Not attending N.O.

[BobP123]

To do otherwise is being a schismatic, separating yourself from the gathering of the faithful in the Divine Liturgy.

Attendance at an SSPX or an Orthodox Mass, which are both Catholic Rites, is NOT being a schismatic unless you attend with a schismatic mindset. Same holds true for a Novus Ordo. See Canon Laws above.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Attendance at an SSPX or an Orthodox Mass, which are both Catholic Rites, is NOT being a schismatic unless you attend with a schismatic mindset. Same holds true for a Novus Ordo. See Canon Laws above.

SSPX Masses are illicit and cannot replace an available NO Mass. Being schismatic is not the issue.

As for the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, I believe Rome recognizes it as both Valid and Licit.

 

[Caesar]

SSPX Masses are illicit and cannot replace an available NO Mass. Being schismatic is not the issue.

As for the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, I believe Rome recognizes it as both Valid and Licit.

The Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy is valid, but not licit as the Orthodox are not in communion with Rome. The Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy is valid and licit.

The SSPX Masses are illicit, but still fullfill Sunday obligation. I have been to several SSPX Masses as my Sunday obligation.

 

[bear06]

The SSPX Masses are illicit, but still fullfill Sunday obligation.

Just curious, has anyone actually found a document to support this other than the letter written to Msgr. Perl to a specific person in a specific circumstance? Mucho gracias.

 

[BobP123]

SSPX Masses are illicit and cannot replace an available NO Mass.

Can you provide such evidence from Vatican sources?

 

[Sure]

The SSPX Masses are illicit, but still fullfill Sunday obligation. I have been to several SSPX Masses as my Sunday obligation.

And according to the canons which govern behavior of suspended priests as applied by Archbishop Burke, it is a mortal sin to attend an SSPX Mass:

A priest, who knowingly and willingly chooses to attempt to exercise priestly ministry outside of the communion of the Church and, thereby, assists and encourages others in breaking communion with the Church, clearly also commits the ecclesiastical crime of schism. --------------------
Those who commit the ecclesiastical crime of schism incur automatically the penalty of excommunication (cf. can. 1364, §1; and 1314). The excommunicated person is forbidden “to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the Sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever” (can. 1331, §1, 1º); “to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals, and to receive the sacraments” (can. 1331, §1, 2º); and “to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance” (can. 1331, §1, 3º). The various elements of the penalty underline the fact that the party in question has broken communion with the Church. The prohibition of receiving the sacraments or sacramentals is suspended when the party under sanction is in danger of death, given that he is otherwise properly disposed (cf. can. 1352, §1).​

The ordained priest who goes into schism, in addition to being bound by the above-listed prohibitions, is also rendered irregular for the exercise of Holy Orders (cf. can. 1044, §1, 2º). In other words, he may not exercise the Sacrament of Holy Orders which he has received. Any Mass celebrated by a suspended and excommunicated priest is valid, but illicit. To knowingly and willingly celebrate the Holy Mass, when one is legitimately prohibited from doing so, is a most grave sin. A priest under the penalty of excommunication does not give valid sacramental absolution (cf. can. 966, §1). Neither can he validly officiate at a wedding (cf. can. 1108, §1).​

The faithful who approach a schismatic priest for the reception of the sacraments, except in the case of danger of death, commit a mortal sin.

I know Msgr. Perl seems to differ in his private letter, but canon law seems to clearly contradict what he says.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread…

 

[latinmasslover]

And according to the canons which govern behavior of suspended priests as applied by Archbishop Burke, it is a mortal sin to attend an SSPX Mass

According to the Pope, it’s not.

 

[bear06]

Well, the last few posts actually prove a point. There is no definitive answers on the SSPX fulfilling our Sunday obligation. Also, I don’t think that the Church has actually even spoken on approaching them for the sacrments but maybe they have.

The only thing said is that we can attend out of our love for the now EF. It would seem to say that fulfilling ones Sunday obligation at an SSPX Mass would go beyond what the Vatican has said about the SSPX Mass (outside of the erroneous assumptions made from a letter to an individual in a specific circumstance).

BTW, it is intersting to note that the Vatican has never made Archbishop Burke retract that statement.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Sure;2833133:

And according to the canons which govern behavior of suspended priests as applied by Archbishop Burke, it is a mortal sin to attend an SSPX Mass

According to the Pope, it’s not.

According to the Holy See, the curial offices that speak FOR the pope, schism is, indeed, a grave sin. The bishops are excommunicated, the priests are suspended ad divinis and have no faculties, and the laity (the FAITHFUL laity) are warned against attendance. Still stands, Msgr. Perle’s letter to a SPECIFIC PERSON in a SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE notwithstanding.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Well, the last few posts actually prove a point. There is no definitive answers on the SSPX fulfilling our Sunday obligation. Also, I don’t think that the Church has actually even spoken on approaching them for the sacrments but maybe they have.

The only thing said is that we can attend out of our love for the now EF. It would seem to say that fulfilling ones Sunday obligation at an SSPX Mass would go beyond what the Vatican has said about the SSPX Mass (outside of the erroneous assumptions made from a letter to an individual in a specific circumstance).

BTW, it is intersting to note that the Vatican has never made Archbishop Burke retract that statement.

Nor reversed Bishop Busckiwiez’s excommunications of the same.

 

[Sure]

Sure;2833133:

And according to the canons which govern behavior of suspended priests as applied by Archbishop Burke, it is a mortal sin to attend an SSPX Mass

According to the Pope, it’s not.

It’s Canon Law, silly.

The Pope has not spoken on the issue at all. I trust Archbishop Burke to interpret Canon Law better than any of us.

 

[BobP123]

I trust Archbishop Burke to interpret Canon Law better than any of us.

No disrespect to Archbishop Burke, but are you saying he knows better than the Vatican?

LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY
Under signature of Edward I. Cardinal Cassidy, President (May 3,1994)

    "The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is
    an internal matter of the Catholic Church.  The Society
    is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the
    meaning used in the Directory.  Of course, the Mass
    and Sacraments administered by the priests of the
    Society are valid.  The bishops are validly ... consecrated."

LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION “ECCLESIA DEI”
Under Signature of Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary
May 28, 1996; repeated in Protocol N. 236/98 of March 6, 1998

    "It is true that participation in the Mass and sacraments at the 
    chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute 
    'formal adherence to the schism.'"

September 27, 2002

    **1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X.

    2. ...If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.

    3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.**

 

[LilyM]

Contributing to the collection? Isn’t there something called ‘material support’ of schism or heresy? Would monetary support count there?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

No disrespect to Archbishop Burke, but are you saying he knows better than the Vatican?

This was a specfic incident involving a specific person. If you’d bothered to quote the letter in full, the context would have been clearer and that the Holy See still regards the SSPX as being problematic.

 

[bear06]

No disrespect to Archbishop Burke, but are you saying he knows better than the Vatican?

Bob, seriously?! Are you really trying to float this again as directed to more than a specific person in a specific circumstance as Msgr. Perl stated in his clarification which you always so glaringly forget to post? :banghead:

 

[Sure]

No disrespect to Archbishop Burke, but are you saying he knows better than the Vatican?

Yes, I am proposing that an official decree issued by an Archbishop Member of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (the highest court in the Catholic Church, higher than the Roman Rota) carries more weight than a private letter (subsequently publicized) from a Monsignor in the Vatican to an individual person.

 

[estesbob]

Abuses in the TLM? I thought most TLM devotees were convinced that there could never possibly be any. Never mind that the Canon is often silent so no-one would know what the priest says. And never mind that in the middle ages priests who were in a state of sin actually WOULDN’T say the words of consecration at all to avoid profanely receiving Our Lord.

I’m guessing you mean abuses in the NO, since I do the same

If the Prest in a TM so much as misses a word he is turned into a pillar of salt-or somehting like that.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Abuses in the TLM? I thought most TLM devotees were convinced that there could never possibly be any. Never mind that the Canon is often silent so no-one would know what the priest says. And never mind that in the middle ages priests who were in a state of sin actually WOULDN’T say the words of consecration at all to avoid profanely receiving Our Lord.

I’m guessing you mean abuses in the NO, since I do the same

If the Prest in a TM so much as misses a word he is turned into a pillar of salt-or somehting like that.

The chances of an abuse in a Tridentine Mass is slim. It’s a lot harder to change the words when you don’t speak the language fluently. There’s also not much variation in the actions. People would notice any changes straight away.

However, there are a lot of things we don’t see. For example, after touching the host, the priest must keep his forefinger and thumb together. He is not supposed to remove his fingers until he has washed them. There is no way of knowing whether the Priest has done this, so in that sense there could be a lot of abuses. The Priest is not even allowed to seperate his fingers when opening the tabernacle and must put the key in between his fingers.

Also, the deacon is largely responsible for what happens in the Mass. He is like a master of ceremonies and keeps the Priest right, so to speak. The Priest is not the sole celebrant of the Mass as the altar boys and deacons also play a huge part, for example, when incensing the altar or holding the water container during the Asperges. Therefore, it is harder to commit abuses when someone is watching every move you make.

 

[LilyM]

The chances of an abuse in a Tridentine Mass is slim. It’s a lot harder to change the words when you don’t speak the language fluently. There’s also not much variation in the actions. People would notice any changes straight away.

However, there are a lot of things we don’t see. For example, after touching the host, the priest must keep his forefinger and thumb together. He is not supposed to remove his fingers until he has washed them. There is no way of knowing whether the Priest has done this, so in that sense there could be a lot of abuses. The Priest is not even allowed to seperate his fingers when opening the tabernacle and must put the key in between his fingers.

Also, the deacon is largely responsible for what happens in the Mass. He is like a master of ceremonies and keeps the Priest right, so to speak. The Priest is not the sole celebrant of the Mass as the altar boys and deacons also play a huge part, for example, when incensing the altar or holding the water container during the Asperges. Therefore, it is harder to commit abuses when someone is watching every move you make.

And yet if the Canon is silent they can, as I said, skip the all-important Words of Consecration all together if they so wish

 

[Dempsey1919]

However, there are a lot of things we don’t see

My thoughts exactly. We should pray that this never happens. We should also be aware that this will be an extreme rarety.

When we talk of the abuses of the N.O we do not question the validity of the consecration. We complain about the irreverent way that the Mass is celebrated. This irreverence is extremely rare in the Tridentine Mass. In fact, it probably doesn’t exist in my opinion. I doubt we’ll ever see clown Tridentine Masses or see transvestite homosexual nuns receiving the Eucharist at a Tridentine Mass.