Ok to attend an SSPX Traditional Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theresa1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This issue about the SSPX and their being in communion reminds of a an episode of the Simpsons, where Homer is trying to sell Bart’s elephant. lol

Man - “Well sir I’ll be honest with you. I need a large African elephant and I need it today, but this just isn’t what I’m looking for.”

Homer - “What do you mean; it’s an elephant isn’t it?”

Man - “Well it is and it isn’t. If you understand what I mean.”

 
Crusader13 said:
There is no such thing as full communion. You are either in communion or you’re not.

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.
Click to expand...
I bolded the crucial sentence.
There is a wide range of behaviors that do not qualify as sinful, but are usually not prudent, either. We have to consider the effects on others.

I know one woman, fully committed to her parish, who likes to visit the SSPX chapel, only for the Liturgy, especially the music. But when she attends she may influence a younger person, who may be less discerning, and not belong to any parish, who picks up other things too.

It’s possible the priest is considering entering into full Communion with his bishop Ordinary, and diocese. (At present, his priesthood does not benefit from such Communion).

The more visitors he sees attending, the more likely he is to postpone a beneficial decision.

This thread isn’t about the SSPX, it’s about what an individual should do;and not just what is or isn’t sinful.
 
Last edited:
Communion with the local ordinary is dependent upon communion with the Roman Pontiff. Given that Pope Francis has unequivocally demonstrated that the SSPX is in communion with him, the Roman Pontiff, by personally extending faculties to them, your concern is a non-issue. As for the seemingly “irregular” situation–as faculties are usually received from the local bishop or other relevant authority classified as an “ordinary”–this too is a non-issue, as there is plenty of historical precedent for such an arrangement occuring in extraordinary circumstances. For example, the order begun by St. Celestine V, for which he had to receive special permission from the Apostolic See to establish given Lateran IV’s prohibition at the time on new religious orders, was given complete exemption from the jurisdiction of the local bishops.
[/quote]
Whether someone agrees, or disagrees, with your post, I think we can agree there are larger issues, broader implications, for visiting SSPX, way beyond just liking the TLM.

Some Catholics wouldn’t regard exemption from local Catholic bishops as a blessing.
 
@(name removed by moderator) Well said.
commenter said:
I know one woman, fully committed to her parish, who likes to visit the SSPX chapel, only for the Liturgy, especially the music. But when she attends she may influence a younger person, who may be less discerning, and not belong to any parish, who picks up other things too.
Click to expand...
Your analogy presupposes that the influence is in the negative. For all the rhetoric against the SSPX, very few touch on the positive aspects, but merely focus on their perceived disobedience.

It seems that the positives far outweigh any perceived negatives from attending an SSPX chapel. Especially in light of current of events.
 
Last edited:
Check before whether the priest isn’t one of those who don’t exactly follow what is written in their official website in regards to Church hierarchy and who is Pope.
 
I’m just sticking my head in the door so I don’t know what you’re all discussing, but I think this is actually an interesting point.
 
The Resistance (which annoyingly styles itself the “SSPX Resistance”) no longer has any connection to the SSPX. The leadership has significantly increase its crackdown on such unsavory characters, especially after the fiasco in 2009…
[/quote]

Good to know. Yet, this is just another reason to check before. What if some priest part of this so called ‘resistance’ calls himself still a member of the fraternity?
 
Is SSPX in full Communion with every diocese?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjANegQIIxAB&usg=AOvVaw3TZWdF-ehv0OKSZuH7Hlsf

In theory, perhaps SSPX, like certain other institutions, are in full or some Communion with their diocese… according to some documents. In the real world, well, … It varies.

In terms of Communion, I think most people are interested in the “canonically speaking” part, but more interested in the “real world” part.

I’m aware of a diocese with ongoing cooperation (within limits) with
SSPX, but this is the exception to the rule. I wouldn’t call that “full” Communion, but yeah, a kind of Communion.
 
Last edited:
By full communion, I was merely trying to say what Crusader13 said better–that if the SSPX is not in communion with Rome, then it makes no sense to allow them any faculties.

Don’t you see it as strange that their Mass–traditional and said in Latin–is what is contested? Why must we attack traditionalism?

The SSPX says the Mass as it was prior to Vatican II. They say the Mass for the Pope, and the offer prayers for him. What is wrong with that?
 
the_kings_daughter said:
By full communion, I was merely trying to say what Crusader13 said better–that if the SSPX is not in communion with Rome, then it makes no sense to allow them any faculties.

Don’t you see it as strange that their Mass–traditional and said in Latin–is what is contested? Why must we attack traditionalism?

The SSPX says the Mass as it was prior to Vatican II. They say the Mass for the Pope, and the offer prayers for him. What is wrong with that?
Click to expand...
If SSPX were in full Communion with any diocese, various Dioceses would refer to that fact, in diocesan directory or elsewhere. SSPX would communicate which Dioceses they are in full Communion with.

The local SSPX chapel was begun about 1976, when the TLM was unavailable, and often criticized in my diocese. Today the TLM is not publicly criticized, the diocese publicizes two weekly, and one daily, TLM in union with the diocese, all within a 20 minute drive of the chapel.

Yet the chapel goes on. It has built up its own momentum, apart from the TLM itself. An institution that originally had been a reluctant means to an end has now become an end in itself.

In 2020, it’s not their Tradition that’s being contested, but their own momentum.
 
Last edited:
Commenter,

The SSPX is a Society, not a diocesan order, and they thus are not subjected to the dioceses.

It sounds like you have a wonderful diocese! Others, such as myself, are not so fortunate, and I will tell you that criticism and persecution of the Latin Mass said by any fraternity, FSSP included. Not only is the TLM prohibited in this Diocese (I have to drive pretty far to go to my parish in the next diocese over), but in fact, my bishop has placed his own diocesan priests on suspension for saying the Latin Mass and for building communion rails!

Look, I don’t belong to an SSPX parish (so that is not why I am defending them), but I don’t believe that they should be persecuted. The priests within the Society say the Mass for the pope and even the local bishops, as is canonically correct. They strive to offer the Latin Mass in areas where it is otherwise lacking. There is nothing wrong with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top