree with that.

Now note one thing. When it is not possible to attend a Catholic Mass to fulfill ones obligation, the obligation is removed ( really technically there is no obligation at all to attend Mass when it it not possible to do so)

But look at what is being said here. If a Catholic Mass of any form is available, including the Ordinary Form or an Eastern Rite, one shouild attend. But if there is not and an SSPX Mass is available, one should attend an SSPX Mass. A Catholic Mass is available, and thus the obligation exists and must be fulfilled.

Which answers the OP’s question, attendance at an SSPX Mass fulfills the obligation

ONLY in circumstances of dire need.

Where a valid mass of a Church in Communion with Rome is available, then, no.

 

[Tigg]

Thanks so much for all the help!!

Could somebody please also answer these questions:

(1) Are SSPX members Catholic? Are they Roman Catholic?

(2) Does SSPX accept the authority of the Pope?

I guess that’s the main thing. If they don’t accept the authority of the Pope - I certainly ain’t having anything to do with them!

I understand this sentiment but we must never forget that often times they are portrayed as being wholly disobedient and prideful **and that is not our judgment call to make. ** I see many of them as having been on the point of a precipice and deciding according to their conscience and out of love for the CHURCH to “disobey” if you will. We cannot know all the historical precedents they are considering nor their love for the purity of the faith. They consider that they are the defenders of Truth and with good and sincere hearts, they too, seek to serve Christ and spread the Kingdom. Have no doubt that it is our Holy Father’s intention that the Mystical Body of Christ be extended to them, if possible. We need them during this current time of heresy in the Church, and I for one, pray that we will see unity.

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

I understand this sentiment but we must never forget that often times they are portrayed as being wholly disobedient and prideful **and that is not our judgment call to make. ** I see many of them as having been on the point of a precipice and deciding according to their conscience and out of love for the CHURCH to “disobey” if you will. We cannot know all the historical precedents they are considering nor their love for the purity of the faith. They consider that they are the defenders of Truth and with good and sincere hearts, they too, seek to serve Christ and spread the Kingdom. Have no doubt that it is our Holy Father’s intention that the Mystical Body of Christ be extended to them, if possible. We need them during this current time of heresy in the Church, and I for one, pray that we will see unity.

Yes, all this is precisely why I used this smiley = .

 

[Tigg]

Yes, all this is precisely why I used this smiley = .

Nothing personal… but I took a peek at the other thread on this subject. I found such rash judgment, maybe I should have posted to that one.

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

Nothing personal… but I took a peek at the other thread on this subject. I found such rash judgment, maybe I should have posted to that one.

Totally understand

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I understand this sentiment but we must never forget that often times they are portrayed as being wholly disobedient and prideful **and that is not our judgment call to make. ** I see many of them as having been on the point of a precipice and deciding according to their conscience and out of love for the CHURCH to “disobey” if you will. We cannot know all the historical precedents they are considering nor their love for the purity of the faith. They consider that they are the defenders of Truth and with good and sincere hearts, they too, seek to serve Christ and spread the Kingdom. Have no doubt that it is our Holy Father’s intention that the Mystical Body of Christ be extended to them, if possible. We need them during this current time of heresy in the Church, and I for one, pray that we will see unity.

I pray for their reconcilliation because it is to the benefit of their own souls to be fully reconcilled with the Church of Peter.

God will use whatever tools he wants, but do not think that 500 some odd men who have been formed outside full communion with the Church are the one thing we need to be saved from ‘heresy’. There are many, many people - clergy, religious, and lay - who are in full communion and who work every day to build up the Church.

 

[Tigg]

I pray for their reconcilliation because it is to the benefit of their own souls to be fully reconcilled with the Church of Peter.

God will use whatever tools he wants, but do not think that 500 some odd men who have been formed outside full communion with the Church are the one thing we need to be saved from ‘heresy’. There are many, many people - clergy, religious, and lay - who are in full communion and who work every day to build up the Church.

On the contrary, I believe their full and sincere mission to be the preservation of the faith. Period. We need them and they need to be united with Rome…and just a small reality check here: reading the daily Catholic news, I find large numbers of disobedient priests and religious opposed to fundamental catholic teaching…

 

[ClemtheCatholic]

Okay, I have a few more questions!

(1) Would it be accurate to say this?: The chap who formed SSPX was a senior clergyman who wanted a society to keep to more traditional ideals and forms. All went well until SSPX invalidly ordain 4 people (was it making priests Bishops?). This meant that the leader of SSPX was excommunicated. Sorry it sounds so stupid… but I hope the basic facts are correct

(2) So, was the head (name?) of SSPX excommunicated? Was he the only one? Did this mean that other SSPX members were expected to discontinue being part of the society? Did the excommunication affect all the SSPX priests, sacraments, etc.? And, most importantly, is the excommunication still in place?

I’m sorry to keep bugging you all other this!