SSPX and Novus ordo Mass

[MarkThompson]

Because their Mass is valid. And it is our obligation to assist at a valid Catholic rite on Sundays.

That is insufficient. The Eastern Orthodox validly consecrate the Eucharist, yet it would be a mortal sin for a Catholic to deliberately pass up going to Mass so that he can go to an Orthodox service because he prefers their liturgy or preaching.

 

[ProVobis]

As far as I know SSPX is not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

The priests are suspended and have been since Paul VI. But their Masses are valid.

 

[porthos11]

The priests are suspended and have been since Paul VI. But their Masses are valid.

Just note that their Confessions and marriages are not.

 

[ProVobis]

Just note that their Confessions and marriages are not.

Agreed. Confessions have to be approved by the local bishop, whether they are in full communion or not.

 

[Onegin]

That is insufficient. The Eastern Orthodox validly consecrate the Eucharist, yet it would be a mortal sin for a Catholic to deliberately pass up going to Mass so that he can go to an Orthodox service because he prefers their liturgy or preaching.

Two important differences, however:

1. Ecclesia Dei has explicitly stated that attending the SSPX (so long as it is done out of a love of the TLM and not some ulterior, schismatic motivation) fulfils the sunday obligation. I have not heard such a thing said in regards to the Orthodox services.
2. The Orthodox Church still has some doctrinal beefs with the Roman Catholic Church whereas the SSPX does not dispute any point of Catholic doctrine.

Anyways, given that we have the word of Ecclesia Dei on this, that should conclude the matter on this question. One may fulfil the Sunday obligation at the SSPX Mass and may even donate to the collection if they feel so inclined. One is also perfectly free not to go to the SSPX if they are uncomfortable with it. Case closed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I want to go back. Is this ok?

Contrary to what some people here might claim, its not okay. Sorry. The Pope himself said that the SSPX does not have a canonical status with the Church, therefore the priests cannot celebrate a valid Mass. Therefore no Sunday Obligation fulfilled.

If you desire to attend a TLM, seek a FSSP parish. They are in full communion with the Holy Father. This is their website:

fssp.org/

And here is the FSSP Mass finder: fssp.org/en/messes.htm

 

[ProVobis]

Contrary to what some people here might claim, its not okay. Sorry.

I realize this is a lame argument but then if no one were to support the SSPX, there would be no reason why they would be even having these discussions in Rome in the first place. In fact they probably wouldn’t even exist, which would be exactly what the progressives want. This is more than winning or losing on principles; this may be the very survival of the EF itself. I go to a diocesan EF, but it’s no match against the crowds which the local SSPX draws around the same time on Sunday mornings. The reasons? Perhaps they want nothing at all to do with EMHC’s and CITH and altar girls and all the talking that goes on inside diocesan churches. Perhaps they just want the traditional sermons. Probably other reasons too.

 

[maurin]

Pope JPII’s Catechism, paragraph 1399, speaking of the Orthodox Churches, who deny the Paacy and as separated from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, actually encourages the Faithful, with permission from the Ordinary, to receive Communion from these non Catholic sects.

That’s in his Catechism. The official one.

And noone here sees the absolutely Orwellianness of this conversation?

 

[excubitor]

I realize this is a lame argument but then if no one were to support the SSPX, there would be no reason why they would be even having these discussions in Rome in the first place. In fact they probably wouldn’t even exist, which would be exactly what the progressives want. This is more than winning or losing on principles; this may be the very survival of the EF itself. I go to a diocesan EF, but it’s no match against the crowds which the local SSPX draws around the same time on Sunday mornings. The reasons? Perhaps they want nothing at all to do with EMHC’s and CITH and altar girls and all the talking that goes on inside diocesan churches. Perhaps they just want the traditional sermons. Probably other reasons too.

You said it. A very lame argument.

The SSPX cannot compete with the crowds that the NO mass pulls in. In Nigeria there are NO masses with 2000 Catholics cramming the church. People spill out onto the sidewalks and down the road. Then you walk ten minutes down the road and there is another church filled with 2000 Catholics. And what do they want?

A church with full canonical status in Rome
Which has a legitimate ministry
Which has not a hint of a schismatic mentality
Which has legal and valid confessions and
legal consecrations of the Eucharist

None of which they would get at their local SSPX (If there even is one)

Why would anybody go to a church like the SSPX which has?
no canonical status in the Church
an illegitimate ministry
a schismatic mentality
illicit and invalid confessions
illicit consecrations of the Eucharist ?

Search me. This surely is one of the most puzzling questions I have ever come across.
So what if you get a traditional sermon? What’s the point if in hearing it your are imbibing a schismatic mentality. What is the use of a traditional sermon on hell, if your confessions cannot forgive you from mortal sin.

Besides the best traditionalist sermons I have ever heard are from St. Gertrudes from Msgr. Dolan and his ilk like Msgr. Cekada. By far the best sermon on hell every I heard was from MHFM. But I certainly don’t recommend anybody go to either of those places. In fact if you do you will imperil your soul.

Sorry ProVobis, but you sound like a protestant. “I want this, and I want that. Therefore I will go down the road to this other church that my bishop and my Pope does not want me to go to, because really I don’t have any respect for him, or any confidence in him, therefore I will rest on my own understanding and do what seems best to me.”

Not good enough. Come on SSPX, stop being protestants and revert to being Catholic. Do what you are told. Go back to church.

 

[maurin]

AFor the same reason people go to the OF. Watered down Sacrificial Theology, Marian Dogma, watered down teachings on the Communion of Saints, no mention of sinfulness, confession, and for secular entertainment. Anthropocenttrism, and the elevation of conscience over the Teachings of the Church.

 

[excubitor]

Pope JPII’s Catechism, paragraph 1399, speaking of the Orthodox Churches, who deny the Paacy and as separated from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, actually encourages the Faithful, with permission from the Ordinary, to receive Communion from these non Catholic sects.

That’s in his Catechism. The official one.

And noone here sees the absolutely Orwellianness of this conversation?

This is a hard one which I struggle with too.
I guess the issue is that we are familiar with how division works. Wicked men sin and invent heresy, they rebel and take off setting up a new table. Of course it is impossible to have any kind of communion in sacris with such men.

What we are far less familiar with (because it is so rare) is how do we reunite again? When through the passage of time the children of the schismatics are of a different mind and are seeking unity.

Its like a chicken and egg. Do we wait until we have complete and full unity before we concelebrate the Eucharist, or is it the mystical concelebration of the Eucharist which brings about complete unity? I don’t know. How would I know. My gut tells me the former is safe for us. But “safe” never achieved unity in a thousand years. Maybe taking a risk for the sake of unity will work. But what do I know? I am not the Pope or the Vatican 2 Council. How can I, a mere worm, pass judgement upon the college of Bishops and the Pope?

The V2 council made it very clear that this idea of communion in sacris applies only to the churches of the Eastern Orthodox, which have a valid sacrament, a valid apostolic succession and utterly orthodox Catholic beliefs. This kind of concelebration would not be possible with protestants for example. The Unitatis Redintegratio makes the point that there is very little difference between the Eastern Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics who of course have full union with the Roman Pontiff.

What upsets me is that the SSPX harangue the church for admitting (in special and rather rare circumstances I would say ) the “schismatic Eastern churches” as some traditionalists churches call them, and yet THEY take full advantage of this unusual forbearance of the church in their case, when they are EVERY BIT as schismatic as the Eastern Orthodox, if not more, because their schism is immediate and belligerent.

They know that if this was the pre-V2 church (before Unitatis Redintegratio) they would have been flat out on their ear because of what they have done. They would be regarded as schismatic as the day is long. Its incredible hypocrisy. I am a traditionalist myself and I am dead set certain that the SSPX are schismatics by every definition which the pre-V2 church ever used.

Its like how they rubbish the entire post-conciliar church (the council, the mass, all the rites) except for the passages in the 1983 Canon Law that give them a loophole to disobey the Pope. What incredible hypocrisy. What an outrageous double standard.
“Not happy Jan!”

 

[maurin]

Your argumens against the SSPX position are perfectly valid against the current magisterium’s ecumaniacle positions which are in complete contradiction to the pre VII’s magisterium’s ecumenism.

Schism? How sharply Orwellian. How the devil must gloat at the hypocrisy. And those that defend the hypocrisy of the false ecumenism. And those who accept paragraph 1399 635 yet are thoroughly convinced that the Society is schismatic. Yep, we are not at war with Eurasia.

Thank God the Pope doesn’t share your view.

 

[Lycorth]

You’ll have to look for yourself as there would be far too much to post here. I think it very telling that they denigrate the 1983 Code of Canon Law, yet turn around and cite it when it supports their purpose.

They employ much twisted logic to arrive at their conclusions, too. My question is, who should we obey, the SSPX or the legitimate Authority of the Church?

Some parts of the 1983 Code are a little sketchy, however. But of course the Code is still valid, so as a traditionalist I know to only take issue with the Code if it contradicts actual Church teaching.

As to the FAQs, I’ve read them before and still don’t recall anything off-putting. I’ll have to look them over, again. As for “twisted”, I reserve that to describe the logic of those who slander the SSPX as wicked and schismatic yet have no problem with protestant ministers offering protestant prayers in Catholic churches or the distorting of the Mass to resemble a protestant or quasi-new age-style liturgy or with the rejection and whole calumniation of the Catholic church’s history prior to Vatican II (as an example, just try discussing the Medieval age and the Church’s role in it sometime with some folks on this board). That logic is what is twisted.

It bears keeping in mind that, no, the SSPX isn’t the magisterium and hence everything they say or do isn’t going to be error-free, necessarily. But, anyone can err; even the great Franciscans erred when in elder times they slowly strayed from Francis’ original vows of poverty and lost some sight of their purpose. The SSPX are only human, and they can err also - but also like the Franciscans, their original goal and basic purpose (in their case, the defense of Catholic tradition and the goal of seeing it restored to common practice) is what give them high marks from me at the end of the day.

OK, I’ve found my source, which was indeed in a letter - from Monsignor Camille Perl, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Comission, dated January 8, 2003, and says “… you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.”

 

[MarkThompson]

Pope JPII’s Catechism, paragraph 1399, speaking of the Orthodox Churches, who deny the Paacy and as separated from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, actually encourages the Faithful, with permission from the Ordinary, to receive Communion from these non Catholic sects.

That’s in his Catechism. The official one.

And noone here sees the absolutely Orwellianness of this conversation?

That’s a distortion. That paragraph of the Catechism says that it is allowed “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority.” What it decidedly did not say is that you might as well just start going to Orthodox services of your own volition if you don’t like the Roman Catholic Church enough.

“The approval of Church authority.” Believe it or not, it actually is important to have this.

 

[MarkThompson]

OK, I’ve found my source, which was indeed in a letter - from Monsignor Camille Perl, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Comission, dated January 8, 2003, and says “… you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.”

But you left off the beginning words of that sentence: “In the strict sense, you may fulfill . . . .” What does “in the strict sense” mean? It means we have to read it in keeping with other pronouncements of the Church, such as this letter (from the same Msgr. Perl) in 1995:
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.
So, “in the strict sense” you can meet your obligation with an SSPX Mass if you can’t get to a canonically accepted Mass. In the more general sense of whether SSPX Masses are interchangeable with regular Masses based on how you feel that day, just wanting to go to one “is not considered a sufficient motive.”

 

[maurin]

That’s a distortion. That paragraph of the Catechism says that it is allowed “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority.” What it decidedly did not say is that you might as well just start going to Orthodox services of your own volition if you don’t like the Roman Catholic Church enough.

“The approval of Church authority.” Believe it or not, it actually is important to have this.

The only distortion exists in you reply. I most certainly did refer to the permission of the Ordinary, who is I’m sure you’ll agree the proper Church authority.

So according to the Catechism, a Catholic is encouraged to partake in schismatic yet valid Communion, as long as he has the permission of his Ordinary.

We are not at war with Eurasia. We have never been at war with Eurasia. Only with those who uphold the Teachings of the Church prior to the 1960’s.

Hysterical. Or sad.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I realize this is a lame argument but then if no one were to support the SSPX, there would be no reason why they would be even having these discussions in Rome in the first place. In fact they probably wouldn’t even exist, which would be exactly what the progressives want. This is more than winning or losing on principles; this may be the very survival of the EF itself. I go to a diocesan EF, but it’s no match against the crowds which the local SSPX draws around the same time on Sunday mornings. The reasons? Perhaps they want nothing at all to do with EMHC’s and CITH and altar girls and all the talking that goes on inside diocesan churches. Perhaps they just want the traditional sermons. Probably other reasons too.

People may still freely go to their masses the same way we may freely go to an Orthodox DL or Protestant service. But only as an observer and it will not fulfill our Sunday Obligation. So if you want to throw your support behind them, you can attend their service, but still have to go to a Catholic Church in communion with the Pope to fulfill your obligation.

Also, if you really want to support them, stop acting like they did nothing wrong. By going to their Mass and acting everything is okay tells them that they’ve done nothing wrong and therefore will not motivate them to hasten the process of getting back into the fold.

I’ve already pointed the OP to seek FSSP parishes. I can never in good consience point a person to a parish thats not in communion with the Pope. I know communion with the Pope is an important aspect of our faith, because it ensures we receive the right teaching from the right authority on earth.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve already pointed the OP to seek FSSP parishes. I can never in good consience point a person to a parish thats not in communion with the Pope. I know communion with the Pope is an important aspect of our faith, because it ensures we receive the right teaching from the right authority on earth.

I don’t know why I’m defending the SSPX, but I know it would be sad if the only thing preventing full communion with the Vatican would be such differences of opinion on matters such as CITH and EMHC’s.

 

[Onegin]

Contrary to what some people here might claim, its not okay. Sorry. The Pope himself said that the SSPX does not have a canonical status with the Church, therefore the priests cannot celebrate a valid Mass. Therefore no Sunday Obligation fulfilled.

Sorry, this is totally wrong. Not having a canonical status does not make a Mass invalid. It is illicit.

Furthermore:

Can. 1248: “The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.” .

The SSPX celebrate the Tridentine Mass (a valid, Catholic rite) so therefore it satisfies the Sunday obligation.

However, if you are still unconvinced, here is what Ecclesia Dei had to say about the matter (we are allowed to rely upon the statements of Ecclesia Dei with moral certainty):

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."

There’s the answer. Obviously Rome isn’t going to recommend attendance but they have clarified that it is (a) not a sin if not done out of schismatic motivation and (b) fulfils the Sunday obligation. Of these two things we can be certain.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t know why I’m defending the SSPX, but I know it would be sad if the only thing preventing full communion with the Vatican would be such differences of opinion on matters such as CITH and EMHC’s.

I don’t want to delve into the matters of their issue. For me I just want to keep it simple, are they in communion with the Church or not? I think thats the most important detail. Some people may want to get into the details, either for information or for argument, but I think that’s already besides the fact. The only detail we should be concerned about if we can go to Mass somewhere or not is if they are in communion with the Pope or not.