Indult Mass in SSPX chapel?

[sklenko]

I know from people who regularly attend an SSPX chapel that not only SSPX priests, but also some priests (a Franciscan, a Benedictine…) with indult say Traditional Masses there.
So are those Masses said by priests with the indult perfectly valid and licit, assuming that the chapel was consecrated by an SSPX bishop and its property of SSPX? Could one attend those indult Masses?

 

[Goblin_Taters]

“Can,” according to whom? From what I understand, the SSPX commonly regards the Novus Ordo as invalid, or, if not invalid, at least as a much deranged, modernistic mess. FSSP, as a condition of its acceptance of Vatican II and their fidelity to the Pope, must regard the Novus Ordo Missal itself as a legitimate, valid rite. In response to the question: Can I attend an Indult Mass, the SSPX has said no, because indult priests are in communion with those whom the SSPX regards as modernists, as heretics.

Hey! If you’re in Slovakia, you should check out your local Ruthenian parish.

 

[BobP123]

It is my understanding that beginning Sep 14, any priest can say the TLM in any semi-private setting, meaning anywhere outside of the diocesan property boundaries, whether this be in a SSPX or an independent chapel or in someone’s house. It will no longer be an “indult” but the Extraordinary form per the M.P. Further clarifications from Eclessia Dei may prove me wrong.

 

[sklenko]

“Can,” according to whom? From what I understand, the SSPX commonly regards the Novus Ordo as invalid, or, if not invalid, at least as a much deranged, modernistic mess.
I know an old (retired) Franciscan Father says the TLM in that chapel. So I suppose the relationships between the SSPX and those who say indult Mass in Czech republic can be quite good.
Can I attend an Indult Mass, the SSPX has said no, because indult priests are in communion with those whom the SSPX regards as modernists, as heretics.
I was talking to a Benedictine priest Saturday who had told me that I could attend a Mass in SSPX chapel. And many other priest say so. But I don´t think that is right.
Hey! If you’re in Slovakia, you should check out your local Ruthenian parish.

Yes, of course.there are Divine liturgies in the neighbouring area, but un fortunately no TLM so far.

 

[Caesar]

To say Mass in an SSPX chapel, the indult priest would have to have permission from the SSPX. The SSPX is fairly hostile to the indult (apparently attending an indult Mass is just a bad as attending a Novus Ordo- they have some rather dumb excuses for this).

 

[Walking_Home]

To say Mass in an SSPX chapel, the indult priest would have to have permission from the SSPX. The SSPX is fairly hostile to the indult (apparently attending an indult Mass is just a bad as attending a Novus Ordo- they have some rather dumb excuses for this).

---

Apparently Bishop Fellay is happy about the MP. Somehow that does not fit your statement–that the SSPX is hostile to the indult.

 

[Caesar]

---

Apparently Bishop Fellay is happy about the MP. Somehow that does not fit your statement–that the SSPX is hostile to the indult.

From the SSPX website:

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q10_indult.htm

The SSPX could never profit by Rome’s Indult (the traditional Latin Mass as allowed by Quattuor Abhinc Annos, 1984 and Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, 1988):

first because of the conditions attached to it, and, in particular, that of acknowledging the “doctrinal and juridical” value of the Novus Ordo Missae which is impossible (cf. QUESTION 5);

and second, but more fundamentally, because such acceptance of the Indult would amount to saying that the Church had lawfully suppressed the traditional Latin Mass, which is certainly not the case (cf. PRINCIPLE 19).

But other priests have profited by it, some jumping at the chance to say the traditional Latin Mass, others only because requested by their Bishop, and the odd one or two who would always say the traditional Latin Mass anyway but have accepted to do so under the auspices of the Indult for “pastoral reasons.”

CAN WE ATTEND THEIR MASSES?

If we have to agree to the doctrinal and juridical value of the Novus Ordo Missae, then NO, for we cannot do evil that good may ensue.

This condition may not be presented explicitly, but by implication, such as:

by a priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo Missae on other days of the week or at other times,

using Hosts consecrated at a Novus Ordo Missae,

or with communion in the hand;

new lectionaries, Mass facing the people, etc.,

by a priest who was ordained in the New Rite,

by sermons that are modernist in inspiration (much to be feared if the celebrant habitually says the Novus Ordo Missae); or

by offering only the revised forms of the other sacraments, e.g., penance.

This brings up the whole context of the Indult Mass. It is:

a ploy to keep people away from the SSPX (for many bishops allow it only where there is an SSPX Mass center),

intended only for those who feel attached to the traditional Latin Mass but nevertheless accept the doctrinal rectitude and juridical right of the Novus Ordo Missae, Vatican II, and all official orientations corresponding to these.

Therefore, attending it because of the priest’s words or fellow Mass-goers’ pressure, or because of the need to pander to the local bishop just to have it, inevitably pushes one to keep quiet on “divisive issues” and, distance oneself from those who do not keep quiet i.e., it pushes one to join the ranks of those who are destroying the Church. This one cannot do (cf., also QUESTION 13).

The Indult Mass, therefore, is not for traditional Catholics.*

 

[Walking_Home]

From the SSPX website:

sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q10_indult.htm

---

I see ----yet the Current reaction the SSPX has demonstrated for the MP leads in another direction.

 

[Caesar]

---

I see ----yet the Current reaction the SSPX has demonstrated for the MP leads in another direction.

Bishop Fellay himself has showed some approval of the MP, but you must remember that the SSPX itself is quite divided. Fellay appears to be on the side that supports attempts to be reunifed with Rome, but the other Bishops (especialy Williamson) are against speaking with “modernist Rome”. And of course many of their priests are divided, some coming very close to sedevacantism. If Fellay was ever to attempt to submit to Rome the SSPX break apart.

 

[Walking_Home]

Bishop Fellay himself has showed some approval of the MP, but you must remember that the SSPX itself is quite divided. Fellay appears to be on the side that supports attempts to be reunifed with Rome, but the other Bishops (especialy Williamson) are against speaking with “modernist Rome”. And of course many of their priests are divided, some coming very close to sedevacantism. If Fellay was ever to attempt to submit to Rome the SSPX break apart.

---

So is the Church and is seen by the reaction that has been expressed by some bishops and people towards the MP.

The thing is—Bishop Fellay has expressed joy that the MP will allow those who have had no access to the TLM the opportunity to have the Mass. Yet this joy — is reciprocated by flinging mud at them.

 

[demerzel85]

To say Mass in an SSPX chapel, the indult priest would have to have permission from the SSPX. The SSPX is fairly hostile to the indult (apparently attending an indult Mass is just a bad as attending a Novus Ordo- they have some rather dumb excuses for this).

But would not that hostility stem from the mixing of hosts in NO Churches where communicants to an indult Mass may receive the host consecrated in the Classical Use or the Novus Ordo if there is a shortage.

Having an indult Mass in a SSPX chapel… in the first place needs the diocesan Bishops approval, which is not likely at all. Yet with Summorum Pontificum, gone is the need for indult

 

[BobP123]

So is the Church and is seen by the reaction that has been expressed by some bishops and people towards the MP.

The thing is—Bishop Fellay has expressed joy that the MP will allow those who have had no access to the TLM the opportunity to have the Mass. Yet this joy — is reciprocated by flinging mud at them.

Wait till these self-appointed moral theologians need a priest to hear their confessions on their death beds. They might be eating that mud.

 

[Caesar]

But would not that hostility stem from the mixing of hosts in NO Churches where communicants to an indult Mass may receive the host consecrated in the Classical Use or the Novus Ordo if there is a shortage.

Having an indult Mass in a SSPX chapel… in the first place needs the diocesan Bishops approval, which is not likely at all. Yet with Summorum Pontificum, gone is the need for indult

Gone is the need for an indult in this case, but at the same time approval must be gotten from the SSPX itself for use of the chapel. There are some factions in the SSPX, which seem to compose a large part of the society itself, where the line is “our way or the highway”. I do not think that an SSPX chapel would want to allow, lets say, a Diocesan priest to come and celebrate the TLM, especialy if that priest was ordained in the Novus Ordo, or regularly celebrates NO Masses, ect. Nor would the SSPX look too kind on the FSSP (there does seem to be a sort of feud between them).

Furthermore, I don’t think that the TLM, celebrated by a priest in good standing with his Diocese and Rome, would be very prudent in a chapel belonging to, lets face it, a schismatic society.

 

[Corki]

Having an indult Mass in a SSPX chapel… in the first place needs the diocesan Bishops approval, which is not likely at all. Yet with Summorum Pontificum, gone is the need for indult

I think this is a confusion in the OP. The OP stated that the “priest” has a valid indult. The indult is granted, not to the priest, but to the particular Mass at a particular parish. So just because a priest has permission to say the indult Mass at his own parish does not mean that he can say other Masses, in other locations, according to the TLM missal.

Of course, the OP is not in the US. There may be different rules in other countries.

 

[Walking_Home]

Gone is the need for an indult in this case, but at the same time approval must be gotten from the SSPX itself for use of the chapel. There are some factions in the SSPX, which seem to compose a large part of the society itself, where the line is “our way or the highway”. I do not think that an SSPX chapel would want to allow, lets say, a Diocesan priest to come and celebrate the TLM, especialy if that priest was ordained in the Novus Ordo, or regularly celebrates NO Masses, ect. Nor would the SSPX look too kind on the FSSP (there does seem to be a sort of feud between them).

Furthermore, I don’t think that the TLM, celebrated by a priest in good standing with his Diocese and Rome, would be very prudent in a chapel belonging to, lets face it, a schismatic society.

---

You this how. By your own opinion—or can you read the minds of each and every person associated with the SSPX.

By the way—I have read in these forums —where priests in good standing with Rome have offered Mass in protestant worship places. For ex. —when a church is under renovation–a protestant denomination has offered to lend the priest a place to offer Mass.

 

[demerzel85]

Furthermore, I don’t think that the TLM, celebrated by a priest in good standing with his Diocese and Rome, would be very prudent in a chapel belonging to, lets face it, a schismatic society.

Although for there to be a schism, there would have to be a parallel church set up.

And then what about a priest ordained in the old rite?

 

[GerardP]

Bishop Fellay himself has showed some approval of the MP, but you must remember that the SSPX itself is quite divided. Fellay appears to be on the side that supports attempts to be reunifed with Rome, but the other Bishops (especialy Williamson) are against speaking with “modernist Rome”. And of course many of their priests are divided, some coming very close to sedevacantism. If Fellay was ever to attempt to submit to Rome the SSPX break apart.

That’s not true. Bishop Williamson has repeatedly stated that he supports Bishop Fellay and wants the discussions to be on doctrinal levels before any canonical agreements about the status of the SSPX. Bishop Williamson has also expressed his thoughts about the Motu Proprio.

"*Amongst Catholics holding to Catholic Tradition, it has in the last week met with a mixed reception. On the one hand throughout the Society of St. Pius X, for instance, a “Te Deum” was sung out of gratitude for everything in the document which favors and to some extent sets free the old rite of Mass. On the other hand Catholics who distrust anything and everything coming out of conciliar Rome, some to the extent of disbelieving that Benedict XVI is even Pope, have little difficulty in discovering in the “Motu Proprio” the numerous contradictions which reflect Benedict XVI’s vain attempt to reconcile Catholicism with the intrisically anti-Catholic modern world.

Now the contradictions are certainly there, because while the Pope cleaves in his heart to the old liturgy of his pre-war Bavarian childhood, he believes with his conciliar mind in the reconciliation of irreconcilables, such as Catholicism and the revolutionary world all around us. However, as the proverb says, Rome was not built in a day, and Catholic Rome will not be re-built in one day. In fact will it take anything less than a flood of the wrath of God to wash the modernism out of this Rome’s Augean stables ? One may wonder. Kyrie eleison!

Nevertheless “The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. Given the terrible official persecution of the true rite of Mass ever since 1969 when the Novus Ordo was introduced, surely two things at least in the “Motu Proprio” were worth a Te Deum”. Firstly, the official, Papal, public recognition that the old Mass was never truly suppressed. We always knew it, but now every Catholic knows it in the Universal Church. What a change of perception that must entail ! And secondly, a certain definite freedom for Latin rite priests to celebrate the old Mass, at least in private and to a greater extent than before also in public.

Let us pray as much as ever for the Pope, if not more, that his Bavarian heart continue to push his conciliar head in a Catholic direction !

Bishop Richard Williamson
La Reja, Argentina*"

 

[bear06]

I voted no because there was not choice for severely slim chance of a yes. The no, as Caesar point out, would likely come from the SSPX more than the local bishop. BTW, I concur with Caesar’s take on Williamson and Fellay too.

 

[GerardP]

I voted no because there was not choice for severely slim chance of a yes. The no, as Caesar point out, would likely come from the SSPX more than the local bishop. BTW, I concur with Caesar’s take on Williamson and Fellay too.

One interesting twist was that a few years ago it was reported that the bishop of Venona italy had given permission for the SSPX to say the Indult Mass. It was quickly hushed up in the media so, I don’t know if it lasted.

Which leads to the question, does the local ordinary have the right to grant faculties to the SSPX if he so chooses? Even though canonical irregularities with Rome still exist.

 

[alih]

i do not believe that an indult mass can licitly be said in a pius x church as the indult mass is required to use the 1962 missal or later. from what i understand these missals have been rejected by them as inappropiate. have a good year. (alih)