Sorry, but SSPX Masses DO NOT normally fulfill the Sunday obligation

[st_bernard]

Well, these AAA threads SSPX and May a Catholic attend a SSPX Mass regularly? and Am I sinning by attending an SSPX chapel? quote from “Ecclesia Dei” and state that individuals were “warned that formal adherence to the Lefebvrist schism was a grave sin”

So it would seem that the canonical status of the informal SSPX laity was not strictly determined per se.
However, if they persist in following SSPX formally, they too would carry "the penalty of excommunication ".

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

Would attendance of an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy also carry this warning and possible penalty?

Gratias

 

[Ham1]

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

Would attendance of an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy also carry this warning and possible penalty?

Gratias

Yes. The Faithful would not be encouraged to attend an Orthodox liturgy unless it were the only available Mass on a Sunday.

 

[pnewton]

And there is confusion!

Triumpha.

It’s strange that most Catholics don’t seem confused. They pretty much know who the pope, where the authority lies and which Mass is approved and wihch is granted by indult.

 

[st_bernard]

Yes. The Faithful would not be encouraged to attend an Orthodox liturgy unless it were the only available Mass on a Sunday.

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

But they are considered illicit right?

Gratias

 

[Ham1]

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

But they are considered illicit right?

Gratias

They’re illicit because they are separated from the Church.

It’s useful to note that their status is very different from the SSPX because the Orthodox are not bound by Roman canon law. They were a Church that separated from The Catholic Church whereas the SSPX are individual members of a particular Church who have chosen to separate themselves incurring suspension. It makes a big difference in terms of priestly and episcopal ordinations.

 

[Triumpha]

It’s strange that most Catholics don’t seem confused. They pretty much know who the pope, where the authority lies and which Mass is approved and wihch is granted by indult.

I daresay Catholics who agree with artificial birth control aren’t confused.

I daresay supporters of women’s “ordination” aren’t confused.

But when we have a situation where most Catholics (so the theory goes) disagree with Church teaching on birth control etc, and yet remain in good standing. When they can easily find priests in good standing to confirm them in their beliefs and assure them that “the Church is always changing, and will change on these issues too!”, in that situation confusion does reign, regardless of the firm convictions and lack of confusion in each individual.

The Church is in confusion and crisis.

Triumpha.

 

[palmas85]

This has been posted before but I will re-post. . It concerned the excommunication of a group in Hawaii by the Bishop for attending SSPX Masses, and the subsequent reversal of that excommunication by Rome.

STATUS OF SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X MASSES
Commission Ecclesia Dei
The following letter was received from the Pontifical Commission established to oversee the granting of celebrets (right to celebrate) to those priests desiring to offer the Holy Mass according to the Missal of 1962. The authorizing decree of the Supreme Pontiff, Ecclesia Dei, was issued in 1988 on the occasion of the schism of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X, and encourages the generous granting of permission for the Tridentine Mass by bishops, in order to facilitate communion with the Holy See of those who have a particular love for the older Rites.

Not all bishops have been generous, despite the continuing pastoral concern of the Holy Father, causing many traditionalist Catholics to attend the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X or of priests operating independant of their bishop. In a famous case the Bishop of Honolulu excommunicated specific Catholics who frequented such chapels, only to have the excommunication overturned by Rome. This action has encouraged traditionalist Catholics to believe that it is not schismatic, and therefore not excommunicable, to attend such chapels. This response from the Commission was precipated by a letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and has been generously shared with EWTN. The letter to the Cardinal had expressed concern for the status of such attendance and asked two specific questions:

1)  Is it schismatic in attending the Society of St. Pius X chapels?

2)  What does the Hawaiian Case mean to someone attending such chapels?

PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO ECCLESIA DEI
N. 117/95

Rome
29 September 1995

Dear …

Thank you for your letter of 4 September 1995 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters related to our particular competence.

We are aware of the lack of authorized celebrations of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal in [dioceses] and we can appreciate your desire to assist at the traditional Mass. We also recognize your earnest desire to remain in full communion with the Successor of Peter and the members of the Church subject to him, a desire which obviously prompted you to write this letter. In order to answer your questions we must explain the Church’s present evaluation of the situation of the Society of St. Pius X.

1. There is no doubt about the validity of the ordination of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X. They are, however, suspended a divinis, that is prohibited by the Church from exercising their orders because of their illicit ordination.
2. The Masses they celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called “Tridentine” Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.
3. While it is true that the 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”, such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a mentality which separates itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. Father Peter R. Scott, District Superior of the Society in the United States, has publicaly stated that he deplores the “liberalism” of “those who refuse to condemn the New Mass as absolutely offensive to God, or the religious liberty and ecumenism of the postconcilliar church.” With such an attitude the society of St. Pius X is effectively tending to establish its own canons of orthodoxy and hence to separate itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. According to canon 751 such “refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the communion of the members of the Church subject to him” constitute schism. Hence we cannot encourage your participation in the Masses, the sacraments or other services conducted under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.
4. The situation of at least one of the “independent” priests . . . to whom you allude is somewhat different. He and the community which he serves have declared their desire to regularize their situation and have taken some initial steps to do so. Let us pray that this may soon be accomplished.
5. Finally, we may say that “the Hawaiian case” resulted in a judgment that the former Bishop of Honolulu did not have grounds to excommunicate the persons involved, but this judgment does not confer the Church’s approbation upon the Society of St. Pius X or those who frequent their chapels.

With prayerful best wishes, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,

Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary

 

[Triumpha]

They’re illicit because they are separated from the Church.

It’s useful to note that their status is very different from the SSPX because the Orthodox are not bound by Roman canon law. They were a Church that separated from The Catholic Church whereas the SSPX are individual members of a particular Church who have chosen to separate themselves incurring suspension. It makes a big difference in terms of priestly and episcopal ordinations.

It’s funny how much more gung-ho various lay punters are at declaring the SSPX separated from the Church than actual clerics higher up and closer to the Pope are:

“We are not dealing here with a heresy. One cannot say in correct, exact, precise terms that there is a schism. There is, in the fact of consecrating bishops without the pontifical mandate, a schismatic attitude. They are inside the Church.There is only this fact that they lack a full, more perfect communion - as that was (made) known during the meeting with Mgr Fellay - a fuller communion, because the communion exists.” Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos

Triumpha.

 

[pnewton]

I daresay Catholics who agree with artificial birth control aren’t confused.

I daresay supporters of women’s “ordination” aren’t confused.
.

This is a bait and switch. In other words your comparison isn’t valid because the Holy Father and the Church have made both of these points clear. Of course there are many liberal or uneducated Catholics who, contrary to the teaching of the church, muddy the waters. Hopefully most here are not confused by these dissenters. My question is why do you wish to join their ranks? The same statement works by changing the word liberal.

“Of course there are many unltra-traditional or uneducated Catholics who, contrary to the teaching of the church, muddy the waters.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It’s funny how much more gung-ho various lay punters are at declaring the SSPX separated from the Church than actual clerics higher up and closer to the Pope are:

Triumpha.

But the Pope said that the bishops were excommunicate, the priests suspended, and the laity in grave danger of schism. A pope trumps an entire college of cardinals.

 

[Titus]

Obedience to God. Sometimes it conflicts with obedience to the Pope.

Obey God before man.

Obedience is at the service of faith!



Triumpha.

That is very true. However, the SSPX claims obedience to the Pope. Can’t have it both ways!

I love my brothers and sisters in Christ that attend SSPX Mass. I am saddened and hurting for them reading some posts here, because we are in no position to judge them.

The SSPX masses sound so beautiful, and so reverent.

I realise I may have been uncharitable in my earlier post. Sorry. My point was that the validity of the TLM should never be questioned (as per Pius V) but that the SSPX and the TLM are very different. The SSPX is in disobedience to the Pope, and the bishops are excommunicated. The validity of their masses is there, but it is illicit. So why go?

My own view is that if one wishes to attend the TLM & there is no FSSP or ICRSS, then perhaps find a reverent NO parish and talk about TLM- if all that doesn’t work the SSPX should be used, and not before.

 

[ctos]

The problem with ‘talking to them about the ancient rite of mass’ is that they are infected with the heresy of Modernism. In many ways their judgment is clouded. It isn’t even a question of the ancient rite per se. It’s a question of where does one feel safe? Where is one’s faith nourished in an all-round sense? From the Novus Ordo pulpit you get ‘faith lite’. It’s true. You get smiles and ease and sentimentality. In the chapels, you get a call to sanctity, presented in such a way that failure seems possible. The choice between heaven and hell is presented. The errors of society are also pointed out, and we are told not to follow the world. The Novus Ordo pulpits never attempt to warn people about the world, or do so only very lightly. For example, one N.O. priest I know likes to homilize based on popular television programs. But in the chapels, people are plainly warned that television is a danger to morals and faith. The N.O. is afraid to tell the truth, and indeed, the clergy there honestly aren’t up to the task anyway. In so many ways they themselves have fallen to the errors of Modernism. Without necessarily directly so stating, for example, they effectively encourage the view that ‘revelation improves with human reason’, or that ‘Old Testament prophecies are fictions’, or that ‘the Church cannot correct philosophy’. Without working very hard on one’s own time, in the Novus Ordo a person would simply go to sleep in these errors. In the chapels, one is awakened and kept awake. The rites are not the issue. They just happen to be the point at which a good or poor climate is to be found.

 

[BobP123]

i understood from someone here at CAF that the canonical status of the laity of the SSPX is not determined. correct?

I would think so. Consider these two canon laws:

Can. 844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ?s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.

§2 If it is impossible to assist at a eucharistic celebration, either because no sacred minister is available or for some other grave reason, the faithful are strongly recommended to take part in a liturgy of the Word, if there be such in the parish church or some other sacred place, which is celebrated in accordance with the provisions laid down by the diocesan Bishop; or to spend an appropriate time in prayer, whether personally or as a family or, as occasion presents, in a group of families.

I read this as one may choose to avoid ALL sacrilegious services, such as touching the Body and Blood of Christ, etc.

 

[ctos]

There is no such thing as “the laity of the SSPX”. There are Catholics, and there are non-Catholics.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The problem with ‘talking to them about the ancient rite of mass’ is that they are infected with the heresy of Modernism. In many ways their judgment is clouded. It isn’t even a question of the ancient rite per se. It’s a question of where does one feel safe? Where is one’s faith nourished in an all-round sense? From the Novus Ordo pulpit you get ‘faith lite’. It’s true. You get smiles and ease and sentimentality. In the chapels, you get a call to sanctity, presented in such a way that failure seems possible. The choice between heaven and hell is presented. The errors of society are also pointed out, and we are told not to follow the world. The Novus Ordo pulpits never attempt to warn people about the world, or do so only very lightly. For example, one N.O. priest I know likes to homilize based on popular television programs. But in the chapels, people are plainly warned that television is a danger to morals and faith. The N.O. is afraid to tell the truth, and indeed, the clergy there honestly aren’t up to the task anyway. In so many ways they themselves have fallen to the errors of Modernism. Without necessarily directly so stating, for example, they effectively encourage the view that ‘revelation improves with human reason’, or that ‘Old Testament prophecies are fictions’, or that ‘the Church cannot correct philosophy’. Without working very hard on one’s own time, in the Novus Ordo a person would simply go to sleep in these errors. In the chapels, one is awakened and kept awake. The rites are not the issue. They just happen to be the point at which a good or poor climate is to be found.

Modernism is a clearly defined heresy. A lot of “traditionalists” come onto the forums and start talking about this being modernism and that being modernism, without knowing precisely what modernism IS (ie, they claim that the verncacular Mass is modernism, or the the use of EMHCs is modernism, or communion in the hand is modernism, none of which is remotely true). I don’t know what NO mass you frequent, but I would hardly call it faith lite. I’ve heard NO priests thunder against evil and sin and the world from the ambo. Yes, I’ve heard some mush-mouth stuff as well, but the SSPX priest I heard (here in LV) couldn’t get past,“The NO is an abomination!”, which actually makes him a heretic anyway, so I shouldn’t point the finger of heresy too casually. I’ve never heard actual HERESY preached from a NO ambo, but I sure have from one SSPX ambo.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I would think so. Consider these two canon laws:

Can. 844 §2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ?s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.

§2 If it is impossible to assist at a eucharistic celebration, either because no sacred minister is available or for some other grave reason, the faithful are strongly recommended to take part in a liturgy of the Word, if there be such in the parish church or some other sacred place, which is celebrated in accordance with the provisions laid down by the diocesan Bishop; or to spend an appropriate time in prayer, whether personally or as a family or, as occasion presents, in a group of families.

I read this as one may choose to avoid ALL sacrilegious services, such as touching the Body and Blood of Christ, etc.

The Church permits the laity to receive that way. The Church cannot propose a discipline to the faithful that can lead the faithful to impiety (I assume sacrilege is at LEAST impious). Trent anathematized those who said so. The disciplines of the Church are protected by a negative infallibility. The argument doesn’t wash, since no one is compelled to receive in the hand (or should not be and if they are, the bishop needs to be notified).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

There is no such thing as “the laity of the SSPX”. There are Catholics, and there are non-Catholics.

There are third order members of the SSPX.

 

[ctos]

In a nutshell, modernism is putting reason over faith, and man over God. Man celebrating man, rather than man sacrificing to God, is the liturgical dimension or expression of modernism. In this sense, communion in the hand, EMHCs, lay lectors, and other such things, are expressions of modernism because they were instituted precisely to have the effect of getting man to celebrate and pay attention to himself and his community. It is true, early Catholics carried communion home with them and self-communicated. It is true, that the liturgical roles were not always as well-defined as they had become prior to the 1960s. Nonetheless, modernism is the factor, in this ‘return to tradition’.

I have no doubt that some in the Church meant well. But harm is the result.

Extremely bad liturgical music common in the Novus Ordo is a further expression of the modernist principle of man celebrating himself. Much of this music directly violates the principles of music propounded throughout the “Liturgical Movement”, and the principles of Pope Pius X and Pius XI.

Catholics have taken the hint, and have happily subjected Church teachings to “reason”, placing themselves over God. By and large it is hard to distinguish now between Catholics and non-Catholics, behaviorally, in terms of values, in modesty, and in other ways. They basically take Church teachings under advisement, rather than take them seriously. These are the fruits of modernism. Often when one says “that’s modernism” they mean ‘that is a fruit of, or expression of, or example of _ in practice’, etc.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

In a nutshell, modernism is putting reason over faith, and man over God. Man celebrating man, rather than man sacrificing to God, is the liturgical dimension or expression of modernism. In this sense, communion in the hand, EMHCs, lay lectors, and other such things, are expressions of modernism because they were instituted precisely to have the effect of getting man to celebrate and pay attention to himself and his community. It is true, early Catholics carried communion home with them and self-communicated. It is true, that the liturgical roles were not always as well-defined as they had become prior to the 1960s. Nonetheless, modernism is the factor, in this ‘return to tradition’.

Modernism is precisely what the Church says that it is, not some tenuous extension that you’ve hooked up. EMHCs, lay lectors, and communion in the hand are simply what they are, not the insidious inroads of modernists setting out to pervert the Church. Certainly, there are probably people who receive in the hand who are modernists, there are probably EMHCs who are modernists, lay lectors, etc., just as there are probably those in each category who practice ABC. Further, none of these things, in and of themselves (read remotely) are the result of modernism. They’re simply disciplines of the Church. EMHCs wouldn’t be needed, but for the priest shortage, and perhaps someday it can be honorably retired. Communion in the hand was an ancient practice of the Church (much discussed in these forums) and is a discipline permitted by the Church.

I have no doubt that some in the Church meant well. But harm is the result.

**That is only your subjective opinion that harm has been done by these things. **

Extremely bad liturgical music common in the Novus Ordo is a further expression of the modernist principle of man celebrating himself. Much of this music directly violates the principles of music propounded throughout the “Liturgical Movement”, and the principles of Pope Pius X and Pius XI.** I agree with your comments on music and I see that as the most serious threat to our liturgical life. That is slowly changing. **

Catholics have taken the hint, and have happily subjected Church teachings to “reason”, placing themselves over God. By and large it is hard to distinguish now between Catholics and non-Catholics, behaviorally, in terms of values, in modesty, and in other ways. They basically take Church teachings under advisement, rather than take them seriously. These are the fruits of modernism. Often when one says “that’s modernism” they mean ‘that is a fruit of, or expression of, or example of _ in practice’, etc.

I couldn’t nor wouldn’t argue with the last paragraph. I simply deny that it has anything to do with the Mass. Our liturgical/ecclesilogical problems have far more to do with the time the council was held and the Mass was promulgated than they do with the Council and the Mass themselves.

 

[pnewton]

From the Novus Ordo pulpit you get ‘faith lite’. It’s true.

Your opinion can hardly be characterized as true or false. I get the fulness of the faith from my pulpit and nothing “lite” mixed in.