How serious is attending an "illicit" Mass to you?

[Timothysis]

In regards to another thread, the question came to me about attending illicit celebrations of the Mass, the most obvious being attending sspx chapels, but there are also others to whom the same label can be applied. Now, knowing that “illict” means “not allowed,” or even “illegal” under Canon law, how serious is it to attend such celebrations, and as good Catholics, should we ever expose ourselves to something that Holy Mother Church does not allow and even declares to be “illegal.” We are all bound by Canon law, so would knowingly attending an illicit celebration of the Mass be a sin? If so, then how serious of a sin is it? And if you do choose to attend, knowing the legal status of the Mass, how do you justify it?

And please, don’t try to rationalize liturgical abuses being illicit in the OF making it ok to attend, like was attempted elsewhere.

Thanks

 

[BrendanD]

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has already said that it is not a sin to attend the SSPX for the sake of devotion to the traditional Mass. That’s about as official as you can get.

And please, don’t try to rationalize liturgical abuses being illicit in the OF making it ok to attend, like was attempted elsewhere.

Are you saying that it’s a sin to attend the SSPX’s illicit Masses, but it’s not a sin to attend illicit diocesan Masses? I don’t see how you can have it both ways.

 

[btdn]

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has already said that it is not a sin to attend the SSPX for the sake of devotion to the traditional Mass. That’s about as official as you can get.

Are you saying that it’s a sin to attend the SSPX’s illicit Masses, but it’s not a sin to attend illicit diocesan Masses? I don’t see how you can have it both ways.

I think he is saying that, for this discussion, we are going to ignore the SSPX altogether.

 

[Timothysis]

Are you saying that it’s a sin to attend the SSPX’s illicit Masses, but it’s not a sin to attend illicit diocesan Masses? I don’t see how you can have it both ways.

sigh…since the priests and the leadership of the sspx are suspended, then, according to Canon law, their celebrations of the sacraments are “illicit,” or “illegal, not allowed.” I don’t know what you mean by “illicit diocesan Masses.” If the local bishop is in full communion with Rome and has no restrictions against him, then there is no question about the diocesan Masses being licit. An abuse in a Mass, though illicit, does not render the Mass itself illicit. Your example of sspx Masses is not a valid one to the question at hand; is it a sin to knowingly attend an illicit Mass, and, if so, how serious?

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has already said that it is not a sin to attend the SSPX for the sake of devotion to the traditional Mass. That’s about as official as you can get.

Pope John Paul II exhorted the faithful to not support the schismatic acts of the society (he did not say that the society itself is schismatic). So the finality of your above quote is in question. Can the Pope be trumped by a commission?

In any event, I don’t want this to turn into yet another sspx argument.

 

[Timothysis]

I think he is saying that, for this discussion, we are going to ignore the SSPX altogether.

I wish that were possible!

 

[BrendanD]

I don’t see any contradiction between the JPII quote and the Ecclesia Dei one. JPII strongly discouraged going to the SSPX, and so does Ecclesia Dei. ED simply said that it is not a sin to go, even though they don’t encourage it.

Anyway, I guess the general answer is that, no, I don’t think it’s always a sin to go to an illicit Mass. Maybe someone knows where exactly in Canon Law we can find more info on this.

 

[palmas85]

In regards to another thread, the question came to me about attending illicit celebrations of the Mass, the most obvious being attending sspx chapels, but there are also others to whom the same label can be applied. Now, knowing that “illict” means “not allowed,” or even “illegal” under Canon law, how serious is it to attend such celebrations, and as good Catholics, should we ever expose ourselves to something that Holy Mother Church does not allow and even declares to be “illegal.” We are all bound by Canon law, so would knowingly attending an illicit celebration of the Mass be a sin? If so, then how serious of a sin is it? And if you do choose to attend, knowing the legal status of the Mass, how do you justify it?

And please, don’t try to rationalize liturgical abuses being illicit in the OF making it ok to attend, like was attempted elsewhere.

Thanks

Well if it was illegal to attend them as you claim then such attendance would be prohibited don’t you think?. Being discouraged is not the same as being prohibited no matter how you twist it.

 

[Timothysis]

Well if it was illegal to attend them as you claim then such attendance would be prohibited don’t you think?. Being discouraged is not the same as being prohibited no matter how you twist it.

How am I twisting anything? If something is illicit, and certainly celebrations by suspended priests are, then do we have a duty, as supposed good Catholics, to avoid those Masses that the Church has said to be illicit?

And it isn’t my claim that they are illegal; it is based on Canon law.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the [Catholic] Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid
(canon 844 §2).

1. It is a true spiritual advantage for Traditionalist Catholics to attend the TLM
2. It is morally impossible for many Traditionalists to attend NO in light of all-too common abuses

 

[RonBlizz]

How am I twisting anything? If something is illicit, and certainly celebrations by suspended priests are, then do we have a duty, as supposed good Catholics, to avoid those Masses that the Church has said to be illicit?

And it isn’t my claim that they are illegal; it is based on Canon law.

But the Masses celebrated by the SSPX are not deemed illicit by the Church as the priests and laymen are not in schism.

~~
LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY
Under signature of Edward I. Cardinal Cassidy, President (May 3,1994)

    "The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is
    an internal matter of the Catholic Church.  The Society
    is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the
    meaning used in the Directory.  Of course, the Mass
    and Sacraments administered by the priests of the
    Society are valid.  The bishops are validly ... consecrated."

~~
traditio.com/tradlib/faq04.txt

May God be with you,
RonBlizz

 

[BrendanD]

But the Masses celebrated by the SSPX are not deemed illicit by the Church as the priests and laymen are not in schism.

Rome’s position is that SSPX Masses are illicit because the priests’ faculties are suspended, even though they aren’t schismatic.

 

[palmas85]

Rome’s position is that SSPX Masses are illicit because the priests’ faculties are suspended, even though they aren’t schismatic.

Does Rome prohibit the faithful from attending them yes or no?

 

[palmas85]

How am I twisting anything? If something is illicit, and certainly celebrations by suspended priests are, then do we have a duty, as supposed good Catholics, to avoid those Masses that the Church has said to be illicit?

And it isn’t my claim that they are illegal; it is based on Canon law.

Again does Rome prohibit the faithful from attending these Masses, yes or no?

 

[JuanCarlos]

Again does Rome prohibit the faithful from attending these Masses, yes or no?

No. One can attend an SSPX Mass without “incur[ing] any sin,” however it is not recommended.

 

[palmas85]

No. One can attend an SSPX Mass without “incur[ing] any sin,” however it is not recommended.

Yeah, I know. I’m really asking to see what some of the more vociferous SSPX bashers have to say on this.

 

[bilop]

I would make every effort to avoid masses I knew to be illicit, whether due to faculties being suspended (SSPX) or a priest or parish that I knew practices liturgical abuses.

The only case I see for attending SSPX masses is if ALL reasonably available parishes that are in good standing (whether they should be is another issue) preach heresy (e.g. support ordaining women, condone homsexual sex, abortion or birth control, etc.) or practice severe abuses (e.g. mishandling of the Sacred Body or Precious Blood, refusing to refer to God in the masculine, changing the Eucharistic prayer, etc.).

God Bless

 

[Timothysis]

But the Masses celebrated by the SSPX are not deemed illicit by the Church as the priests and laymen are not in schism.

This is patently untrue. It has been said many times that the Masses celebrated by the sspx are valid but ILLICIT. How serious is it to knowingly attend an illicit Mass???

~~
LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY
Under signature of Edward I. Cardinal Cassidy, President (May 3,1994)

    "The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is
    an internal matter of the Catholic Church.  The Society
    is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the
    meaning used in the Directory.  Of course, the Mass
    and Sacraments administered by the priests of the
    Society are valid.  The bishops are validly ... consecrated."

~~
traditio.com/tradlib/faq04.txt

May God be with you,
RonBlizz

I already knew that society priests, bishops and their Masses are validly consecrated. This quote (which is 14 years old) does not mention that their clergy are SUSPENDED of their faculties and that their Masses, therefore, are illicit. Once again, the question at hand is, how serious is it to attend an illicit Mass?!?!?

 

[palmas85]

This is patently untrue. It has been said many times that the Masses celebrated by the sspx are valid but ILLICIT. How serious is it to knowingly attend an illicit Mass???

I already knew that society priests, bishops and their Masses are validly consecrated. This quote (which is 14 years old) does not mention that their clergy are SUSPENDED of their faculties and that their Masses, therefore, are illicit. Once again, the question at hand is, how serious is it to attend an illicit Mass?!?!?

Hi Tim:wave: . So does Rome prohibit attendance at these Masses?

 

[Timothysis]

Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the [Catholic] Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid
(canon 844 §2).

Unless you are implying that the priests of the sspx are not Catholic, I do not think that this canon is applicable.

1. It is morally impossible for many Traditionalists to attend NO in light of all-too common abuses

But it’s not an abuse to attend Masses by clergy who have been suspended of their faculties and celebrate illegal Masses? This smacks heavily of rationalization.

 

[Timothysis]

Hi Tim:wave: . So does Rome prohibit attendance at these Masses?

I will let Pope John Paul II speak to this matter from the Apostolic letter Ecclesia Dei:

" In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act."

“In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”

So, did Rome distinctly say “don’t go to sspx Masses?” The message “ceasing their support in any way for that movement” seems to say so.

My question is, how do people justify going to knowingly illict Masses when even the Holy Father exhorts them to cease their support for those who validly but illicitly celebrate Mass?