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

[palmas85]

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?

And my question is ** DOES ROME PROHIBIT ATTENDANCE AT THESE MASSES?**

Nothing in what you have posted here says that attending their Masses is prohibited. It says here that supporting and adherance to schism is a grave offense against God. Does the mere attendance at a Mass provide evidence of a formal adherance to schism?

 

[Timothysis]

And my question is ** DOES ROME PROHIBIT ATTENDANCE AT THESE MASSES?**

Nothing in what you have posted here says that attending their Masses is prohibited. It says here that supporting and adherance to schism is a grave offense against God. Does the mere attendance at a Mass provide evidence of a formal adherance to schism?

Sheesh…Pope John Paul II said that we have “a grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church.”

*Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Further, Pope John Paul II said we have a duty “of ceasing their support in any way for that movement.”

*Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

We also know that the clergy of the sspx are suspended of their priestly faculties.

*Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Further, we know that priests who celebrate Mass with suspended faculties are celebrating an illicit Mass.

*Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Finally, we know that an illicit Mass is defined by Canon law ( you know, that little thing that all Catholics are bound to?) as being something that is “illegal,” and “not allowed.”

The question at hand is, should good Catholics participate in a celebration that they know is “illegal” and “not allowed”???

In regard to your insistent question of "DOES ROME PROHIBIT ATTENDANCE AT THESE MASSES? " then my answer would be that since Canon law does not allow these celebrations by suspended priests, and have deemed these celebrations as “illicit,” “illegal” and “not allowed,” and even the Pope has exhorted the faithful to not lend support to the movement that celebrates these illicit Masses, then, IN MY OPINION, knowingly attending such celebrations is prohibited by the laws of the Church.

As an example, one cannot commit murder and claim that they’re not prohibited from committing such an act since they were “never prohibited from doing so.” In my opinion, to attend celebrations that are not in full communion with the Church tends to implie a discord or separation from the rightful authorities in charge.

 

[BrendanD]

In regard to your insistent question of "DOES ROME PROHIBIT ATTENDANCE AT THESE MASSES? " then my answer would be that since Canon law does not allow these celebrations by suspended priests, and have deemed these celebrations as “illicit,” “illegal” and “not allowed,” and even the Pope has exhorted the faithful to not lend support to the movement that celebrates these illicit Masses, then, IN MY OPINION, knowingly attending such celebrations is prohibited by the laws of the Church.

So you claim the authority to interpret Canon Law for yourself, even though your interpretation disagrees with the Church? Some would say that’s very SSPX-like.

Please point out any law that prohibits Catholics from attending n illicit Mass, or explain why the official statement of a Pontifical Commission is wrong. I think you’d already made your mind up about this regardless of the discussion

 

[palmas85]

Sheesh…Pope John Paul II said that we have “a grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church.”

*Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Further, Pope John Paul II said we have a duty “of ceasing their support in any way for that movement.”

*Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

We also know that the clergy of the sspx are suspended of their priestly faculties.

*Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Further, we know that priests who celebrate Mass with suspended faculties are celebrating an illicit Mass.

*Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Finally, we know that an illicit Mass is defined by Canon law ( you know, that little thing that all Catholics are bound to?) as being something that is “illegal,” and “not allowed.”

The question at hand is, should good Catholics participate in a celebration that they know is “illegal” and “not allowed”???

In regard to your insistent question of "DOES ROME PROHIBIT ATTENDANCE AT THESE MASSES? " then my answer would be that since Canon law does not allow these celebrations by suspended priests, and have deemed these celebrations as “illicit,” “illegal” and “not allowed,” and even the Pope has exhorted the faithful to not lend support to the movement that celebrates these illicit Masses, then, IN MY OPINION, knowingly attending such celebrations is prohibited by the laws of the Church.

**As an example, one cannot commit murder and claim that they’re not prohibited from committing such an act since they were “never prohibited from doing so.” **In my opinion, to attend celebrations that are not in full communion with the Church tends to implie a discord or separation from the rightful authorities in charge.

Then I reccomend that you speak with Cardinal de Hoyos and the Ecclesi Dei Commission and straighten them out. They would seem to disagree with you.

If the faithful are in fact prohibited from attending as you state in your opinion they are, then why does the Church allow you to satisfy your Sunday obligation at these Masses in certain circumstances?

No matter how much you loathe and despise the SSPX you cannot change what the Church says in this area.

How about a Mass where the prayers of the consecration are offered to the mother/father God?
How about a Mass where the sacred elements are replaced with corn tortillas?
How about a mass where the entire thing is ad-libbed?
How about a Mass where the Priest and a protestant minister con celebrate and commune each other?
How about a Mass where all are encouraged to receive Holy Communion regardless of religion or anything else?

Would those Masses be considered illicit in your view? If so, then illict masses occur every day attended by many people.

If not, why not?

As to your tirade about murder, well as far as I know there are prohibitions against murder my friend as well as many other things including many things in the Church. If there aren’t then I arrested a lot of people over the years for nothing.

There is no prohibition against attending these Masses however. The Church doesn’t want you to and if you do they don’t want to attend regularly but they have never said that you cannot attend.

Even the late Holy Father didn’t go that far.

 

[Timothysis]

It is apparent that a serious discussion about the matter of attending illicit Masses is impossible. I did not want to turn this into another sspx debate but it seems that those, who insist that there are so many “sspx haters” here, are the very same ones who go two steps over the mark in rationalizing there own actions when it comes to matters which they don’t agree.

The constant references to abuses in the Ordinary Form is used as a way of validating attending illicit celebrations, but any honest person will tell you that pointing out bad behavior in another does not make your own bad behavior acceptable; it simply means that you both have something to answer for.

As for the legitimacy of attending sspx Masses, the Church, in her generosity, has said that it is ok to attend these Masses out of love for the traditional rite but NOT out of support for the society. A warning was also made that frequent attendance at sspx chapels can create a sympathetic attitude for the “schismatic acts” (to quote Pope John Paul II) of the society over time, and that that can become a dangerous situation.

Consider this by CAF’s own Michelle Arnold:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=85351

I would like to draw your attention to this quote:

“In theory, if there were no other place in your area where you could go for Mass, an SSPX Mass could satisfy the Sunday obligation. Even then, though, when such circumstances as being in a place without a valid, licit Catholic Mass exist, the Sunday obligation is dispensed and so there is no need to try to fulfill the obligation at an SSPX Mass. In your case, you do have access to the valid, licit Masses offered by your diocese, so there is absolutely no reason you should be attending an SSPX chapel for daily or Sunday Mass.”

There is no prohibition against attending these Masses however. The Church doesn’t want you to and if you do they don’t want to attend regularly but they have never said that you cannot attend.

If a Mass is branded illicit, then there is an understood prohibition against attending. When something is said to be “sinful,” it isn’t necessary to tell someone not to do it; it is enough to say “it’s wrong.”

Suppose the following: A Catholic priest finds himself dissatisfied with his position in the Church. As a result, he leaves and joins the local episcopal church. As a priest, he has been suspended of his faculties but he still has the authority to celebrate the sacraments. Let us further suppose that in his sermons he toes the Catholic line and speaks nothing but praise for the Church but finds that he feels out of place in it. In his episcopal services, he prays the Eucharistic prayers which are very similar to the Catholic prayers, and using the proper words, consecrates the Eucharist. His celebration of the Eucharist is valid, for once a priest, always a priest, though highly and gravely illicit. Would you suggest that it would be appropriate to attend and receive at his services? Canon law does say that, under certain situations, we may receive from "non-Catholic ministers. But is there a prohibition from attending Masses by Catholic priests who have left the Church but still celebrate valid but illicit Masses?

As you can see, we can spend all day twisting the words of this Pope or that Cardinal in order to support our argument. I think the proper line is, though, to follow the law of the Church. If a celebration is “unlawful,” then that should be enough for a good Catholic to seek celebrations that are licit and in full communion with the Church and with Rome. As of yet, there has not been an official pronouncement from the Holy See regarding the state of the sspx being in official schism or not. It may be that there never is one and so things will continue as they are. But I would like to draw your attention to the following regarding Cardinal Hoyo’s personal opinion about the state of the sspx; when Pope Paul VI convened a commission to study the acceptance of artificial birth control, there were many on the commission, including priests, bishops and theologians, who said that birth control was morally justified. What Pope Paul VI gave them in response was the great encyclical Humanae Vitae which crushed their personal opinions. My point is, Cardinal Hoyo’s opinion is just one out of many, and unless he is the Pope, it can be squashed just like the priests, bishops and theologians who disagreed with Pope Paul VI.

 

[Timothysis]

As to your tirade about murder, well as far as I know there are prohibitions against murder my friend as well as many other things including many things in the Church. If there aren’t then I arrested a lot of people over the years for nothing.

Tirade? What tirade? Why the anger?

There is no prohibition against attending these Masses however.

False. If the Mass is illicit, then it it against the law of the Church.

The Church doesn’t want you to and if you do they don’t want to attend regularly but they have never said that you cannot attend.

So the Church doesn’t want you to, but its ok to do it anyway? That’s a curious form of discipline, especially coming from the Church.

 

[BrendanD]

I did not want to turn this into another sspx debate but it seems that those, who insist that there are so many “sspx haters” here, are the very same ones who go two steps over the mark in rationalizing there own actions when it comes to matters which they don’t agree.

You started this thread talking about the SSPX. Don’t write a post about the SSPX and then complain when the responses are about the SSPX.

Clearly, there are a lot of SSPX-haters here, as they feel the need to lie and disobey the Church to attack the SSPX.

As for the legitimacy of attending sspx Masses, the Church, in her generosity, has said that it is ok to attend these Masses out of love for the traditional rite but NOT out of support for the society.

That’s exactly what the rest of us have been saying over and over again. You, on the other hand, have been claiming that it is a sin to attend the SSPX.

Consider this by CAF’s own Michelle Arnold:

Michelle Arnold is mistaken on this. How is it that you give a Catholic Answers apologist more authority than a Pontifical Commission It sounds like “anyone who disagrees with me should shut up because they aren’t the Pope, but if they agree with me, they can talk.”

If a Mass is branded illicit, then there is an understood prohibition against attending.

According to what? Please show us where the Church prohibits attending an illicit Mass.

When something is said to be “sinful,” it isn’t necessary to tell someone not to do it; it is enough to say “it’s wrong.”

Again, the Church says that it’s not sinful to attend the SSPX for devotion to the traditional Mass.

As you can see, we can spend all day twisting the words of this Pope or that Cardinal in order to support our argument. I think the proper line is, though, to follow the law of the Church.

Please don’t try to paint it as if palamas85 and I are twisting words and not following the Church. It is you who rejects the Ecclesia Dei commission’s findings in favor of your own opinion.

My point is, Cardinal Hoyo’s opinion is just one out of many, and unless he is the Pope, it can be squashed just like the priests, bishops and theologians who disagreed with Pope Paul VI.

There’s no similarity at all. First of all, we’re not talking about a doctrinal matter. Secondly, we’re not talking about Cardinal Hoyos’ private opinion. We’re talking about the official position of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which has the authority given to it by the Church. It’s not a Catholic belief that we can ignore all Church leaders except the Pope whenever we feel like it.

 

[palmas85]

It is apparent that a serious discussion about the matter of attending illicit Masses is impossible. I did not want to turn this into another sspx debate but it seems that those, who insist that there are so many “sspx haters” here, are the very same ones who go two steps over the mark in rationalizing there own actions when it comes to matters which they don’t agree.

The constant references to abuses in the Ordinary Form is used as a way of validating attending illicit celebrations, but any honest person will tell you that pointing out bad behavior in another does not make your own bad behavior acceptable; it simply means that you both have something to answer for.

As for the legitimacy of attending sspx Masses, the Church, in her generosity, has said that it is ok to attend these Masses out of love for the traditional rite but NOT out of support for the society. A warning was also made that frequent attendance at sspx chapels can create a sympathetic attitude for the “schismatic acts” (to quote Pope John Paul II) of the society over time, and that that can become a dangerous situation.

If a Mass is branded illicit, then there is an understood prohibition against attending. When something is said to be “sinful,” it isn’t necessary to tell someone not to do it; it is enough to say “it’s wrong.”

Suppose the following: A Catholic priest finds himself dissatisfied with his position in the Church. As a result, he leaves and joins the local episcopal church. As a priest, he has been suspended of his faculties but he still has the authority to celebrate the sacraments. Let us further suppose that in his sermons he toes the Catholic line and speaks nothing but praise for the Church but finds that he feels out of place in it. In his episcopal services, he prays the Eucharistic prayers which are very similar to the Catholic prayers, and using the proper words, consecrates the Eucharist. His celebration of the Eucharist is valid, for once a priest, always a priest, though highly and gravely illicit. Would you suggest that it would be appropriate to attend and receive at his services? Canon law does say that, under certain situations, we may receive from "non-Catholic ministers. But is there a prohibition from attending Masses by Catholic priests who have left the Church but still celebrate valid but illicit Masses?

As you can see, we can spend all day twisting the words of this Pope or that Cardinal in order to support our argument. I think the proper line is, though, to follow the law of the Church. If a celebration is “unlawful,” then that should be enough for a good Catholic to seek celebrations that are licit and in full communion with the Church and with Rome. As of yet, there has not been an official pronouncement from the Holy See regarding the state of the sspx being in official schism or not. It may be that there never is one and so things will continue as they are. But I would like to draw your attention to the following regarding Cardinal Hoyo’s personal opinion about the state of the sspx; when Pope Paul VI convened a commission to study the acceptance of artificial birth control, there were many on the commission, including priests, bishops and theologians, who said that birth control was morally justified. What Pope Paul VI gave them in response was the great encyclical Humanae Vitae which crushed their personal opinions. My point is, Cardinal Hoyo’s opinion is just one out of many, and unless he is the Pope, it can be squashed just like the priests, bishops and theologians who disagreed with Pope Paul VI.

Interesting that you point out the following:

As for the legitimacy of attending sspx Masses, the Church, in her generosity, has said that it is ok to attend these Masses out of love for the traditional rite but NOT out of support for the society. A warning was also made that frequent attendance at sspx chapels can create a sympathetic attitude for the “schismatic acts” (to quote Pope John Paul II) of the society over time, and that that can become a dangerous situation.
I think you just shot your whole argument out of the water.

If it is in fact illegal to attend these Masses the Church would not say it is OK to attend. How could she?.

Since the Church says it is OK then I will accept it as being OK.

You see the mistake that you have made is that you apparently think everyone who goes to these Masses is schismatic, a heretic or a sedevacantist. One does not have to be any of these things to attend these Masses.

As far as the abuses I pointed out, they were not justification for anything. I merely asked if you would be so quick to label the masses in which they occured as being illicit.

I notice that you did not answer that question.

Somehow I’m not surprised.

Incidently, I don’t attend Mass at SSPX Chapels. But I find the blatant outright loathing that so many have for the SSPX, as you appear to have, to be disturbing at best and frightful at worst. Particularly when by your own post above the Church says we can attend these Masses if we are not attached to a schismatic mentality.

As to the Cardinals opinion being solely his opinion and one of many, that is true. However, he is in an interesting position to make such a statement. Don’t you think?

 

[BrendanD]

IIncidently, I don’t attend Mass at SSPX Chapels. But I find the blatant outright loathing that so many have for the SSPX, as you appear to have, to be disturbing at best and frightful at worst.

Exactly the same here

 

[skatepixie]

If I know before hand that it is illicit (ie SSPX) I won’t go. If I attened a Mass, and am present for abuses that I was not aware of, I will sit through it, but I wouldn’t be likely to go again.

 

[Timothysis]

You started this thread talking about the SSPX. Don’t write a post about the SSPX and then complain when the responses are about the SSPX.

If you would wipe the froth out of your mouth and take a deep breath you might see that the original post asked about attending illicit Masses, the sspx being an OBVIOUS example, though there are many more. Your sspx paranoia has made it impossible for you to intelligently discuss the subject.

Michelle Arnold is mistaken on this. How is it that you give a Catholic Answers apologist more authority than a Pontifical Commission It sounds like “anyone who disagrees with me should shut up because they aren’t the Pope, but if they agree with me, they can talk.”

Michelle Arnold’s opinion is based on the papal encyclical Ecclesia Dei by Pope John Paul II and on those silly rules of the Church known as Canon law. If you wish to reject that, then fine.

I still pose the original question to you, though; how serious is attending an "illicit Mass to you???

 

[Timothysis]

If it is in fact illegal to attend these Masses the Church would not say it is OK to attend. How could she?.

The Church says that it is a “grave offence” to participate in celebrations by suspended clergy who perform illicit sacraments. Do you need a personal letter telling you that it’s not okey dokey to participate?

Since the Church says it is OK then I will accept it as being OK.

That is a very loose paraphrase of what the Church says. If you don’t really care what the position of the Church is, then why do you even worry about it?

I will ask you, too, once more; how serious is attending an “illicit” Mass to you???

 

[Andruschak]

I don’t know of any SSPX churches in my immediate area (ZIP 90502). We do have an Old Catholic Church nearby, as well as an American Catholic Church. I have not been to either, assuming that the masses were invalid, if not illicit.

The following links are for information ONLY, please do not start a flame war over them. I repeat, I have never attended these Churches, nor intend to, but do acknowledge that they exist. And they must have some sort of reason to exist and be supported by financial contributions from there members:shrug:

goodshepherd-church.org/

saint-matthew.org/

ecumenical-catholic-communion.org/

 

[Timothysis]

If I know before hand that it is illicit (ie SSPX) I won’t go. If I attened a Mass, and am present for abuses that I was not aware of, I will sit through it, but I wouldn’t be likely to go again.

Thanks for the hones answer, skatepixie. I, too, share your attitude.

 

[Timothysis]

I don’t know of any SSPX churches in my immediate area (ZIP 90502). We do have an Old Catholic Church nearby, as well as an American Catholic Church. I have not been to either, assuming that the masses were invalid, if not illicit.

Thanks for the answer, Andruschak! Now I ask, if you found that the Masses at those Churches were indeed valid, though highly illicit, would consider going? If yes or no, why?

 

[JuanCarlos]

Thanks for the answer, Andruschak! Now I ask, if you found that the Masses at those Churches were indeed valid, though highly illicit, would consider going? If yes or no, why?

Old Catholics and “American” Catholic Churches are in formal schism and are heretics- Old Catholics do not believe in Papal infallibility, and “American Catholics” believe in divorce and remarriage, birth control, and (some) are tolerant of things like euthanasia, abortion, etc.

The SSPX, on the other hand, are not heretics. Name one dogma they deny and then we’ll start talking.

 

[Timothysis]

Michelle Arnold is mistaken on this. How is it that you give a Catholic Answers apologist more authority than a Pontifical Commission It sounds like “anyone who disagrees with me should shut up because they aren’t the Pope, but if they agree with me, they can talk.”

This isn’t the “Pontifical Commission” you’re referring to…?

"While it is true that participation in the Mass 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 schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X."

You want to know how authoritative our responses are. **We Must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, **but it is not an official declaration of the Holy See. **Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. **The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the variou dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission."

This letter was written in response to a letter addressed to CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER. The author is the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission responsible for the implementation of Ecclesia Dei.

 

[Timothysis]

Old Catholics and “American” Catholic Churches are in formal schism and are heretics- Old Catholics do not believe in Papal infallibility, and “American Catholics” believe in divorce and remarriage, birth control, and (some) are tolerant of things like euthanasia, abortion, etc.

The SSPX, on the other hand, are not heretics. Name one dogma they deny and then we’ll start talking.

You seem to have an obvious lack of understanding. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE SSPX!!! Do the Old Catholics and American Catholic Church have valid Apostalic Suscession? Are their Masses valid? If they are , yet illicit, would you go? Yes or no?

 

[BrendanD]

If you would wipe the froth out of your mouth and take a deep breath you might see that the original post asked about attending illicit Masses, the sspx being an OBVIOUS example, though there are many more. Your sspx paranoia has made it impossible for you to intelligently discuss the subject.

Maybe you should stop with the personal insults and consider some very simple logic.

Fact #1: Rome says that SSPX Masses are illicit.
Fact #2: Rome says that it is not always a sin to attend SSPX Masses.
Conclusion: Rome says that it is not always a sin to attend illicit Masses.

You’re also trying to draw some distinction between illicit SSPX Masses and illicit diocesan Masses, but there’s no difference. Illicit is illicit. If Catholics are absolutely prohibited from attending illicit Masses as you falsely claim, that prohibition must apply to both cases.

Michelle Arnold’s opinion is based on the papal encyclical Ecclesia Dei by Pope John Paul II and on those silly rules of the Church known as Canon law. If you wish to reject that, then fine.

Does Ecclesia Dei say that it’s a sin to attend an SSPX or other illicit Mass? No.
Does canon law say that it’s a sin to attend an SSPX or other illicit Mass? No.

You say that a Pontifical Commission created by Pope John Paul II himself should be ignored because it’s “just an opinion.” So why in the heck would the opinion of a CA apologist have more weight than that

I’ll ask one more time-- where does any canon law or church document prohibit Catholics from attending illicit Masses? And why do you reject the Ecclesia Dei Commission created by JPII?

I still pose the original question to you, though; how serious is attending an "illicit Mass to you???

This question has been answered about 60 times. You’re ignoring the answers because it’s not what you want to hear.

 

[BrendanD]

This letter was written in response to a letter addressed to CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER. The author is the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission responsible for the implementation of Ecclesia Dei.

There’s nothing in there anywhere that says that it is a sin to attend the SSPX, or that Catholics are prohibited from attending illicit Masses. On the contrary, Catholics believe that there are situations in which it is perfectly acceptable to attend an illicit Mass.