Is attending an SSPX chapel regularly sinful nowadays?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JuanCarlos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ecclesia dei suspends the sspx priests as a whole. Canon law says it is a sin for a suspended priest to say the mass.
 
Assuming, for argument’s sake, that the SSPX constitutes a schismatic church, here’s what the 1983 code of canon law says.

Canon 848.
  1. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the 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.
 
JuanCarlos said:
…If there was a licit FSSP or ICK Parish nearby I would of course attend there, but as it stands… well, I live in Los Angeles. Enough said
Click to expand...
No, not “enough said.” There are plenty of extremely orthodox and reverent parishes in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. If you want the name of one near you, send me a private message.
 
jkarp said:
Pope John Paul II’s letter Ecclesia Dei (referenced by the above article) states that Archbishop Lefebvre and his priests have been excommunicated and calls for all Catholics to break ties with the group:

"I wish especially to make an appeal . . . 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."

The last line strikes me as the clincher; personally, I would not attend a SSPX Mass even if no other Mass were available.
Click to expand...
You have hit the nail on the head. I am sorta amazed at how hard people will work to essentially ignore ED.

If there was a change to this condition as some would like to infer, it would be big news and it would be splattered all over the web.
 
Beret said:
If there was a change to this condition as some would like to infer, it would be big news and it would be splattered all over the web.
Click to expand...
Uh, it has been splattered all over the web. Just do a search.
 
Beret said:
You have hit the nail on the head. I am sorta amazed at how hard people will work to essentially ignore ED.

If there was a change to this condition as some would like to infer, it would be big news and it would be splattered all over the web.
Click to expand...
One change is that we have a new pope; another change is that the cardinal prefect of PCED has repeatedly said that SSPX is not in schism. If you believe that the curial cardinal with jurisdiction over traditionalist issues is being allowed by Pope Benedict to make these “loose canon” pronouncements, don’t be surprised to find others in this forum who don’t agree.
 
thank you very much everyone, in particular SemperFidelis

and Beret, I do know that such parishes exist here, but realize too that the LA arcdiocese is HUGE (the biggest in the world, I heard once). And I live in a really suburban area- there is one Catholic Church for miles around. I live at the bottom of the San Pedro region
 
jj2011 said:
. . . the cardinal prefect of PCED has repeatedly said that SSPX is not in schism. If you believe that the curial cardinal with jurisdiction over traditionalist issues is being allowed by Pope Benedict to make these “loose canon” pronouncements, don’t be surprised to find others in this forum who don’t agree.
Click to expand...
References please? The only two references posted on this thread have stated clearly that the group is in schism (or at the very least in a schismatic state):
1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to **the schism **[emphasis added] of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.

Reference:
Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses
Click to expand...
and
  1. 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.
Reference:
Apostolic Letter “Ecclesia Dei” of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II
Click to expand...
I am open to accepting that the group is indeed in full communion with Rome, but I cannot in good conscience accept assertions countering the Holy Father’s words until evidence is produced.
 
JuanCarlos said:
thank you very much everyone, in particular SemperFidelis
Click to expand...
You’re welcome. I just try my best.
and Beret, I do know that such parishes exist here, but realize too that the LA arcdiocese is HUGE (the biggest in the world, I heard once). And I live in a really suburban area- there is one Catholic Church for miles around. I live at the bottom of the San Pedro region
Click to expand...
I think this quote from Msgr. Perl would be quite applicable:

“We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin” - Msgr. Perl

Since you only desire to attend a Mass according to the 1962 Missal, I see no problem here, and apparantely neither would Msgr. Perl, or the rest of Ecclesia Dei. If Pope Benedict XVI didn’t want Catholics going to SSPX Masses, I believe he would have refuted the several statements of Cardinal Hoyos and Msgr. Perl which suggest otherwise, and would have issued some kind of statement saying Catholics could not go to such Masses. Since this is not the case, and your desire is only to go to a TLM, I don’t think the Holy See would have any problem here.
 
jkarp said:
References please? The only two references posted on this thread have stated clearly that the group is in schism (or at the very least in a schismatic state):
Click to expand...
A legitimate request.

Does anybody here have the links for recent statements on SSPX by PCED prefect Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos?
 
SemperFidelis said:
If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin" - Msgr. Perl

Since you only desire to attend a Mass according to the 1962 Missal, I see no problem here, and apparantely neither would Msgr. Perl, or the rest of Ecclesia Dei. If Pope Benedict XVI didn’t want Catholics going to SSPX Masses, I believe he would have refuted the several statements of Cardinal Hoyos and Msgr. Perl which suggest otherwise, and would have issued some kind of statement saying Catholics could not go to such Masses. Since this is not the case, and your desire is only to go to a TLM, I don’t think the Holy See would have any problem here.
Click to expand...
100% agree. Of course you can attend SSPX TLMs especially in the circumstances you outline
 
jkarp said:
References please? The only two references posted on this thread have stated clearly that the group is in schism (or at the very least in a schismatic state):

and

I am open to accepting that the group is indeed in full communion with Rome, but I cannot in good conscience accept assertions countering the Holy Father’s words until evidence is produced.
Click to expand...
Here is one interview where the cardinal begins taking the new, softer line, and I’ll try to get you the others shortly.

30giorni.it/us/articolo_stampa.asp?id=9360
 
jj2011 said:
One change is that we have a new pope; another change is that the cardinal prefect of PCED has repeatedly said that SSPX is not in schism. If you believe that the curial cardinal with jurisdiction over traditionalist issues is being allowed by Pope Benedict to make these “loose canon” pronouncements, don’t be surprised to find others in this forum who don’t agree.
Click to expand...
"I wish especially to make an appeal . . . to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfill 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 offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law."

There has been no change to the above. While those who attend SSPX chapels might be defined as schismatics, the SSPX is still a schism. This condition has never been lifted by Pope Benedict XVI.

I find it astounding that the very people who ignore ED are those that slam other Catholics for ignoring similar instructions from the Church. Hypocritical to say the least. Just follow the Church.
 
Considering that suspension ad divinis and excommunication by papal pronouncement can only be lifted by the pope, until a pope lifts the excommunication of the four bishops, and the suspension fo the priests, then by canon law, they are still suspended.

Encouraging one under suspension to violate that suspension is not a morally good act.
 
A few clarifications here. The letter from Msgr. Perl in regards to fullfilling a Sunday obligation at a chapel specifically states that it was sent to a specific person in a specific circumstance. We have no idea what this specific circumstance was nor do we have an even remote idea that it’s even close to the OP’s circumstance.

Secondly, there has not been one document from the Vatican, as of yet, to say that the SSPX is not a schismatic organization. Our rule of law is not based on magazine articles.

The priests of the SSPX are definitively suspended. Their marriages and confessions are invalid per canon law. This has been confirmed by Ecclesia Dei: latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm

Lastly, I’d do a little research on TLMs in your area. I think I just heard of a new one that popped up. There’s one right in your area once a month. I’m not sure how currrent this list is. Like I said, I’d do some research.
ecclesiadei.org/masses.cfm
unavocela.org/ms.htm
 
bear06 said:
A few clarifications here. The letter from Msgr. Perl in regards to fullfilling a Sunday obligation at a chapel specifically states that it was sent to a specific person in a specific circumstance. We have no idea what this specific circumstance was nor do we have an even remote idea that it’s even close to the OP’s circumstance.

Secondly, there has not been one document from the Vatican, as of yet, to say that the SSPX is not a schismatic organization. Our rule of law is not based on magazine articles.
Click to expand...
Great point, while there is confusion as to whether or not SSPX is in schism, all of the articles referenced seem to agree that Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions are schismatic.
bear06 said:
The priests of the SSPX are definitively suspended. Their marriages and confessions are invalid per canon law. This has been confirmed by Ecclesia Dei: latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm
Click to expand...
One of the the referenced Renew America article references another article which references a blog that says they are now allowed. However, tertiary and secondary sources (especially blogs and magazine articles) do not sound research make. I would feel better to see an official statement from Ecclesia Dei or the Vatican on the subject.
 
One of the the referenced Renew America article references another article which references a blog that says they are now allowed.
Click to expand...
How authoritative! 😉
 
I have a feeling that if the SSPX was schismatic, then Pope Benedict XVI would have clarified and corrected the constant statements made by Cardinal Hoyos and the rest of Ecclesia Dei that suggest otherwise. Obviously if they were truly schismatic, then Pope Benedict XVI would make it clearly known that the faithful could not attend SSPX Masses, and that it puts one soul in peril, especially when he has members of the Curia saying otherwise. This is not some small and minor issue here. If Cardinal Hoyos, Msgr. Perl, etc. were out of line on this one, I do believe the Pope would have corrected them, because it concerns many a Catholic. Otherwise, I am done with this issue. There are far too many threads that have gone into to it regarding this subject, and I have no desire to continue beating a dead horse.
 
JuanCarlos said:
thank you very much everyone, in particular SemperFidelis

and Beret, I do know that such parishes exist here, but realize too that the LA arcdiocese is HUGE (the biggest in the world, I heard once). And I live in a really suburban area- there is one Catholic Church for miles around. I live at the bottom of the San Pedro region
Click to expand...
FYI, there is a legal TLM being offered in the San Pedro/Wilmington area as of the first Sunday of Advent at Sts. Peter and Paul Church in Wilmington about 1/2 mile from the Harbor Frwy. No need to attend a mass offered by schismatics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top