Ok to attend an SSPX Traditional Mass?

[TomH1]

Am I receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord at an SSPX Latin Mass?

Yes, if you receive Communion and the priest who offered the Mass fulfilled all the requirements for a valid sacrament.

However, their Masses are illicit.

People can bring me their children and I can baptize them validly. However, their baptisms would be illicit.

It is much better to stay within the Church’s laws than to step outside them. And, that’s not being merely legalistic. The Church’s laws are based on and flow from theology.

 

[the_kings_daughter]

I was not trying to imply that all priests feel the same on this issue–just that the priests at my parish have all told me that it is okay

Also, because the SSPX is in full communion with Rome, as long as one does not attend the SSPX to avoid the hierarchy of the Church it should be fine to hear Mass at a SSPX parish. We mustn’t forget that without Archbishop Lefebvre we would have lost the Latin Mass.

 

[Fauken]

We mustn’t forget that without Archbishop Lefebvre we would have lost the Latin Mass.

Yes. But that doesn’t give him a pass on everything he did that was wrong. Founding a society which calls a valid form of the Mass evil does not endear them to me.

Is the New Mass legit? - District of the USA

“The correct definition of evil—lack of a due good—clearly shows that the New Mass is evil in and of itself regardless of the circumstances. It is not evil by positive profession of heresy. It is evil by lacking what Catholic dogma should profess: the True Sacrifice, the Real Presence, the ministerial priesthood.”

 

[Crusader13]

Sorry for my ignorance I just don’t know if they are 1) in communion with Rome and 2) what’s the difference between an SSPX latin Mass and a nonSSPX Latin Mass?

Thank you all for any explanation.

You can attend an SSPX chapel, so long as your reasons don’t stem from a motive that involves trying to separate yourself from the Church as a whole.

From my understanding there is no official prohibition against attending Mass at an SSPX chapel. So you’re not committing a sin by doing so. However, there has been much confusion with regards to the “status” of the SSPX and this confusion leads many individuals to make false assumptions about the SSPX.

Overall, I don’t see anything wrong with attending an SSPX chapel. I’ve found their Masses to be excellent and the priests to be very holy and humble. And the chapel I’ve attended offers constant prayers for Pope Francis and the entire Church.

 

[commenter]

You can attend an SSPX chapel, so long as your reasons don’t stem from a motive that involves

"Slippery slope warning"

Hardly any Christian consciously takes actions, fully aware and admitting that their motive is questionable. Don’t we usually look for an “acceptable” motive that will justify what we were already tempted to do?

We are suffering today from chronic neglect of the virtue of Prudence.

If you are thinking about taking any kind of action, and are tempted to justify it by coming up with a good motive, maybe there’s some other action you should do instead.

 

[Crusader13]

But you can’t imply that everyone who wishes to attend an SSPX chapel has some undeclared ulterior motive. There are some who simply wish to attend a good TLM, but don’t have any other option available.

I think for many Catholics, the SSPX and in large part the TLM, are sometimes viewed as the secondary option. Most Catholics won’t outright condemn these options, but they don’t fully endorse them either.

I think others take a position that suggests we as Catholics should be attending the NO as a sign of obedience and in support of the changes made during VII. To do otherwise means that we are simply being disobedient, even at a subconscious level.

 

[Elf01]

There are some who simply wish to attend a good TLM, but don’t have any other option available.

I would like to see more options for the Latin Mass that don’t involve canonical irregularitues.

 

[Montrose]

SSPX Mass I think may be valid but illicit because the priests have no faculties to celebrate Mass.
The faithful are not encouraged to attend SSPX Masses.

 

[commenter]

But you can’t imply that everyone who wishes to attend an SSPX chapel has some undeclared ulterior motive.

I don’t think that’s the case.

Pope Francis has done what I call “outreaches” to people who are already in different kinds of irregular situations. Some grew up there, others have been in a relationship or something for years, be it SSPX, or an irregular living situation.

My interpretation of the “outreaches” is is that he is not encouraging new people to enter those situations, but comforts those already in them. For new people, making new decisions, choices that are not sinful might not be prudent, either.

 

[the_kings_daughter]

Montrose, this is simply not true. The SSPX Mass is both valid and licit. The priests have all faculties to celebrate Mass, and the faithful are actually free to attend an SSPX Mass, especially if there is no other Latin Mass available in the area. . . .

 

[Montrose]

Montrose, this is simply not true. The SSPX Mass is both valid and licit. The priests have all faculties to celebrate Mass, and the faithful are actually free to attend an SSPX Mass, especially if there is no other Latin Mass available in the area.

The SSPX is in “full communion with the Church” (Vatican website), and the sacraments are recognized by Pope Francis, Himself, as “valid” (Angelus Press, quoting Pope Francis). Their ordination is valid, thus the Sacraments which they celebrate, too, are valid.

What you said is untrue. Apart from the faculty to hear Confession which was extended their other faculties are suspended and the SSPX is most definitely NOT in full communion with Rome.
They have no other faculties!

 

[the_kings_daughter]

. . . . Furthermore, SSPX marriages are accepted by Francis as valid and licit.

I am not at an SSPX church, but I do attend one on occasion, such as the weeks when Mass was banned over the spring. I am very grateful for what they did for the laity!

 

[Fauken]

I am not at an SSPX church, but I do attend one on occasion, such as the weeks when Mass was banned over the spring. I am very grateful for what they did for the laity!

They seem to have a history of ignoring the lawful authority of bishops when it doesn’t suit them. But we’re supposed to view them as being perfectly fine and in good standing with the Vatican.

The Mass wasn’t banned. The public celebration of it was due to the coronavirus.

 

[Socrates92]

Hm, the Sunday obligation still ordinarily holds as long as there is a valid Mass within the area (“ordinarily” because many or most places have still suspended the obligation, so in those areas this doesn’t apply at the current time)

 

[Crusader13]

They seem to have a history of ignoring the lawful authority of bishops when it doesn’t suit them

I’m not sure which instances this refers to, but given the current state of the entire USCCB, I doubt that the issues are merely as black and white as mere disobedience.

 

[Crusader13]

There is no such thing as full communion. You are either in communion or you’re not. Similar to pregnancy, you’re either pregnant or you’re not. You don’t say fully pregnant or partially pregnant.

And if the SSPX is not in communion with Rome, then it makes no sense to allow them to have any faculties whatsoever.

The entire issue is not so clear cut as some make it out to be. If that were the case, then the hierarchy should just explicitly prohibit any attendance to the SSPX chapels under pain of sin.

 

[Montrose]

There is no such thing as full communion. You are either in communion or you’re not. Similar to pregnancy, you’re either pregnant or you’re not. You don’t say fully pregnant or partially pregnant.

And if the SSPX is not in communion with Rome, then it makes no sense to allow them to have any faculties whatsoever.

The entire issue is not so clear cut as some make it out to be. If that were the case, then the hierarchy should just explicitly prohibit any attendance to the SSPX chapels under pain of sin.

It was the kings daughter poster who brought up the expression “full communion”. I was responding to that.
The SSPX issue is clear. The priests only have faculties to hear Confession. Their other faculties remain suspended, whether you think it makes sense or not.
They are not in communion with Rome. The faculty to hear Confession was an exception.

 

[Crusader13]

Apologies I clicked in the wrong post and started replying. lol. I’ll try to fix that

 

[Montrose]

Apologies I clicked in the wrong post and started replying. lol. I’ll try to fix that

No problem. My apologies if I was a bit sharp.

 

[Crusader13]

The SSPX issue is clear. The priests only have faculties to hear Confession. Their other faculties remain suspended, whether you think it makes sense or not.

Well of course I have no say in the matter, being a member of the laity.

However, according to Bp. Athanasius Schneider, the issue is muddy at best. And he reiterated that if they aren’t in communion with Rome, then it makes no sense to allow exceptions. The issue goes deep into canon law and theological issues, which are frankly above my weight class. lol

And regardless of what we as individuals think, the fact remains that there is no explicit prohibition against attending an SSPX chapel under pain of sin. I’ve looked for such a decree and can’t find one.