Schismatic Liturgy vs. Catholic Communion Service

[Iohannes]

These communion services smacks of protestantism. They are very similar too with the exception that you recieve the Consecrated Host. In a protestant service, you have no sacrifice, in a Communion service, there is no sacrifice. At least in a badly done but valid Novus Ordo, there is a sacrifice.

Lets put some politiks aside here:
If you really hate the SSPX, and think they are all bad, then go to a closest Novus Ordo Mass 2 hours away, especially when you have children. Your children may think it is acceptable for Sister Joan to be a priestess if she is in charge of the Communion service, especially when she mimics the action of the priest or gives a “lay reflection” that resembles a homily while he is on vacation or not available. Or since there is no sacrifice at a communion service, they may think it would just be acceptable to go a protestant service, which there is no sacrifice.

One good historical example:
Back in Elizabethan England “Church Papists”(Catholics who attended protestant services) as they were called had lost their children and grandchildren to the protestant faith in just two generation because of the overexposure to a protestant anglican service.

Remember the principle:

Lex credendi legem statuat supplicandi
“Let the rule of belief determine the rule of prayer.”
or

Lex orandi, Lex credendi

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Iohannes:

There is no Sacrifice and no grace that would have been recieve if there was a Sacrifice. At least at an SSPX you could recieve grace if the intention is not to break from Rome.

How precisely do you figure this?!?!? The sick or the aged and infirm rec. no grace from Holy Communion brought to them in their homes or hospital rooms? And the letter was to a single person and neither obligates nor encourages anyone to attend a schismatic service in an effort to fufill their Sunday obligation, as the obligation would not exist if a Mass or Communion service could not be held in union with the Holy See. Indeed, I should think that to go to an SSPX service WHEN a deacon or EMHC was offering a valid communion service WOULD constitute a manifest desire for something other than communion with the Holy See.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Triumpha:

Excommunications have been known to be unjust in the past. They aren’t infallible.

Triumpha.

Excommunications have been LIFTED, not declared to be “unjust.” And they are infallible, they fall directly into the category of things over which the Successor to Saint Peter has the power of binding and loosing. Facts are facts: The SSPX are FORMAL schismatics, as opposed to material schismatics or heretics (those born into seperated communities, like Protestants or the Orthodox. The Catechism makes a distinction). The Archbishop and those four bishops knew what they were doing. They walked into it with eyes open.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Iohannes:

These communion services smacks of protestantism. They are very similar too with the exception that you recieve the Consecrated Host. In a protestant service, you have no sacrifice, in a Communion service, there is no sacrifice. At least in a badly done but valid Novus Ordo, there is a sacrifice.

More dissent in the line of thought that any one individual person or group of people is “more Catholic than the pope” (all the old heresies began that way, by the way. The Donatists, the Cathars, all of them, thought they knew better than the Magisterium of the Church). If the Pope says that a communion service is valid, licit, and fufills your Sunday obligation, then there is nothing Protestant about it.

 

[Iohannes]

JKirkLVNV:

How precisely do you figure this?!?!? The sick or the aged and infirm rec. no grace from Holy Communion brought to them in their homes or hospital rooms? And the letter was to a single person and neither obligates nor encourages anyone to attend a schismatic service in an effort to fufill their Sunday obligation, as the obligation would not exist if a Mass or Communion service could not be held in union with the Holy See. Indeed, I should think that to go to an SSPX service WHEN a deacon or EMHC was offering a valid communion service WOULD constitute a manifest desire for something other than communion with the Holy See.

I said there is no grace that comes from the Sacrifice of Calvary if there is no Mass going on. Understand? IF there is no Mass, then there is no Sacrifice of Calvary, then there is no grace that come when people attend Mass.

Of course there is grace when one recieve Holy Communion but it is not the same as going to Mass. The MAIN purpose of Mass is to attend the Sacrifice of Calvary. Holy Communion is only secondary. Of course if people are infirmed, it is not their fault. etc.

 

[Iohannes]

JKirkLVNV:

More dissent in the line of thought that any one individual person or group of people is “more Catholic than the pope” (all the old heresies began that way, by the way. The Donatists, the Cathars, all of them, thought they knew better than the Magisterium of the Church). If the Pope says that a communion service is valid, licit, and fufills your Sunday obligation, then there is nothing Protestant about it.

Tell me where is the Sacrifice of Calvary in the communion services? You get less grace at a Communion service then if you attend Mass because at a Communion service, there is no Sacrifice.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Iohannes:

I said there is no grace that comes from the Sacrifice of Calvary if there is no Mass going on. Understand? IF there is no Mass, then there is no Sacrifice of Calvary, then there is no grace that come when people attend Mass.

Of course there is grace when one recieve Holy Communion but it is not the same as going to Mass. The MAIN purpose of Mass is to attend the Sacrifice of Calvary. Holy Communion is only secondary. Of course if people are infirmed, it is not their fault. etc.

This still does not justify attendance on an SSPX mass when there is a valid communion service in union with the ordinary and the Holy See. One could just as easily encourage people to attend an Orthodox liturgy for their Sunday obligation. Schismatic is schismatic.

 

[Iohannes]

JKirkLVNV:

This still does not justify attendance on an SSPX mass when there is a valid communion service in union with the ordinary and the Holy See. One could just as easily encourage people to attend an Orthodox liturgy for their Sunday obligation. Schismatic is schismatic.

unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

From Monsignor Perl:

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

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Iohannes:

Tell me where is the Sacrifice of Calvary in the communion services? You get less grace at a Communion service then if you attend Mass because at a Communion service, there is no Sacrifice.

I think this is poor logic and fallacious theology. Are you trying to fit grace into a graduated beaker? Are you trying to quantitatively measure it? Schism is, again, schism. We have to make do with what we can get, with what has been authorized by the Holy See, if we are going to be obedient. That is what it is to be a Catholic.

 

[Iohannes]

JKirkLVNV:

I think this is poor logic and fallacious theology. Are you trying to fit grace into a graduated beaker? Are you trying to quantitatively measure it? Schism is, again, schism. We have to make do with what we can get, with what has been authorized by the Holy See, if we are going to be obedient. That is what it is to be a Catholic.

My understand of Mass is that it is the Sacrifice of Calvary and a communion service is not? I am wrong about this?

The primary reason why we attend Mass is to attend the Sacrifice of Calvary and witness God the Son being offered to God the Father. Is that not correct?

In a communion service you get none of that? Am I wrong about this? Somebody tell me and give me a reference that a communion service is equal to a Mass?

 

[Iohannes]

If you really do not want to drive thoousands of miles to nearest Novus Ordo. How about praying the Liturgy of the Hours, rosary, without anyone in the sanctuary? Maybe pray every sunday that a priest become a available?

If there is no priest, that means there is no confession too.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Iohannes:

My understand of Mass is that it is the Sacrifice of Calvary and a communion service is not? I am wrong about this?

The primary reason why we attend Mass is to attend the Sacrifice of Calvary and witness God the Son being offered to God the Father. Is that not correct?

In a communion service you get none of that? Am I wrong about this? Somebody tell me and give me a reference that a communion service is equal to a Mass?

No one is saying that they aren’t different. But the Grace we rec. comes from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. Of course it’s better to attend upon a valid and licit Mass, but if only a valid and licit communion service was available, I have trouble believing that there is, quantitatively, less grace (what is given is, after all, God Himself). I’m merely suggesting that to attend upon any Mass of the Society of Saint Pius X when a valid communion service, authorized by the local ordinary, appointed by and in communion with the Holy See, is gravely wrong, esp. in light of Ecclesia Dei. Trying to say otherwise is mental gymnastics.

Why not satisfy the Sunday obligation among the Sedevacanteist? Why not among the Old Catholics? Why not among the Orthodox? Because it’s disobedient! Personally, though I love the Roman Canon as it is presented in Eucharistic Prayer One, I much prefer and am attached to the Anglican Use liturgy, approved by the Holy See. The problem is that there is no Anglican Use parish in my diocese. There is, however, a “continuing Anglican” church here that only celebrates from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, from which the Anglican Use liturgy comes. I COULD go to that, but it would be wrong because A) they don’t have valid orders, B) they are material heretics and C) I wouldn’t have an excuse anyway as the Mass of Paul VI is offered in ever parish in this city. “But what about my personal preference?!?!?!?” That doesn’t enter into a question of obedience or even the spirit of obedience. My personal preference doesn’t matter. Absent abuse, the Mass of Paul VI is the normative mass of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. A communion service approved by the ordinary, at which the Sacred Species are given to the faithful, is infinitely preferable to a unquestionably valid, but entirely illicit Mass celebrated by schismatics (remember, though they pray for the Holy Father and the local bishop, they live in total disobedience and they possess no faculties, which MUST be granted by the local ordinary).

 

[Iohannes]

JKirkLVNV:

No one is saying that they aren’t different. But the Grace we rec. comes from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ (the result of a Mass already celebrated). Of course it’s better to attend upon a valid and licit Mass, but if only a valid and licit communion service was available, I have trouble believing that there is, quantitatively, less grace (what is given is, after all, God Himself). I’m merely suggesting that to attend upon any Mass of the Society of Saint Pius X when a valid communion service, authorized by the local ordinary, appointed by and in communion with the Holy See, is gravely wrong, esp. in light of Ecclesia Dei. Trying to say otherwise is mental gymnastics.

So people who do not receive Communion do not get graces at Mass?

That is incorrect, the Grace we recieve from Mass is from the Sacrifice of our Lord at Calvary to God the Father.

Again the primary purpose of attending Mass is to recieve Grace of the Sacrifice of Calvary, receiving Grace of Holy Communion is secondary.

Of course there is Grace when one recieve Communion if one is in a state of grace.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Iohannes:

If you really do not want to drive thoousands of miles to nearest Novus Ordo. How about praying the Liturgy of the Hours, rosary, without anyone in the sanctuary? Maybe pray every sunday that a priest become a available?

If there is no priest, that means there is no confession too.

If there is no Mass near you, ie., you live where there is no Catholic parish, and travel would be a hardship for you, then the Sunday obligation is voided, non-existent! You don’t have to go to Mass.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Iohannes:

So people who do not receive Communion do not get graces at Mass?

That is incorrect, the Grace we recieve from Mass is from the Sacrifice of our Lord at Calvary to God the Father.

Again the primary purpose of attending Mass is to recieve Grace of the Sacrifice of Calvary, receiving Grace of Holy Communion is secondary.

Of course there is Grace when one recieve Communion if one is in a state of grace.

No, that’s surely isn’t what I meant to imply.

Look, here’s the thing, side by side: Legitimate communion service, offered by a deacon or a lay person (even a nun!) authorized by bishop and priest, valid and licit and in accord with Church law and in communion with the Holy See OR valid, yet illicit Mass offered by schismatic priests who refuse to obey the legitimate Successor to Saint Peter, who possess no faculties from the local ordinary, and who, by their very ordination by schismatic bishops, are themselves in schism? It’s a no brainer to me. I’d go to the communion service. Otherwise, I setting my personal preferences against the wisdom of the Church, and violating the promise I made when I was rec. into the Church, ie.,“I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church holds, believes, and teaches to be revealed of God.” (paraphrase). This has to include Her authority to excommunicate, to regulate Her liturgy, and to declare who is and who isn’t in Communion with her.

 

[David_B]

Petertherock:

I have in fact attended a communion service by a deacon on a Sunday. As I posted in another thread earlier, our normal priest was on vacation and our fill in priest was sick and couldn’t make it. So our deacon had a communion service. Our deacon stated that this service did indeed count as fullfilling your Sunday obligation. He also stated as we have fewer priests this is what we will be facing in the future.

I believe the deacon is incorrect in saying that the communion service fulfilled your Sunday obligation. There is no Sunday Obligation if there is no parish for you to attend a Mass (and not a service) at.

 

[bear06]

Iohannes:

No, the letter was made public. Why would this specific person be more special than any of us? Is he more holier or of royal blood? I know what this letter means.

If you want to find out more contact Dr. John Rao, any of the people in Charge of Una Voce.
fiuv.org/en/2.asp

It’s not the person, it’s the contents. If the person asked “I am an invalid and my neighbor said he would carry me across the street to the SSPX chapel. I cannot make it to any other church because of my condition. Will the chapel satisfy my Sunday obligation?” this would make a world of difference rather than simply saying “Does the SSPX chapel across the street satisfy my Sunday obligation?” The Church always supplies for those in hard situations. That doesn’t mean it satisfies everyone’s Sunday obligation.

 

[bear06]

Iohannes:

Can you define a heresy of SSPX? What formal Heresy do they have?

Eastern Orthodox deny papal infallibitily, and the Filloque, SSPX do not.

the SSPX are not sedevacantist. They are disobeident but not sedevacantist.

SSPX denies the primacy of the Pope.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

::Sigh::

Such carrying on…

…I’m with Anna Elizabeth. I’d move.

And while I was waiting to move, I’d make sure my car was gassed up by Noon Saturday for a long drive Saturday evening or Sunday morning.

 

[kmktexas]

David B:

I believe the deacon is incorrect in saying that the communion service fulfilled your Sunday obligation. There is no Sunday Obligation if there is no parish for you to attend a Mass (and not a service) at.

This is the way that I have always understood it. No Mass = no obligation. So a Communion Service, while possible good in and of itself is not a substitute for the Mass or for one’s obligation to attend Sunday Mass. Now we have two obligations concerning Sundays. One is Mass and the other is to keep the Lord’s day holy. The Communion Service would help fulfill one’s obligation to keep the Lord’s Day holy but so could numerous other devotions, none of which are obligations. There is an official doc on this but I can’t seem to find it. Maybe someone else has a better memory than I do.

It does get a little fuzzier (for me) when we talk about the SSPX. Even though their Masses are valid, I don’t think that a Latin Rite Catholic has a Sunday Mass obligation that includes co-operation in disobedience. Even if the cooperation is relatively remote, we may be permitted to attend but not obligated to do so. So again, if the only Mass was a SSPX (or other schismatic/disobedient liturgy), then no obligation should exist.

Now, if the only Mass available was a EO divine liturgy, I believe that it would depend a lot on the circumstances. If there is a RC parish but it has infrequent Sunday Masses, then I don’t think that a Catholic should feel an obligation to attend the EO liturgy even if that was the only thing available on a given Sunday. If, on the other hand, there was not RC parish in the region (for example if you lived in areas of Greece of Russia) then attendance at those liturgies might be condsidered obligatory if the alternative was to NEVER attend Mass at all (at least for the forseeable future).