Okay to attend an SSPX Mass if

[RosaryCrusader]

Continued from above…

It’s extremely easy: Quas Primas or Quanta Cura against Freemasonry state, Dignitatis Humanae against Communist slavery that forced their people to live without God.

So was the freemasonic concept no longer a threat during V2? It went away so we decided to promote it’s former ideals? Either they were wrong or they weren’t regardless of who was saying it or when they said it. QP & QC don’t mention freemasonry, neither does DH mention communism by name although I don’t disagree with you that they were predominately addressing freemasonic & communistic concepts respectively. However, the name of the group trumpeting those ideals is not as important as the concepts they involve and it was precisely the concepts which were condemned; concepts which still exist and did so during V2 as well and are not exclusively tied to the mid 1800’s.

Have you ever read the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2108 and 2109?

Yes

Or do you consider it “modernist” and to be avoided?

Mmmmm…

Something tells me you’d view it as the latter.

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt…

So here it is: 2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,* (37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799)*** but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right (Pius XII, 6 December 1953).

2109 * The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner (Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura* 3). The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order.” (cf Pío IX, enc. “Quanta cura”). So now you can see. The “modernist” Catechism of the Catholic Church goes to Quanta Cura and keep its teaching alive. There’s no moral freedom to choose a religion. All is about a political freedom so Communist states don’t impose anti-God teaching. “In order to be faithful to the divine command, “teach all nations” (Matt. 28:19-20), the Catholic Church must work with all urgency and concern “that the word of God be spread abroad and glorified” (2 Thess. 3:1). Hence the Church earnestly begs of its children that, “first of all, supplications, prayers, petitions, acts of thanksgiving be made for all men… For this is good and agreeable in the sight of God our Savior, who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1-4). In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. (35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, “in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth” (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood” (Dignitatis Humanae).

“Liberty of conscience and of worship … should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society …”
Condemned by Pius IX, Quanta Cura

“…the best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledgment by the government of the duty of restraining… offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands”
Condemned ibid.

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

• Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.*
  Condemned The Syllabus of Errors - Pope Pius IX

1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863
   Condemned ibid
2. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
   Condemned ibid
3. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – *Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855. *
   Condemned ibid
4. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
   Condemned ibid

 

[Cecilianus]

What Dignitatis Humanae affirmed is that nobody can be coerced into converting to Christianity against their will. This has always been the teaching of the Church. Local councils in Spain condemned the Visigothic King, Sisebut, for imposing baptism on the Jews against their will. (Incidentally, it was anger at this forced baptism that led the Jews to ask the Jews of North Africa for help, leading to the Muslim conquest… so you see how much good that did.) In my understanding, Dignitatis Humanae never condemned the idea that heresy can be a legitimate crime as undermining the foundation of a Christian State. It was written to address the modern world which basically doesn’t have Christian states.

 

[ProVobis]

Why would you even WANT to go to the SSPX if there is a TLM approved by the diocese in your area? This makes no sense.

Nothing against an “approved” EF, maybe because the SSPX are just slightly more precise in the rubrics and Latin of the 62 Missal or have Masses at a more convenient time? I have to say, though, the ICR and FSSP are pretty precise as well. So it’s up to you to define “spiritual advantage” to yourself. Actually it’s good that you have a choice.

 

[Cecilianus]

Nothing against an “approved” EF, maybe because the SSPX are just slightly more precise in the rubrics and Latin of the 62 Missal or have Masses at a more convenient time? I have to say, though, the ICR and FSSP are pretty precise as well. So it’s up to you to define “spiritual advantage” to yourself. Actually it’s good that you have a choice.

The SSPX give the reason that “approved” Tridentine Masses are sinful because to have them approved is to acknowledge the authority of Rome (“modernist Rome”, as they call it - that is, the post-Vatican II Rome). To me, this claim is simply an act of schism. I am incredibly glad that we have the FSSP - because they DO practice obedience to the Holy See. That’s something I - as a Catholic - consider to be a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

[Geremia]

What Dignitatis Humanae affirmed is that nobody can be coerced into converting to Christianity against their will.

I used to think this, too, but now I don’t think it’s so obvious, especially since some Vatican II cardinals have admitted that they themselves cannot reconcile it with Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Quanta Cura or his Syllabus of Errors. Read this for more information.

 

[ProVobis]

The SSPX give the reason that “approved” Tridentine Masses are sinful because to have them approved is to acknowledge the authority of Rome (“modernist Rome”, as they call it - that is, the post-Vatican II Rome).

Personally I have not seen or heard this, and I have probably attended more SSPX Masses than you have.

 

[Cecilianus]

Personally I have not seen or heard this, and I have probably attended more SSPX Masses than you have.

Look at their web page where they explain why they think it’s not okay to attend FSSP Masses.

 

[Cecilianus]

I used to think this, too, but now I don’t think it’s so obvious, especially since some Vatican II cardinals have admitted that they themselves cannot reconcile it with Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Quanta Cura or his Syllabus of Errors. Read this for more information.

I found it rather difficult too, so I bought a copy and read it closely - very closely. Word-for-word there’s no contradiction between Dignitatis Humanae and the pre-Vatican II documents.

It is rather unfortunate, however, that the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council did not bother to mention Quanta Cura in Dignitatis Humanae; they could have made it a lot clearer and a lot harder to misinterpret.

 

[DavidJoseph]

Only the proper understanding and teaching, which can only be ascertained in light of tradition, demands assent. Ambiguous texts wrongfully implemented and imposed by liberal factions hardly require any assent at all which is why Pope Benedict XVI demands no less than a ‘hermeneutic of continuity.’ The text I quoted above, found in The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, was promulgated with the understanding that the teaching on ‘religious liberty’ was to be further studied and interpreted but yet the opposite has happened, apart from the efforts of the SSPX, and the majority accept it word for word as ‘superdogma’.

You’re right about the hermeneutic of continuity, but while there may be ambiguity in some Vatican II texts, that doesn’t give us license to reject them. We have to interpret them in light of tradition. If we don’t understand them, we’re to give the Church the benefit of the doubt and study the issue. If we make up our minds that any of Vatican II’s documents teach error, we’re really no different from the “cafeteria Catholics” who support contraception, ordaining women, etc. (with the exception that we lean in a different direction).

Can you tell me where I might find this ‘true ecumenism’?

If you’ve made up your mind that all ecumenism is false, then I can’t help you there. Someone who expects to see something wrong or evil is bound to see it everywhere even if it’s nowhere. If you expect to find nothing but false ecumenism, then you’ll find it whether it’s really there in any given instant or not.

Good! Then we’re in agreement that there is no such thing as religious freedom. Religious tolerance; yes. Freedom; no.

If you mean Masonic religious freedom, then yes.

 

[DavidJoseph]

So was the freemasonic concept no longer a threat during V2? It went away so we decided to promote it’s former ideals? Either they were wrong or they weren’t regardless of who was saying it or when they said it. QP & QC don’t mention freemasonry, neither does DH mention communism by name although I don’t disagree with you that they were predominately addressing freemasonic & communistic concepts respectively. However, the name of the group trumpeting those ideals is not as important as the concepts they involve and it was precisely the concepts which were condemned; concepts which still exist and did so during V2 as well and are not exclusively tied to the mid 1800’s.

Whether or not the Masonic concept was no longer a threat during Vatican II is irrelevant, as that apparently wasn’t an issue that was brought up. The Church had already addressed it previously anyway, so then it was time to address another issue, namely the Communistic concept.

Yes

Good to know.

Mmmmm…

So you’re not sure? There may be hope for you yet.

Thanks for the benefit of the doubt…

Don’t mention it.

“Liberty of conscience and of worship … should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society …”
Condemned by Pius IX, Quanta Cura

“…the best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledgment by the government of the duty of restraining… offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands”
Condemned ibid.

1. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.

• Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.*
  Condemned The Syllabus of Errors - Pope Pius IX

1. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. – Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863
   Condemned ibid

1. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
   Condemned ibid

1. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. – *Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855. *
   Condemned ibid

1. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. – Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
   Condemned ibid

How do the above condemned beliefs/statements contradict the material I provided?

 

[Onegin]

It is okay to attend an SSPX Mass without an “if.”

You can even receive communion there without an “if.”

The only thing you probably should wait for strict approval (like full communion, no questions asked, from Rome) for is things like confession, as this is jurisdictional and the priests in the SSPX don’t really have a jurisdiction.

But by all means, go to Mass there.

Quoted for truth.

No problem with going to Mass there. Or receiving Communion. Again, the irony is that the SSPX do not believe they are “split” from Rome in any sense of the word, so I’m not sure where you could get a “schismatic attitude” by attending there unless you, like, concocted it yourself or something.

(On a related note - and in half-response to another post in this thread - I’m not really surprised to see people here are still battling out over the old, tired SSPX debate).

 

[DavidJoseph]

Quoted for truth.

No problem with going to Mass there. Or receiving Communion. Again, the irony is that the SSPX do not believe they are “split” from Rome in any sense of the word, so I’m not sure where you could get a “schismatic attitude” by attending there unless you, like, concocted it yourself or something.

(On a related note - and in half-response to another post in this thread - I’m not really surprised to see people here are still battling out over the old, tired SSPX debate).

It may be technically ok to go to Mass at an SSPX chapel (just so long as you avoid a schismatic mentality), but the reception of Communion from them, I’d advise against. Yes, their Eucharist is valid, but the priests who confect it are suspended. I’ve heard that it’s objectively sacrilegious to knowingly receive Communion from ANY suspended priest (unless, of course, there’s danger of death or something like that).

 

[Middleman]

I’m not understanding this. Aren’t these groups a rarity? I wouldn’t even know where one of these churches was. Isn’t this going out of the way to attend a service with a group that has been at odds with the Vatican for years? Why would you want to inconvenience yourself to do something questionable?

 

[Onegin]

It may be technically ok to go to Mass at an SSPX chapel (just so long as you avoid a schismatic mentality), but the reception of Communion from them, I’d advise against. Yes, their Eucharist is valid, but the priests who confect it are suspended. I’ve heard that it’s objectively sacrilegious to knowingly receive Communion from ANY suspended priest (unless, of course, there’s danger of death or something like that).

Yikes. I should probably tell that to the diocesan priest that has, occasionally, offered Mass at the local SSPX chapel!

Or, in the alternative, we could just admit that receiving Communion at a Society chapel won’t make you a raving heretic, schismatic or sinner (at least, any more than usual). The Eucharist is just as valid there (don’t qualify it!) as it is at the crazy Life Teen Mass down the street. Likewise, so the priest is just as validly ordained as Fr. Fortuna. This is just one of the unfortunate things that those who dislike the SSPX so greatly will have to accept.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

How do the above condemned beliefs/statements contradict the material I provided?

Taken at face value they’re directly contrary to DH and this seeming contradiction has been instrumental in issuing in this dismal state of confusion within the Church. The Pope is concerned about the current ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ by emphasising the opposite, but why? Clearly - and I repeat, Cleary - things have gone wrong since V2.

The thing with ecumenism (especially to those who think it’s some kind of dogma or doctrine) is that you can point your finger right at it in history and say - okay, it started right here with Vatican II. Doctrine isn’t like that. We can’t point to the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption and find a particular point where this was taught but previously wasn’t. It was there from the beginning, being a part of the Divine revelation. Ecumenism and religious 'liberty ’ is clearly distinguishable in history because it wasn’t practiced or acknowledged prior to V2. Pope Pius XI warned about ecumenism specifically in Mortalium Animos and this was just a few decades before V2. Religous tolerance (as opposed to liberty) was acknowledged legitimate when cases dictated it such as civil order but religious ‘liberty’ was specifically condemned by many Popes.

How can anyone find fault with those who see a ‘hermeneutic of rupture’ and why do so many see V2 this way? Obviously, at face value, it certainly appears that there has been a rupture, and the Pope ackowledges that.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

It may be technically ok to go to Mass at an SSPX chapel (just so long as you avoid a schismatic mentality), but the reception of Communion from them, I’d advise against. Yes, their Eucharist is valid, but the priests who confect it are suspended. I’ve heard that it’s objectively sacrilegious to knowingly receive Communion from ANY suspended priest (unless, of course, there’s danger of death or something like that).

David, I know a few people here locally who have the same mentality. But if receiving communion at SSPX was an issue then Rome would’ve mentioned it like they did with the confession issue - but they haven’t - and it wouldn’t make much sense to give someone the OKAY to go to a restaraunt but be silent about whether or not they’re allowed to eat there - the permission is assumed.

 

[Cecilianus]

The thing with ecumenism (especially to those who think it’s some kind of dogma or doctrine) is that you can point your finger right at it in history and say - okay, it started right here with Vatican II.

1. Ecumenism is a technique for evangelization - not a “dogma or doctrine” in the sense you are talking about.
2. Your history is just plain wrong. Ever heard of the Council of Florence?

 

[Cecilianus]

I’m not understanding this. Aren’t these groups a rarity? I wouldn’t even know where one of these churches was. Isn’t this going out of the way to attend a service with a group that has been at odds with the Vatican for years? Why would you want to inconvenience yourself to do something questionable?

Unfortunately, no; they more readily available in some places than licit traditional Masses.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

---

 

[RosaryCrusader]

1. Ecumenism is a technique for evangelization - not a “dogma or doctrine” in the sense you are talking about.

Thank you for acknowledging that. Many would disagree with you as the common perception is that it’s an irreversible ‘doctrine’ defined by V2.

However, you make ecumenism sound as if it’s just a tool in the apologist’s bag of tricks to get non-Catholics into the Catholic Church. Does the ecumenically minded protestant have the same understanding of ecumenism as you do?

I’m not so sure your view of ecumenism is in line with, not only the current practice, but with Vatican guidelines such as the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism? which states, among many other things, *"At times, local Ordinaries, Synods of Eastern Catholic Churches and Episcopal Conferences **may find it necessary to take special measures to overcome the dangers of *indifferentism or proselytism."

Your wanting to ‘evangelize’ could very well be a danger to the ecumenical process. You might want to review the above mentioned document to make sure you’re doing what you’re supposed to be doing.

1. Your history is just plain wrong. Ever heard of the Council of Florence?

Yes, and the attempts of reconcilation with the Easter Churches (ie. at Florence Lyons II etc.) can hardly be compared with the modern notion of ‘ecumenism’. Never before have the laity been given the license currently allowed to participate in non-Catholic common prayer and other ecumenical “activities”- it was always something unheard of and forbidden. You didn’t see Bishops and Popes holding hands with the eastern Patriarchs, reciting common prayers and holding common prayer meetings as a result of the attempts at reunification unless that reunification was well within the walls of the Catholic Church. The former attempts at such unity were clearly and undeniably an ‘ecumenism of return’ and not of convergence.