SSPX in the Year of Mercy?

[ProVobis]

1. 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).

Morally impeded?

Is one saying a motivator of attending a “morally illicit” Mass is the belief that one celebrated by a priest “in good standing” is (also) immoral? But you can now go to the SSPX priest and confess either? Crazy.

 

[Kevin12]

Morally impeded?

Is one saying a motivator of attending a “morally illicit” Mass is the belief that one celebrated by a priest “in good standing” is (also) immoral? But you can now go to the SSPX priest and confess either? Crazy.

The idea is that if there were some sort of situation where you either had the option of going to an SSPX mass or going to a mass with a priest in good standing in such a way that it would require you to fail to fulfill a moral obligation, you can go (like, if you were a doctor who they needed to fly into some small town to perform an emergency surgery on a Sunday only you could do…and the only Mass available to you during that time would be an SSPX mass, you wouldn’t be doing anything immoral).

However, you might also interpret it to mean that if there’s a single woman wearing shorts or a priest who once had a lay witness speak after the homily, you’re completely in the clear to attend whatever irregular mass you want based on your own infallible interpretation of canon law.

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

Pope Francis said concerning approaching priests of the SSPX for the sacrament of penance:

“A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X. This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint. I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins.”

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150901_lettera-indulgenza-giubileo-misericordia.html

 

[freshwind]

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX.HTM

thank you for this…
one of the reasons I say it seems to not be black and white is he following article published after the ewtn article…

I very well may have missed a later one, but I havenot seen one that contradicts this from a later date, but I definitely stand to be corrected if there is one

---

Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei

In a May 28, 1996 letter and repeated in Protocol No. 236/98 of March 6, 1998:

In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of Saint Pius X. …If your intention is simply to participate in Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.

 

[ProVobis]

Pope Francis said concerning approaching priests of the SSPX for the sacrament of penance:

"A final consideration concerns those faithful who for various reasons choose to attend churches officiated by priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X. This Jubilee Year of Mercy excludes no one. From various quarters, several Brother Bishops have told me of their good faith and sacramental practice, combined however with an uneasy situation from the pastoral standpoint. I trust that in the near future solutions may be found to recover full communion with the priests and superiors of the Fraternity. In the meantime, motivated by the need to respond to the good of these faithful, through my own disposition, I establish that those who during the Holy Year of Mercy approach these priests of the Fraternity of St Pius X to celebrate the Sacrament of Reconciliation shall validly and licitly receive the absolution of their sins."

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2015/documents/papa-francesco_20150901_lettera-indulgenza-giubileo-misericordia.html

Thanks for this quote.

I guess one could read all kinds of things from the statement, but I believe from the standpoint of showing mercy, especially to all the faithful, it certainly accomplishes its objective without quiver. The Pope has shown an understanding of the philosophy and psychology behind receiving the sacraments from those not in full communion with the Church. Hopefully it will be a milestone in reaching meaningful reconciliation.

 

[Brendan_64]

However, you might also interpret it to mean that if there’s a single woman wearing shorts or a priest who once had a lay witness speak after the homily, you’re completely in the clear to attend whatever irregular mass you want based on your own infallible interpretation of canon law.

A member of the congregation wearing a short skirt is one thing, but liturgical abuse is another matter.

It could be argued that in such circumstances it is not a doctorate in Canon Law that is required, but an honest judgement of conscience?

If, hypothetically, a Catholic has experienced regular liturgical abuses at a Mass celebrated by a priest in ‘good standing’, is deeply concerned about such abuses, has charitably approached the priest about these, perhaps even approached the bishop, possibly even written to the CDW, but the situation continues, then would that not represent (after an honest, heartfelt examination of conscience) a moral impediment from attending such Masses?

And if there were no other Masses from priests in ‘good standing’ available within reasonable travelling (and the travelling issue would be another judgement of conscience) or if a similar situation regarding liturgical abuses was occurring in other nearby Masses (again that would require another judgement of conscience) would that not be another factor?

However, liturgical abuse should be judged, not against how the individual thinks it ought to be, but against the current norms of the Church and the norms determined by the diocesan bishop, with reference to GIRM, Redemptionis Sacramentum, Canon Law etc. The judgement would have to conform with current Church law.

Given the standards at which liturgical abuse must be judged, it would possibly not be unusual to have a church where liturgical abuse is quite regular, but it would also seem improbable that there would not be priest in a church at reasonable travelling distance who will be saying Mass word and action perfect as per the GIRM.

So for the majority of people, it would seem that the chances not being able to attend (within reasonable travelling distance) a Mass said by a priest in ‘good standing’ and said as the Church says it should be, would seem to be quite slim, but not impossible.

 

[Brendan_64]

Hopefully it will be a milestone in reaching meaningful reconciliation.

 

[Kyrie_eleison_9]

Thanks for this quote.

I guess one could read all kinds of things from the statement, but I believe from the standpoint of showing mercy, especially to all the faithful, it certainly accomplishes its objective without quiver. The Pope has shown an understanding of the philosophy and psychology behind receiving the sacraments from those not in full communion with the Church. Hopefully it will be a milestone in reaching meaningful reconciliation.

Can you please explain how one cannot be “in full communion” with the Church, but yet receive Her sacraments? I’m not sure I understand.

It was my understanding that only those who are part of the Mystical Body of Christ could receive Her sacraments. Either one is Catholic or they are not; isn’t this correct? How can non-Catholics or those not in “full communion” with the Church receive the sacrament of penance?

Also how can those assisting at an illicit Mass and are not in “full communion” with the Church be allowed to receive a valid sacrament of penance?

 

[ProVobis]

Can you please explain how one cannot be “in full communion” with the Church, but yet receive Her sacraments? I’m not sure I understand.

It was my understanding that only those who are part of the Mystical Body of Christ could receive Her sacraments. Either one is Catholic or they are not; isn’t this correct? How can non-Catholics or those not in “full communion” with the Church receive the sacrament of penance?

Also how can those assisting at an illicit Mass and are not in “full communion” with the Church be allowed to receive a valid sacrament of penance?

Fair question. As I understand it, they are all Catholics, but the priests have been suspended by virtue of their being with the FSSPX. However, the Pope has allowed the priests to legitimately forgive the sins of those Catholics who approach them for same.
However, I’ve heard arguments that their priests have had this power all along, claiming the Church supplies it under certain circumstances.

 

[VanSensei]

Can you please explain how one cannot be “in full communion” with the Church, but yet receive Her sacraments? I’m not sure I understand.

It was my understanding that only those who are part of the Mystical Body of Christ could receive Her sacraments. Either one is Catholic or they are not; isn’t this correct? How can non-Catholics or those not in “full communion” with the Church receive the sacrament of penance?

Also how can those assisting at an illicit Mass and are not in “full communion” with the Church be allowed to receive a valid sacrament of penance?

Because SSPX is in communion with the Church. The Tridentine Mass is 100% valid and promulgated by a canonized, infallible pope.

The Novus Ordo was never promulgated and if so, was done so by a non-pope - making it doubtful.

 

[commenter]

Fair question. As I understand it, they are all Catholics, but the priests have been suspended by virtue of their being with the FSSPX. However, the Pope has allowed the priests to legitimately forgive the sins of those Catholics who approach them for same.

The problem is not that the priests* belong* to the SSPX, but rather, what the priest does **not **have. They are not in relationship to their local ordinary, so are not authorized to offer public Masses or certain priestly functions, that they do without permission. If a priest in SSPX left that agency and went to another organization, or free-lanced as a priest, he would not automatically become in good standing with the Church. Only getting in relationship with his ordinary would do that.

At any given time there are many priests who are not in good standing with Church, most of whom do not belong to SSPX. Some have views similar to SSPX, some very different.

The pope can authorize that certain priestly services of some of those priests (in, or out, of the SSPX) can apply to Catholic laity who seek them out, in an emergency, for a designated time period like a year of Mercy, or permanently. Granting this service to laity does not necessarily constitute recognition of the organization. Again, it is the individual priest who may or may not be in relationship with his ordinary. That relationship or lack of it would constitute the issue of “communion”.

Some claim that SSPX priests have faculties, even without their ordinary, because the faculties are “supplied” going outside the Catholic hierarchy, in some other way. Keep in mind other groups also claim they have valid faculties, as Catholic priests, by doing an end-run outside the Catholic hierarchy, citing some historic principle. This includes groups that ordain women, but also may have some valid male priests who left the RCC, and joined these “Catholic” churches.

 

[ProVobis]

The problem is not that the priests* belong* to the SSPX, but rather, what the priest does **not **have. They are not in relationship to their local ordinary, so are not authorized to offer public Masses or certain priestly functions, that they do without permission. If a priest in SSPX left that agency and went to another organization, or free-lanced as a priest, he would not automatically become in good standing with the Church. Only getting in relationship with his ordinary would do that.

I’m not disagreeing with you but a couple of points here. You say they have no authorization for public Masses but how about private ones? I think Br JR touched on this once, but it’s not really clear if saying Mass in your own chapel is considered private.

The other point is that a personal prelature can be constructed where the local ordinary would not get involved, at least not in the same sense where the properties would belong to him. Monasteries, for example, can conduct their liturgies without bishop intervention. Aren’t the Opus Dei in the same position?

Sure the bishop can grant faculties, but if there’s anything coming from the Pope here, is that the Vatican has the ultimate power of granting faculties. No bishop can override the Pope’s granting of permissive FSSPX confessions in his diocese, for example.

 

[Kevin12]

A member of the congregation wearing a short skirt is one thing, but liturgical abuse is another matter.

It could be argued that in such circumstances it is not a doctorate in Canon Law that is required, but an honest judgement of conscience?

If, hypothetically, a Catholic has experienced regular liturgical abuses at a Mass celebrated by a priest in ‘good standing’, is deeply concerned about such abuses, has charitably approached the priest about these, perhaps even approached the bishop, possibly even written to the CDW, but the situation continues, then would that not represent (after an honest, heartfelt examination of conscience) a moral impediment from attending such Masses?

And if there were no other Masses from priests in ‘good standing’ available within reasonable travelling (and the travelling issue would be another judgement of conscience) or if a similar situation regarding liturgical abuses was occurring in other nearby Masses (again that would require another judgement of conscience) would that not be another factor?

However, liturgical abuse should be judged, not against how the individual thinks it ought to be, but against the current norms of the Church and the norms determined by the diocesan bishop, with reference to GIRM, Redemptionis Sacramentum, Canon Law etc. The judgement would have to conform with current Church law.

Given the standards at which liturgical abuse must be judged, it would possibly not be unusual to have a church where liturgical abuse is quite regular, but it would also seem improbable that there would not be priest in a church at reasonable travelling distance who will be saying Mass word and action perfect as per the GIRM.

So for the majority of people, it would seem that the chances not being able to attend (within reasonable travelling distance) a Mass said by a priest in ‘good standing’ and said as the Church says it should be, would seem to be quite slim, but not impossible.

If you had gotten all the way to the bishop or the CDW and been told, no, it’s not an abuse, even if you were in a situation where traveling distance would make it very difficult for you to go to another mass elsewhere, you had better think long and hard before you go to an SSPX parish thinking your justified because you know better than the bishop, though the type of people who are easy pickings for the SSPX already think the know better than not only their bishop but the pope.

In my opinion, no matter what abuses you think are taking place, you had better go to mass with a priest who is actually authorized by the Church, because there’s at least a chance there won’t be any abuses (though that doesn’t apply to some traditionalists who can always find a few “abuses” in any mass), and even if there are, its not something you intended. If you go to an SSPX mass, you’re attended a mass that is inherently illicit by the vary nature of the organization conducting it.

What’s more, I’m sure this happens more than you think. The SSPX sets up shop in places like Victor, MT with a population of 745 and no actual Catholic Church (the nearest is 12 miles away) for just this reason. There are plenty of people, older people who will probably already be sympathetic, who can’t drive and might get into the SSPX to begin with just for convenience sake. This is how they operate, on the peripheries where they can subvert the Church the most. People thinking there’s going to be a reconciliation don’t understand that its the SSPX who will never let that happen. It would take nothing short of a full repudiation of Dignitatis Humanae by the hierarchy, and even they know that isn’t going to happen. I wouldn’t be surprised if deep down they believe that the fact they are so much on the outs is a sign of the end times, and soon they’ll be vindicated by God himself. I’ve seen even FSSP-types use this kind of rhetoric.

 

[Brendan_64]

If you had gotten all the way to the bishop or the CDW and been told, no, it’s not an abuse, even if you were in a situation where traveling distance would make it very difficult for you to go to another mass elsewhere, you had better think long and hard before you go to an SSPX parish thinking your justified because you know better than the bishop, though the type of people who are easy pickings for the SSPX already think the know better than not only their bishop but the pope.

Often it doesn’t work like that. Bishops (let alone the CDW) don’t usually respond back in the manner in which you suggest. It’s not a case of thinking you know better than a bishop. Do you really think that every case of liturgical abuse gets sorted out just because it is brought to attention? Even when a bishop wishes too, he cannot always tackle such things easily. There is only one diocesan bishop in a diocese and he has rather a lot on his plate already to deal with.

In my opinion, no matter what abuses you think are taking place, you had better go to mass with a priest who is actually authorized by the Church, because there’s at least a chance there won’t be any abuses (though that doesn’t apply to some traditionalists who can always find a few “abuses” in any mass), and even if there are, its not something you intended.

Abuses are fairly clear to see, it is not a case of some traditionalists finding some ‘abuses’. Redemptionis Sacramentum is very clear about what an abuse is. And the GIRM is not a complicated document.

If you go to an SSPX mass, you’re attended a mass that is inherently illicit by the vary nature of the organization conducting it…

I don’t dispute that SSPX public Masses are illicit, but this is as a result not of the nature of the SSPX, but because of the fact that Rome has decided not to grant faculties to SSPX clergy (as is of course the right of Rome to do so).

There are plenty of people, older people who will probably already be sympathetic, who can’t drive and might get into the SSPX to begin with just for convenience sake.

The congregations at SSPX Masses are not on average older than at Novus Ordo Masses, if anything quite the reverse. A high proportion of young familes.

I wouldn’t be surprised if deep down they believe that the fact they are so much on the outs is a sign of the end times, and soon they’ll be vindicated by God himself. I’ve seen even FSSP-types use this kind of rhetoric.

So now you’re having a pop at the Fraternity of St Peter, a society whose priests are in good standing with Rome, who operate under the authority of the diocesan bishop and whose Masses are both valid and licit. The FSSP is fully approved and authorised and Rome has no issue with them. It seems you have gone from attacking the SSPX and accusing them of subversion, to having a go at the FSSP (are they also to be regarded as a subversive group?). Logically will this now be extended to diocesan priests who celebrate the TLM?

 

[Kevin12]

Often it doesn’t work like that. Bishops (let alone the CDW) don’t usually respond back in the manner in which you suggest. It’s not a case of thinking you know better than a bishop. Do you really think that every case of liturgical abuse gets sorted out just because it is brought to attention? Even when a bishop wishes too, he cannot always tackle such things easily. There is only one diocesan bishop in a diocese and he has rather a lot on his plate already to deal with.

Abuses are fairly clear to see, it is not a case of some traditionalists finding some ‘abuses’. Redemptionis Sacramentum is very clear about what an abuse is. And the GIRM is not a complicated document.

Its honestly not worth discussing any further, I think. I’ve read your posts, and I don’t think there’s any point in having this sort of conversation with someone who thinks the SSPX is “heroic”. If you or anyone else wants to attend an SSPX mass because of what they perceive as an “abuse”, that’s your or their choice. Isn’t having religious freedom great?

 

[peter26]

The SSPX sets up shop in places like Victor, MT with a population of 745 and no actual Catholic Church (the nearest is 12 miles away) for just this reason.

What about this situation? If someone lived in a small town with no Catholic church but an SSPX chapel, would they be justified in attending there as opposed to not going to church at all?

 

[commenter]

I’m not disagreeing with you but a couple of points here. You say they have no authorization for public Masses but how about private ones? I think Br JR touched on this once, but it’s not really clear if saying Mass in your own chapel is considered private.

The other point is that a personal prelature can be constructed where the local ordinary would not get involved, at least not in the same sense where the properties would belong to him. Monasteries, for example, can conduct their liturgies without bishop intervention. Aren’t the Opus Dei in the same position?

Sure the bishop can grant faculties, but if there’s anything coming from the Pope here, is that the Vatican has the ultimate power of granting faculties. No bishop can override the Pope’s granting of permissive FSSPX confessions in his diocese, for example.

Saying Mass with laity present is " public ministry", and needs faculties.
My understanding is that priests who don’t have faculties (if that is the right word) can say Mass when no other person is present.

The prelatures, or similar entities that exist - Anglican and Military Ordinariates and Opus Dei - try - to an extreme - to be compatible within the territorial diocese where they coexist. The few Opus Dei members I know also attend Mass sometimes and receive and offer services alongside non-Opus Dei members.

I don’t know if SSPX has monasteries. We have a “monastery” nearby not recognized by the diocese or SSPX. But whether a religious community recognized by the diocese is a monastery or not, the policy seems to be that the bishop is normally involved only when they have Mass, or other public ministry, involving persons outside the (enclosure?).

If the Pope grants permission to the laity to go to Confession to additional priests, in the sacrament, no bishop can set that aside (without just cause re: an individual priest, but I can’t think of any way that could ever be shown, given the private nature of this sacrament). I don’t mean a bishop can veto a pope. But a bishop could theoretically say that the ministry of this particular Franciscan, for instance, is not allowed in this diocese, if he had just cause; though Franciscans in general are allowed by the Vatican to offer ministry.

The Pope could directly grant other permissions too.

 

[ProVobis]

A member of the congregation wearing a short skirt is one thing, but liturgical abuse is another matter.

It could be argued that in such circumstances it is not a doctorate in Canon Law that is required, but an honest judgement of conscience?

You could say that. “Morally impeded” covers a lot of territory, at least in English. An occasion to/of sin may not be that manifest to one but it could to another. And one can’t simply dismiss it as being too scrupulous IMO.

 

[ProVobis]

The prelatures, or similar entities that exist - Anglican and Military Ordinariates and Opus Dei - try - to an extreme - to be compatible within the territorial diocese where they coexist.

I believe the Ordinariate have their own bishop now.

 

[peter26]

The US ordinariate has a bishop (or will do from February). The British and Australian ordinariates have ordinaries, which are similar to bishops but lack some powers, for instance they can not ordain and have to ask the diocesan bishops to do this for them.