Is it okay to attend an SSPX Daily Mass and Receive Communion?

[CKNICKERBOCKER]

It is good to receive information about this directly from the Pope himself-

zenit.org/article-25341?l=english

 

[BrendanD]

According to Msgr. Perl, you can fulfill your Sunday obligation at the SSPX chapels, it is not a sin to do so, and you may make a donation to the collection there.

 

[I_Believe]

So, wouldn’t a confirmed Catholic who was excommunicated and then had the excommunication lifted be in communion once again, …albeit irregular communion in this case ?

Irrelevant. The priests were not ever excommunicated. They were suspended ad divinis by explicit act of Pope John Paul II. They took solemn vows, breaking of which is a grave sin, to obey the Pope and the bishops.

Ok, fine, you don’t want to answer the question. As far as vows, Archbishop Lefevbre took a vow alright. An oath against modernism. Priests used to do that.

 

[EnchantedEve]

It is good to receive information about this directly from the Pope himself-

zenit.org/article-25341?l=english

Thank you for this post, it helps to have the latest info available here.

I am going to offer this point just as food for thought. As the Holy Father points out in his letter to the bishops, the SSPX is a rather large, influential, and growing organization. If no Catholics were involved in it, would the Vatican even care? Does anyone in Rome lose sleep over SSPV or CMRI? No, they are small, insignificant, and in the eyes of Rome, irrelevant. The fact the so many Catholics ignore the illicitness of their actions is I believe a sign of the Holy Ghost inspiring people, obeying God rather than men.

Would Fatima be anything more than the rantings of small children, if thousands of Portuguese had not disobeyed their bishops and saw for themselves the truth of Fatima? Would Padre Pio be a saint today if hundreds of Italians had not disobeyed their bishops and still sought him out? Did not Pope Pius XII say it was the petitions of faithful that caused him to want to proclaim the dogma of the Assumption? Where would St. Joan of Arc be if she had not disobeyed the Holy Inquisition? Where would St. Athanasius have been if he had not diregarded Pope Liberius’ excomunication? Would St. Catherine have been anybody if she had not called out the Pope openly for residing in Avignon? Where would St. Paul be if he had not withstood St. Peter to the face? Other examples of Catholic disobedience and tenacity abound. Without disobedience, we are not truly believers, only drones. If people did not disobey and attend SSPX, the Old Rite would not even be an issue. We have the fullness of Catholic Faith still because people resisted.

 

[I_Believe]

It is good to receive information about this directly from the Pope himself-

zenit.org/article-25341?l=english

Yes.

The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.
zenit.org/article-25341?l=english

We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

 

[I_Believe]

I have always thought it most curious that those who support the sspx and justify their actions according to their own interpretations of canon law never blink twice over the fact that the Masses offered by the sspx are illict, or illegal/not allowed by the Church. If a good Catholic knowingly participates in something that the Church, by Her own laws, does not allow, is that Catholic placing himself in a dangerous position? Would these same people who so willingly participate in illicit sspx Masses be so fair minded of someone who attended Mass with a priest who left the Church and was stripped of his priestly duties? His Masses would still be valid but highly illicit; would these same people say that it is ok? The number of times that this subject has come up I have never seen an sspx supporter address the fact that sspx Masses are illicit, not allowed by the Church, yet sspx priests still celebrate them. How can a good Catholic in good conscience support such actions???

Tim everyone here knows the fact that the SSPX clergy are still suspended. And it’s really the only thing relevent to the OP at this point in time.

Do you keep up with the more reputable blogs ? The details to discussions on doctrinal issues have been set in place. It’s going to happen on paper. Everything is going to be documented. A SSPX Bishop has said that after these discussions take place, the Holy See will determine the outcome.

There is no sense in any of us arguing about it at this point.

Our Holy Father has spoken on the matter
“The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.”
zenit.org/article-25341?l=english

I don’t speak for the SSPX, but I’d guess they are OK with what H.H. said above. So, that leaves the rest of the Church. Will they accept what he says ? We’ll see.

 

[I_Believe]

For the sake of laughs consider the following in the 1983 CCL:

Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.

§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

For the sake of argument, it could be said, that, even if you were convinced that SSPX for reasons that strain credulity was in fact a schismatic sect and not a Catholic group, at minimum it could be argued that your concerns over spiritual and religious matters at the local “approved” parish are so great that you will go to the “non-Catholic” minister in this “period of emergency,” at worst you are going for the lesser evil.

That being said, based on your claims, Rome must be confused as to the SSPX situation. Cardinal Cassidy, in a letter of response dated in 1994 stated: “The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community within the meaning used in the Directory (on Ecumenism)” and that its situation is an “internal matter of the Catholic Church”. How can an organization be in schism and still be an internal matter?

Even Monsignor Perl of Ecclesia Dei commision seems confused. Perl stated that while he did not feel attendance at SSPX chapels is recommended, they are neither forbidden to attend, nor subject to any penalty for doing so, if their attendance is on account of the reverence and devotion people find there. Also statements of Rome saying SSPX priests are suspended do not correlate to schism, since Church law does not apply to non-Catholics.

I do not think the case is as cut and dry as many would like to make it.

Good point Eve.

 

[Aramis]

Ok, fine, you don’t want to answer the question. As far as vows, Archbishop Lefevbre took a vow alright. An oath against modernism. Priests used to do that.

And the oath was rescinded as unneeded. And is thus immaterial. The Oath of obedience was taken at first tonsure, and was binding for life, as a solemn vow, under penalty of grave sin. Further, it’s been part of all ordinations since the apostolic era.

Given that the SSPX priests are not now, and have not ever been, excommunicated as a class of persons, it’s immaterial to ask how about the excommunicated are. Those four bishops are still priests of the SSPX, and still suspended. Therefore, they disobey the pope and the church just like the non-bishop priests.

When you aid schism knowingly, you sin.
When you lead others knowingly into sinning, you sin.
When you encourage others to knowingly sin, you sin.
For them, saying the mass is a sin…

 

[I_Believe]

And the oath was rescinded as unneeded. And is thus immaterial. The Oath of obedience was taken at first tonsure, and was binding for life, as a solemn vow, under penalty of grave sin. Further, it’s been part of all ordinations since the apostolic era.

Given that the SSPX priests are not now, and have not ever been, excommunicated as a class of persons, it’s immaterial to ask how about the excommunicated are. Those four bishops are still priests of the SSPX, and still suspended. Therefore, they disobey the pope and the church just like the non-bishop priests.

When you aid schism knowingly, you sin.
When you lead others knowingly into sinning, you sin.
When you encourage others to knowingly sin, you sin.
For them, saying the mass is a sin…

And the document lifting the excommunications calls them Bishops, but you won’t.
They call BVXI "our Holy Father. "

Do you call him that ?

 

[I_Believe]

And the oath was rescinded as unneeded.

It was in the way.

 

[603304529]

I remember reading on these fora (last week I think), how some clown believed that because the Oath against Modernism hadn’t stopped the creeping (leaping and bounding?) Modernism, then there was no point in having it: so good riddance!

Like saying that there’s no point having the 10 Commandments, cause not everyone obeys them.

As they say in Dublin, “wha?”

 

[Toribus]

Having only recently read the Oath against Modernism for the first time, I have to agree that I think disposing of it was at best a mistake and at worst a diabolical victory.

Thanks be to God for the priests, who stayed true to the oath of their youth, who remained within the Church and suffered for my sake, that my generation may accept what was handed to them, that they now hand to us, and we may hand on.

 

[SemperFidelis]

This includes accepting the validity and authority of the Second Vatican Council.

The SSPX accepts Vatican II as a completely valid and legitimate Ecumenical Council. However, unlike those who make the Council out to be some “SuperDogma,” they know what the authority of VII actually entails.

 

[WhollyRoamin]

It’s okay with me. :tiphat:

 

[sparkielee]

So-what is modernism? What is this oath of modernism? And do priests who are not SSPX still take it? And if so, is it just the Traditional Latin Mass priests such as the FSSP or do the Novus Ordo priests take it too.

And also having started to attend the Tridentine Masses I know there’s something else about these Masses-not just that they’re in Latin.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

The SSPX accepts Vatican II as a completely valid and legitimate Ecumenical Council. However, unlike those who make the Council out to be some “SuperDogma,” they know what the authority of VII actually entails.

Really? So what is preventing them from coming back into full communion with the Church?

Lets understand one thing; the consecration of the four SSPX bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre without the approval of the Roman Pontiff was “gravely illicit, that is criminal and sacrilegious”, according to Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Ad Apostolurum Principis. Any unnecessary delays to come back into full communion with the Church only prolongs this grave offense.

If the SSPX is truly faithful to the Catholic Church and its teachings, to include those of the II Vatican Council, and acknowledge and submit themselves to the full authority of the Pope, then what is holding them back? Pope Benedict XVI has been very generous, understanding and forgiving. The next step belongs to the SSPX. Will they take it?

 

[Sir_Alec]

In 1991, Bishop Joseph Ferraro of Honolulu excommunicated five members of his diocese for attending Mass at at the local SSPX chapel. These people appealed to Rome, and here was the answer from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

CONGREGATION PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI DECREE
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger​

The following is the entire declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the case of the so-called “Hawaii five”—as expressed in the case of one of the five, Patricia Morley. I note that this document has received wide publication already and is therefore not in the least confidential:
On July 3, 1991, Mrs. Patricia Morley had recourse to this Congregation against the Decree of the Bishop of Honolulu issued May 1, 1991.

His Excellency, the Most Reverend Joseph Anthony Ferrario, with aforesaid Decree, declared Mrs. Morley excommunicated on the grounds that she had committed the crime of schism and thus had incurred the “latae sententiae” penalty as provided for in Canon 1364 §1 of the Code of Canon Law.

This Congregation has examined carefully all the available documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner, though blameworthy on various accounts, are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism.

Since Mrs. Morley did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the “latae sententiae” penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop lacks the precondition on which is founded.

This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Prefect

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHAWAI.HTM

 

[Timothysis]

In 1991, Bishop Joseph Ferraro of Honolulu excommunicated five members of his diocese for attending Mass at at the local SSPX chapel. These people appealed to Rome, and here was the answer from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHAWAI.HTM

This decision was intended for the people involved, not a blanket statement to the whole world. It does not apply to everyone in the world who attends Mass at sspx chapels.

Can anyone answer the question why it is ok to participate in illicit Masses by priests who have been suspended of their faculties to say Mass and are, thus, being disobedient to the pope and the magisteriam of the Church?

 

[Sir_Alec]

This decision was intended for the people involved, not a blanket statement to the whole world. It does not apply to everyone in the world who attends Mass at sspx chapels.

I think it’s pretty indicative of Rome’s consistent position on the SSPX. While they do not recommend attending these Masses, they are not acts of formal schism, and to argue that one is excommunicated or not Catholic for attending them is not the position of Rome. This was before the excommunications were lifted. I would think that the argument that attending SSPX chapels is schismatic is even more problematic now. Rome and the SSPX are working on reconciling their differences; there will probably be a canonical regularization of the group in the not too distant future.

Can anyone answer the question why it is ok to participate in illicit Masses by priests who have been suspended of their faculties to say Mass and are, thus, being disobedient to the pope and the magisteriam of the Church?

In my diocese, there are several approved Tridentine Masses, quite a few Eastern Rite parishes, and many sound OF parishes. So, for me, I couldn’t attend an SSPX knowing that I had many other options. But if I lived in a diocese that was a theological and liturgical wasteland-and there are many dioceses like this in the US and throughout Europe-I believe that attending an SSPX chapel would be justified. There are plenty of diocesan Masses that have the tacit approval of the local ordinary that have more illicit practices than anything that goes on in a SSPX chapel.

When whole dioceses have liturgical practices that defy the Vatican and Church teaching, can we also say that they are disobedient to the Holy Father and the Magisterium?

 

[SemperFidelis]

Really? So what is preventing them from coming back into full communion with the Church?

Canonical Irregularity. No one in the SSPX doubts that Rome attempted to excommunicate the bishops and suspend the priests in 1988 . They only argue against the validity of said excommunication on the grounds of necessity.

Lets understand one thing; the consecration of the four SSPX bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre without the approval of the Roman Pontiff was “gravely illicit, that is criminal and sacrilegious”, according to Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Ad Apostolurum Principis. Any unnecessary delays to come back into full communion with the Church only prolongs this grave offense.

Pope Pius XII wasn’t alive in 1988. What does this have to do with the Episcopal Consecrations in Econe?

If the SSPX is truly faithful to the Catholic Church and its teachings, to include those of the II Vatican Council,

What are these so-called teachings of Vatican II which are binding on the faithful?

then what is holding them back?

Canonical Irregularity. These things aren’t just fixed overnight. It will happen, in due time.

Pope Benedict XVI has been very generous, understanding and forgiving.

Yes he very much has, and I thank God, Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, and the pope himself that such is the case.

The next step belongs to the SSPX. Will they take it?

Have you not read anything said recently by Bishop Fellay? They will, but just like anything that happens in the Church, it takes time.