Independant Churches?

[UKcatholicGuy]

I don’t think your feeling that the NO is an invalid mass or the priest celebrating it is not pious enough is considered a “grave matter”.

"which is celebrated in accordance with the provisions laid down by the diocesan Bishop;"
The mass of SSPX does not satisfy this.

Again this is a common defense of SSPX: The NO is not reverent enough so Canon Law says I can attend a mass that is not sanctioned by the bishop. Any NO Mass sanctioned by the bishop is a valid mass in the eyes of the church so there is no grave matter present. Ask your bishop to see if it is grave matter. If he says no then out of obedience you should not attend a SSPX mass to fullfill your Sunday obligation.

You’re taking section 2, which applies to regulation of “services of the Word” and applying it to Section 1, which regulates the Sunday obligation. Section 1 states:

Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.

Simple as that. Masses celebrated by a Society priest (who are most certainly validly ordained) obviously fall under the category of a “catholic rite” and thus fulfill the Sunday obligation.

Your statement that the SSPX is in schism does not agree with what the official Roman body in charge of dealing with the SSPX situation has to say about the matter. Cardinal Castrillon, in an interview on Italian television 2 years ago, said the following concerning the Society:

We are not confronted with a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking — as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay — a fuller communion, because communion does exist.

And that is just one of many examples of statements he has given to the effect that the Society, while in an “irregular” situation, is not in formal schism.

For more information, I recommend this article on RenewAmerica.

 

[cam100]

T The big problem with independant churches is not that they don’t like the Novus Ordo.

Why is this a problem? This has been happening since its inceptions by even not-so-conservative Catholics.

I didn’t mean to imply that it was a problem. The idea seemed to be forming from earlier posts that the problem with independent churches was their opposition to the NO and I was trying to clarify that this was not the issue.

 

[EddieArent]

The obligation is met by attending a Catholic Mass (Rite). Clearly, a Mass where the local ordinary & Pontiff are prayed for is Catholic. With the SSPX, you know what you get. Meanwhile, with the Novus Ordo, at times you never know what you are going to get. One priest in the Orlando diocese declared in his bulletin;

“The celebrant speaks in the name of the gathered assembly. We don’t watch a priest say Mass. We are the celebrants.” Source: sttimothycatholiccomm.com/Nov_04.pdf

Thus, making no differance of the priesthood of the people and the sacrificial Catholic priesthood. A (Novus Ordo) Catholic in looks, but a Protestant (Lutheran) by word. That is why many lay and religious (including my pastor) have abandoned the Novus Ordo. You shall know them by their fruits.

 

[skatepixie]

Does anyone know the status of Our Lady Help of Christians specifically?

 

[thedavidwilson]

The obligation is met by attending a Catholic Mass (Rite). Clearly, a Mass where the local ordinary & Pontiff are prayed for is Catholic. With the SSPX, you know what you get. Meanwhile, with the

If the priest does not have the faculties of the local ordinary the Mass is illicit. It doesn’t matter who they pray for. It is about obedience to the authority of the Church.

 

[Silver_Thread]

No.

Are you equating Fr Perez with the schismatic Polish National Church?

Did I mention Fr. Perez. Coffee has a great smell if your awake. We need to be careful where we tread with so many fringe churches today.

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

TheDavidWilson,

I see you’re a member of a Latin Mass community. Do you honestly believe the Latin Mass would still exist today-- much less with the approval of Rome-- if it were not for Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X?

 

[thedavidwilson]

TheDavidWilson,

I see you’re a member of a Latin Mass community. Do you honestly believe the Latin Mass would still exist today-- much less with the approval of Rome-- if it were not for Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X?

It is not his starting the SSPX that is the issue here but the concecration of Bishops without Rome’s approval and the continuation of the SSPX to recognize the illicit concecrations. There would still be a latin mass if he did do the acts that got him excommunicated. The FSSP are SSPX folks who remained obedient with Rome and split off when Lefebvre disobeyed the pontiff and they have carried on the Latin Mass while being obedient with Rome and obeying its laws.

 

[BobP123]

The FSSP are SSPX folks who remained obedient with Rome and split off when Lefebvre disobeyed the pontiff and they have carried on the Latin Mass while being obedient with Rome and obeying its laws.

Unfortunately the FSSP had to succumb to Protocol 1411, which forces FSSP to say the Novus Ordo in some cases. It was brought on by some French priests who said it was their right to say the Novus Ordo when they felt like it against their superiors’ wishes and mission. That’s what you get by being “obedient” I guess.

 

[otjm]

Uhh…actually no. SSPX are schismatic just as the Orthodox Chruches. The only way their Mass can fullfill Sunday obligation is if there is no valid Roman Catholic mass available…and saying that the NO is corrupt and traveling 100 miles to a SSPX mass does not cut it.

No, if there is no valid Roman Catholic Mass available (and we will assume no valid Eastern Rite Mass either) then there is no olbigation, so attendance at an SSPX does not fulfill the obligation as there is no obligation.

 

[otjm]

Unfortunately the FSSP had to succumb to Protocol 1411, which forces FSSP to say the Novus Ordo in some cases. It was brought on by some French priests who said it was their right to say the Novus Ordo when they felt like it against their superiors’ wishes and mission. That’s what you get by being “obedient” I guess.

Actually, I think it was Rome who said that they had the right to say the OF, after they petitioned. It was not their disobedience. It was Rome who said that while the FSSP had a charism of the EF, it was not an absolute one. And rome was rather forceful to the superiors. Sort of like Rome was sort of forceful about priests who on their own initiative decided to withold communion to those who knelt.

 

[Sure]

Actually, I think it was Rome who said that they had the right to say the OF, after they petitioned. It was not their disobedience. It was Rome who said that while the FSSP had a charism of the EF, it was not an absolute one. And rome was rather forceful to the superiors. Sort of like Rome was sort of forceful about priests who on their own initiative decided to withold communion to those who knelt.

Pope Benedict’s letter accompanying SP states addresses this again quite clearly:

Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, **the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. **The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.