Is attending an SSPX chapel regularly sinful nowadays?

[Andreas_Hofer]

Neither the PCED, nor Canon Law, nor common sense forbids a Roman Catholic in good standing from seeking out an SSPX Mass for the sake of devotion to the 1962 Missal.

While this is the title of the thread, I don’t think many posters have asserted that it is sinful to merely attend an SSPX Mass. So why don’t we let that issue drop?

1. Fr. Zulhsdorf, who actually worked with the PCED, gave the OK not merely to attend the SSPX Mass, but even in certain cases to receive Holy Communion.

Fr. Zuhlsdorf argues for receiving communion, though, based on the canonical criteria for receiving sacraments from a non-Catholic minister: physical or moral impossibility of approaching a licit celebration. IIRC, his argument basically runs that for those who are simply too scandalized by their NO parishes he thinks they would be justified in receiving from the SSPX. That criterion is hardly a blank check to recieve there out of simple devotion or mere preference. As I said before, it’s really unthinkable for a Catholic with access to the liturgies of the nation’s most conservative bishops to claim they are better off receiving from a suspended priest.

To reiterate the opinions I posted before, under normal circumstances one may attend an SSPX Mass but not commune there or fulfill one’s Sunday obligation.

 

[Sure]

Bear06:

Neither the PCED, nor Canon Law, nor common sense forbids a Roman Catholic in good standing from seeking out an SSPX Mass for the sake of devotion to the 1962 Missal.

Anonymous,

Here is what the competent authority has to say on attendance at an SSPX (note that the PCED is not the competent authority for the interpretation of a legislative text such as the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta):

"6. In the case of the Lefebvrian deacons and priests there seems no doubt that their ministerial activity in the ambit of the schismatic movement is a more than evident sign of the fact that the two requirements mentioned above (n.5) are met, and thus that there is a formal adherence.

1. On the other hand, in the case of the rest of the faithful it is obvious that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or the activity of the Lefebvrian movement, done without making one’s own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion of such a movement, does not suffice for one to be able to speak of formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice the result can be that it is more difficult to judge their situation. One must take account above all of the person’s intentions, and the putting into practice of this internal disposition. For this reason the various situations are going to be judged case by case, in the competent forums both internal and external.

Now, we should note that the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts (PCILT) says there is a “formal adherence” to the schism by the deacons and priests of SSPX. If they adhere (as the competent Vatican authority says they do), then they are excommunicated. It should also be noted that at least one prominent archbishop has said that to attend a Mass said by an excommunicated priest is a “mortal sin”…it would be rather odd to fulfill one’s obligation by committing a mortal sin.

Under paragraph 7 (above) the PCILT indicates that one could attend such a Mass but must be careful not to participate in the disunion.

I think another consideration here is to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation. Canon law indicates the Mass must be of a “catholic rite.” But what of the canonical status of the celebrant? Does it not matter at all? That canon does not seem to say. Perhaps a canon lawyer can weigh in. In my opinion, it seems problematic to be able to fulfill one’s obligation at a Mass said by an excommunicated or suspended priest. That would mean one could attend a Mass by a “rent-a-priest” or Archbishop Milingo or any number of dissident priests who have left the Church for various reasons. Doesn’t it matter at all that the excommunicated/suspended priest commits a mortal sin everytime he says Mass?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Sure,

Great source from the PCILT - could we have a link?

 

[jkarp]

Nobody is arguing whether or not one can attend and SSPX. The question of whether or not it fufills the Sunday obligation is in question. Heck, it might just do it

I think the evidence is leaning toward the fact that it may (with regard to circumstance) fulfill the Sunday obligation. My point is that it seems that it isn’t a good idea.

For example, there are several ways one can go about getting money to purchase something that he wants, he can wait and save his money until they day comes that he has enough to buy it, or he can hold up a liquor store. Both methods will get the job done, however, one seems to be a more legitimate way to go about it.

They day is coming that we will all be able to more fully enjoy widespread availability of the beautiful ancient form of the Mass, however until that day, I think we would be well advised to save our money and bide our time.


Dominus vorbiscum

 

[Sure]

Sure,

Great source from the PCILT - could we have a link?

Sorry…here you go:

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=1224

It also contains a paragraph that refutes the claim of “necessity” made by the SSPX and confirms the validity of the excommunications.