SSPX mass OK?

[lifetree]

The Mass is valid. …

No, it’s not !! The Mass which they perform is not compliant with the Novus Ordo Mass prescribed by the Latin Rite … therefore, attendance at their Mass does not fulfill your Sunday obligation.

 

[numealinesimpet]

{the Mass is valid} … No, it’s not !! The Mass which they perform is not compliant with the Novus Ordo Mass prescribed by the Latin Rite … therefore, attendance at their Mass does not fulfill your Sunday obligation.

Are you talking about the SSPX, lifetree?

Will you be offended if I remind you what ‘valid’ means in this case? It is a technical term in Canon Law.

If a Mass is valid, then after the Consecration the priest is holding up the true Body of Christ. If it is invalid, he is holding nothing but a piece of bread (or cookie, or whatever he is holding).

Even the Masses of the Greek Orthodox, who will not acknowledge the authority of the Holy See, are judged to be valid Masses by Rome.

Sometimes, a valid Mass is said by a priest against the rules. In this case, the Mass is illicit. But if he is still holding the Body of Christ, then the illicit Mass is still valid.

In his recent document Summorum Pontificum, the Holy Fahter declared that the Old Latin Mass according to the 1962 Missal is an “extraordinary” form of the "Ordinary " way of saying Mass in the Roman Rite (the 1969 Missal).

Even here, the word “Ordinary” is not used as we use it in conversation. It means “According to the Ordering of the law”.

The SSPX maintain that their actions were not, in fact, illegal, and that therefore their Masses are licit as well as valid. Even those who reject the claim that they are licit, still accept that their Masses are valid.

Even the Vatican accepts this. Otherwise Cdl Perl could not have written, as he did,

His first question was “Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass” and our response was:

“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.”

His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:

“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”
His third question was: “Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass” to which we responded:

“3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.”

 

[pnewton]

No, it’s not !! The Mass which they perform is not compliant with the Novus Ordo Mass prescribed by the Latin Rite … therefore, attendance at their Mass does not fulfill your Sunday obligation.

Exclaimation points do not add truth.

I have quoted my source on both of these points. Where are yours?

 

[Aramis]

No, it’s not !! The Mass which they perform is not compliant with the Novus Ordo Mass prescribed by the Latin Rite … therefore, attendance at their Mass does not fulfill your Sunday obligation.

Even the totally schismatic SSPV mass is valid. Illicit, but still valid.

Validity does not, however, make it suitable for anything other than emergencies. Valid and licit is required for normal attendance.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Even the totally schismatic SSPV mass is valid. Illicit, but still valid.

Validity does not, however, make it suitable for anything other than emergencies. Valid and licit is required for normal attendance.

Agreed.

 

[ProVobis]

Validity does not, however, make it suitable for anything other than emergencies. Valid and licit is required for normal attendance.

Normal being the keyword here.

The valid and illicit part are on the part of the priest. Any priest in mortal sin (of any kind, known or unknown) doesn’t invalidate the Mass. He may be a mass murderer or a major sex offender for all we know. We are, however, obligated to attend a valid Mass. Our attendance there doesn’t acknowledge that the priest or anyone else there is free from sin.

 

[CMP2]

The Mass is valid if the Priest has been ordained with the proper form and matter, but there is still a prohibition on attending the Mass until the SSPX have sought permission to come back fully under the umbrella of the Holy See in complete obedience.

Better to attend the Tridentine Masses approved, if possible. Eg. the Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King etc. Why go to a Church that is in doubt still. Not worth the risk in spite of the fact that the Mass is beautiful and they use the same Missal as the Fraternity etc.

 

[ProVobis]

Better to attend the Tridentine Masses approved, if possible.

Since the 2007 SP, approval to say the EF need not be given by the bishop, only the pastor. My understanding is that once the SSPX bishop(s) receive canonical status, the SSPX priests will have their suspensions lifted and they will be free to say whatever Mass they want.

 

[CMP2]

Since the 2007 SP, approval to say the EF need not be given by the bishop, only the pastor. My understanding is that once the SSPX bishop(s) receive canonical status, the SSPX priests will have their suspensions lifted and they will be free to say whatever Mass they want.

Sorry ProVobis: I didn’t mean to imply that the Ex.F. cannot be said I was applying more to the PiusX group. As you said once the edict is lifted all will be well. We must pray for this to happen soon.

 

[ProVobis]

As you said once the edict is lifted all will be well. We must pray for this to happen soon.

I would be surprised if the edict will be lifted for everyone all at once. But even so, I would see a lot of SSPX chapels a little more liberalized, something which may disappoint purists who liked the way things were before Vatican II. It might be great news if the edicts are lifted but I doubt if the overall attendances will be increased, though. Realistically, they’ll just be seen “like everyone else.”

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

Since the 2007 SP, approval to say the EF need not be given by the bishop, only the pastor. My understanding is that once the SSPX bishop(s) receive canonical status, the SSPX priests will have their suspensions lifted and they will be free to say whatever Mass they want.

I thought I would mention something interesting that Bishop Fellay said at the local SSPX Church last year. No one every mentions this, but I heard it from him personally.

When the excommunication was lifted, the suspension was automatically lifted as well. Cardinal Castrillon consulted a canonist in Rome and informed Bishop Fellay of this. The reason given by the canonist was that when a major penalty is lifted, any lesser penalties are also automatically lifted as well. This only applies to the SSPX Bishops, since they were the only ones to have a penalty lifted. If the SSPX Priest were previously suspended, it would still hold.

 

[ProVobis]

I thought I would mention something interesting that Bishop Fellay said at the local SSPX Church last year. No one every mentions this, but I heard it from him personally.

When the excommunication was lifted, the suspension was automatically lifted as well. Cardinal Castrillon consulted a canonist in Rome and informed Bishop Fellay of this. **The reason given by the canonist was that when a major penalty is lifted, any lesser penalties are also automatically lifted as well. ** This only applies to the SSPX Bishops, since they were the only ones to have a penalty lifted. If the SSPX Priest were previously suspended, it would still hold.

That’s what I thought too. But so far, I haven’t heard anything official yet.

 

[numealinesimpet]

That’s what I thought too. But so far, I haven’t heard anything official yet.

That’s extremely interesting! I would have some thoughts for those who still have a scruple about the suspensions, Maybe for a later posting. I think I can see why Bp Fellay is not making a major issue of what you have said. He does not want it to blow up into another major row, just when things are going positively. For my part, having swallowed the camel of the (disputed) excommunications (and this decision being vindicated, I believe, in its effects for our family) I am not going to strain at the gnat of the suspensions (what were they for, again? Was it for saying a Mass that had never been abrogated, but on the contrary was protected “To the End of Time (in perpetua)” by Pope S. Pius V in 1570? Hmmm… )

… while of those who believed to the end that the excommunications absolutely precluded our attendance, perhaps only a minority will now come before a formal lifting of suspensions.

When Pope Benedict states that the SSPX clergy have “no Canonical Mission” in the Church, that does not necessarily mean that the suspensions are still in force. Remember, they were consecrated as an Emergency measure (which was successful insofar as it did preserve the traditions alive, and allowed such groups as the FSSP to exist, which they would not have done had there been no SSPX). But now the SSPX are in the church with no ‘official’ function. That, I venture to say, is a bigger headache for the Vatican than for the SSPX bishops, who will naturally say that the State of Necessity continues until they are given that Canonical Status. No doubt the structures are being negotiated now. Apostolic Administration? Personal Prelature? Something entirely new? ‘New wine in new wineskins’? What if Bp Fellay is elected as the next Pope? (there’s no reason why not – all suspensions, by canon law, are suspended for the duration of a papal election)

 

[KC91]

I read though that if an SSPX church is the only Catholic Church near your house where you can receive the sacraments, then the sacraments are valid? (compared to a similar situation where a laicized priest can offer the last rites to a dying Catholic if the laicized priest is the only priest available nearby)

 

[CMP2]

Pro Vobis:
I doubt if the overall attendances will be increased,
**If the Extraordinary Form of the Holy Mass is not offered in areas where there is a Pius X Church I do believe that attendance will greatly increase. This is the case where I live and the Latin Rite Mass must follow the Missal prior to Vat. II. So liberalisation, I pray, would not happen. When the Fraternity of St. Peter was formed by Pope JP II and the resulting Orders that have come from this, they are obliged to follow exactly the Rite as is in the Missal. No fluctuations as per Churches after Vat. II. I like this. Every Catholic Church united in the Liturgy. As it was. It never needed ‘fixing’. I am a convert and came into the faith just before Vat. II and I resent not having had this beautiful rite for so long and now hunger for it. I must travel a great distance in order to attend. One day perhaps we will have a Personal Parish closer to us. We do have a Pius X Church nearby and I wait for permission to attend. I wait on the Holy See to grant such permission.

God bless…**

 

[numealinesimpet]

I read though that if an SSPX church is the only Catholic Church near your house where you can receive the sacraments, then the sacraments are valid? (compared to a similar situation where a laicized priest can offer the last rites to a dying Catholic if the laicized priest is the only priest available nearby)

Yes, that is definite.

For one thing, validity as such was never the issue. With your patience, here is the difference (for newcomers to the thread &/or the topic):–

If a Mass is invalid, the consecration is null and void, and the priest is still holding a piece of bread (or whatever else he was using – because if the Host is made of anything else but pure wheaten flour and water, it is invalid).

If a Mass is illicit, it is being celebrated against the rules. The priest is thereby committing a ‘material’ sin. It becomes a ‘formal’ sin if he breaks the rules knowingly, without good cause. E.g. interestingly, the Rule for the Roman rite is always to use unleavened bread, but for the Byzantine rite (including the Uniates, in communion with Rome) it is the opposite - the bread must be leavened. Priests may not vary this, under pain of sin.

However, if no other bread were available (eg in an isolated poverty-stricken village, or in a prison camp,) then ‘emergency provisions’ would be activated. The Precept is: “Necessity is not subject to particular law”. The higher laws, such as the good of souls, dictate the course of action. I am sure that priests learn these things in the seminary – there is no ‘normal’ need for layfolk to concern themselves with it. Nowadays, when there is widespread flouting of the Law, however, it is prudent for us to know a little more.

This, of course, is the kind of argument employed by the SSPX since the first attempt to close them down.

Secondly, N.B. the following letter by Mgr Perl, then in charge of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, charged with implementing the pope’s document “Ecclesia Dei” for allowing the TLM in good standing:–

NB it was on another thread of CAF
(thanks, ProVobis, for the info & the link)

Re: SSPX mass OK?

latin-mass-society.org/perl-011803.htm

Quote:
His first question was “Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass” and our response was:

“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.”

His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:

“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”
His third question was: “Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass” to which we responded:

“3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.”

 

[ProVobis]

We do have a Pius X Church nearby and I wait for permission to attend. I wait on the Holy See to grant such permission.

Personally I will dread if this is reported on the 10 o’clock news. We’ll have to listen to the whole Bishop Williamson debacle again, the Church is going back in time, yadda, yadda, yadda, and that definitely will be bad PR for the Church. Besides, the progressives will still find a way to undermine a favorable ruling as they always do. Many of them will never put aside the 1988 incident.

On the other hand, if we really wanted them to be like the FSSP, then why aren’t there more FSSP priests and Masses now? Have you seen the ratio numbers between new SSPX priests and new FSSP priests in the last 20 years?

The SSPX Church here is the closest EF to me. Why am I not going there all the time, I’m asked. Because I don’t think they need me. Their chapel is almost always full, they even have a balcony to handle the overflow, and they seem to be okay financially. Right now, I’ll prefer an EF that needs attendance. Does that make sense?

But more to the point, perhaps one of the reasons why they are flourishing is because of the controversy that’s surrounding them, I don’t know. Take away the controversy and they’ll be seen as another FSSP. What do you think?

 

[KC91]

Personally I will dread if this is reported on the 10 o’clock news. We’ll have to listen to the whole Bishop Williamson debacle again, the Church is going back in time, yadda, yadda, yadda, and that definitely will be bad PR for the Church. Besides, the progressives will still find a way to undermine a favorable ruling.

What is good for the church may not be good for the secularists. The Holy See should not and probably will not give in to public opinion for the sake of expediency. Did Jesus water down his teachings to avoid offending the authorities? No.

 

[pnewton]

But more to the point, perhaps one of the reasons why they are flourishing is because of the controversy that’s surrounding them, I don’t know. Take away the controversy and they’ll be seen as another FSSP. What do you think?

I think there is always an attraction to a remnant mentality. How strong this is will be anyone’s guess. I have always thought that total inclusion of the SSPX wil result in some breaking off. I am sure we all hope such a splinter will be few in number.

I will make a prediction, along with you, that any news release of normalization by the secular media will include the words “Williamson” and “Holocaust”. Somehow, it will be shoe-horned in.

 

[otjm]

Pro Vobis:
I doubt if the overall attendances will be increased,
**If the Extraordinary Form of the Holy Mass is not offered in areas where there is a Pius X Church I do believe that attendance will greatly increase. **Perhaps, and perhaps not. An example could well be made already from the repeated comments about how far people must travel now to attend an EF, and how few now (from the overall population of Catholics attending Mass) will travel the extra distance to attend. There are few if any reports of EF Masses being so overflowing that one does not have room to attend. In short, many people are lazy, and won’t travel much if anything.
CMP2;6166913:

This is the case where I live and the Latin Rite Mass must follow the Missal prior to Vat. II. So liberalisation, I pray, would not happen.

Benedict 16, like his predecessor, has repeatedly said that Vatican 2 has not been fully implemented. And if one reads the letter he wrote accompanying SP, there certainly are comments in there that would indicate that he forsees changes eventually to the EF.

Every Catholic Church united in the Liturgy. As it was. It never needed ‘fixing’.

I think I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that currently, the Catholic Church is united in the Liturgy, and that includes not only the EF and the OF, but also all of the rites to the Eastern Churches in union with Rome; all of them have the Sacrifice of the Mass.

And as to not needing fixing, even Archbishop Lafebvre agreed with the vast majority of the bishops during Vatican 2 that there were needed changes.