My understanding is that the SSPX have not yet been regularized, that the discussions are ongoing, and so Mass at an SSPX chapel will fulfill Sunday obligation only if one cannot resonably attend any other Mass until regularization is complete.Thanks, I have been driving right past that place thinking that they were not in communion with Rome. This is great news!
In this case, he was referring to independent chapels that offer the EF Mass. Recently, a Church authority ruled that Catholics should avoid these places; in this case the chapel claimed to be a “friend of the SSPX.”Could somebody please explain what an SSPX-affiliated chapel is? And, why does it not fulfil the Sunday obligation? (I am an EF Catholic - since about 2005 - who has only once, in 1995, attended an SSPX Mass.)
Haha, had coffee yet TL?You can attend a mass at an SSPX chapel to fulfill your obligation as long as your intentions as long as you are not attending because of a schismatic mindset.
Thank you for the correction and clarification. I was not aware tha there were chapels and also affiliated chapels.One may attend Masses to fulfill the obligation at SSPX chapels, but not “friends of the SSPX” chapels or “SSPX affiliated” chapels. One may still attend Masses at these latter chapels, but they will not fulfill the obligation; only the Masses AT SSPX chapels do.
However, if there is a diocesan EF Mass, one must make reasonable effort to attend that. If there is not one, or if it truly would be a hindrance to go there, and if you are attending the SSPX chapel Mass out of a love for the EF and not to try to distance oneself from the Holy Father, then it is perfectly legitimate to go there, and it will fulfill the obligation.
In sum:
- Look for a diocesan EF first. If there is not one or if it would truly be a hindrance to go there:
- Ensure that you are going to attend the SSPX Mass out of a liking of the EF and not to distance oneself from the Holy Father. If this criterion is met:
- Attend Mass at an SSPX chapel, which fulfills the obligation.
OR- Attend Mass at an SSPX affiliated chapel, but this does not fulfill the obligation.
Given the right intention on the part of the faithful, the PCED does not bind the laity to seek an OF Mass first before assisting at an SSPX chapel; it only binds them to seek a licit EF Mass first (diocesan, FSSP, ICK, etc)Thank you for the correction and clarification. I was not aware tha there were chapels and also affiliated chapels.
How does the Ordinary Form play into this. **What if an Ordianary Form Mass is available right around the corner from your house. **I’m not trying to stir the pot or poke a bees nest with a stick. I’m sincerly interested.
-Tim-
But isn’t the fact that you are attending a Mass of priests you know that are suspended is in fact a schismatic mindset?You can attend a mass at an SSPX chapel to fulfill your obligation as long as your intentions as long as you are not attending because of a schismatic mindset.
Aren’t we getting a little judgemental here?But isn’t the fact that you are attending a Mass of priests you know that are suspended is in fact a schismatic mindset?
Aren’t we getting a little over-judgemental here? Besides, whether the priest is in a state of sin or not has nothing to do with validity of the Mass, whether it’s EF or OF or DL. If there is a question about whether it fulfills the obligation or not can be answered by writing the ED commission.But isn’t the fact that you are attending a Mass of priests you know that are suspended is in fact a schismatic mindset?
Does judging end with a question mark?Aren’t we getting a little over-judgemental here?
Well, if it is just validity we’re after, there are tons of sedevacantists, Orthodox, Anglican ex-Catholics, and what-have-you priests out there. Why stop with the SSPX?Besides, whether the priest is in a state of sin or not has nothing to do with validity of the Mass, whether it’s EF or OF or DL. If there is a question about whether it fulfills the obligation or not can be answered by writing the ED commission.
You’re right. But it’s not my place to tell them they’re doing wrong. I thought we’ve already established that those who directly break away from the Church are held more accountable than those who have been raised into those groups you have mentioned and others. I don’t know the degree that they’re so accountable. So therefore I can’t judge them and I’m done with the thread.Well, if it is just validity we’re after, there are tons of sedevacantists, Orthodox, Anglican ex-Catholics, and what-have-you priests out there. Why stop with the SSPX?
You’re right. But it’s not my place to tell them they’re doing wrong. I thought we’ve already established that those who directly break away from the Church are held more accountable than those who have been raised into those groups you have mentioned and others. I don’t know the degree that they’re so accountable. But even if I could apparently the Vatican finds no problem with people supporting the FSSPX in some manner, suspended priests or not; after all the talks would be meaningless if no one frequented their chapels. So therefore I am not going to judge them. And that’s all I have to say on this thread.Well, if it is just validity we’re after, there are tons of sedevacantists, Orthodox, Anglican ex-Catholics, and what-have-you priests out there. Why stop with the SSPX?
If you read posts #5 and #8 in this thread, you’ll see that the commission drew the line already, so we don’t need to use our own judgment on that.Does judging end with a question mark?
Well, if it is just validity we’re after, there are tons of sedevacantists, Orthodox, Anglican ex-Catholics, and what-have-you priests out there. Why stop with the SSPX?