SSPX & Sunday Obligation

[maurin]

I am grieved that this is the case, truly. I would gently point out that you DO have rights under canon law and that you should try to avail yourself of those rights (as did the people to whom Msgr. Perle addressed that letter). There are canon law societies that help people who are being victimized by their hierarchs. I believe that they do it for free.

There are ways to fight and establish your rights. I’m not suggesting that anyone should put up with anything.

Now this is the JKirkLVNV speaking whom I have known and come to respect since September of 06!

You have no idea how much I appreciate your acknowledging that things are actually this bad here.

I have exhausted all the possibilities open to me kirk. I will not fight the Church. At this time, the Church allows me to assist at the SSPX Mass for all the reasons I have noted in this thread.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Now this is the JKirkLVNV speaking whom I have known and come to respect since September of 06!

You have no idea how much I appreciate your acknowledging that things are actually this bad here.

I have exhausted all the possibilities open to me kirk. I will not fight the Church. At this time, the Church allows me to assist at the SSPX Mass for all the reasons I have noted in this thread.

Well, I hardly know what to say. Let us pray that the circumstances in which we find ourselves will at least rebound to the greater glory of God.

 

[ProVobis]

I disagree. The Mass of all time, the Mass of the Ages is, by definition, the Mass the Church offers. Regardless of the rite, it is all the Holy Sacrifice. The Holy Father has said that there is not conflict between the two forms, either.

Maybe it’s not a matter of rites but options used. Can you say with a straight face that Eucharistic Prayer #2 is all about sacrificing, for example? It would be quite a stretch, I would think.

 

[ProVobis]

Yes, he is an inspiration and a great pope. We would do well to read and apply **ALL **that he has said regarding both forms.

Yes, true, both forms are valid, but you do understand that the Pope had serious misgivings on the New Rite, even calling it a “fabricated” liturgy at one time?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yes, true, both forms are valid, but you do understand that the Pope had serious misgivings on the New Rite, even calling it a “fabricated” liturgy at one time?

The Holy Father has said numerous things SINCE then that may indicate that he has had a change of heart, which all of us are permitted.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Maybe it’s not a matter of rites but options used. Can you say with a straight face that Eucharistic Prayer #2 is all about sacrificing, for example? It would be quite a stretch, I would think.

It is all about what the Church says it all about. Her intent is to offer a sacrifice and so it is a sacrifice, THE Sacrifice, that is offered.

 

[maurin]

It is all about what the Church says it all about. Her intent is to offer a sacrifice and so it is a sacrifice, THE Sacrifice, that is offered.

subjectively, maybe, I would agree. But oughtn’t it be objectively?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

subjectively, maybe, I would agree. But oughtn’t it be objectively?

I would say that it IS objectively true. The Church intends to offer the Holy Sacrifice, thus it is the Holy Sacrifice that she offers.

 

[jflare29]

I believe the original question was:
Does the Mass offered by SSPX fulfill a Sunday obligation to attend Mass?

I believe the simple answer is: Yes, but be careful.

Make certain you’re doing so for the right reasons.

If you’re looking for someplace to attend Mass on a one-time basis, such as when traveling, I suspect the Motu Proprio authorizes such an effort. I might strongly recommend you call the apologist hotline for precise answers.
If you’re looking for someplace to attend Mass routinely, again, I’d contact Catholic Answers’ apologists, find out what the techincalities are, then speak with the priest and find out where he stands.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I believe the simple answer is: Yes, but be careful.

That is not clear.

 

[jflare29]

That is not clear.

What’s unclear about it?

Did the motu proprio authorize practice of the traditional Mass or not?

The question did not necessarily address all the other concerns about communion with Rome and what not. That’s why I commented–hinted?–that one must be careful when approaching their Mass.

Note that the question didn’t specify whether this was to be a long-term effort or only a one-time event. Someone may be curious about it and need to learn…

 

[maurin]

If you mean the bit about “interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church,” it is by no means clear that the Holy Father is speaking of any more than the kinds disagreements and debates that we see, for example, in these fora, particularly the “traditional” fora, throughout the Church. Pope Benedict does NOT make explicit reference at this point in the MP to the Society and seems to be speaking to the vitirol and heat that often lies between the devotees of either form. With regard to the Society, he states, earlier in the MP, “unfortunately this reconciliation has not yet come about.” He does say this, of the hierarchy’s task: “to make every effort to enable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew.”

Dear Kirk,

sorry, in the flurry of posts, I missed this one.

Context, Kirk, is very important, and what is obvious to me and quite a number of others, certainly may not be so to you and others. But one thing we do know for sure: talks between His Holiness’ delegates and the Society are ongoing. Please, I ask you in all sincerity, dedicate one decade of your Rosary during the month of November to the full reconciliation of the Society with His Holiness; for my sake.

In the meantime, let the link–the words of His Holiness, long may he reign–speak for itself.

 

[franklinf]

Dear Kirk,

sorry, in the flurry of posts, I missed this one.

Context, Kirk, is very important, and what is obvious to me and quite a number of others, certainly may not be so to you and others. But one thing we do know for sure: talks between His Holiness’ delegates and the Society are ongoing. Please, I ask you in all sincerity, dedicate one decade of your Rosary during the month of November to the full reconciliation of the Society with His Holiness; for my sake.

In the meantime, let the link–the words of His Holiness, long may he reign–speak for itself.

I agree and I will too. While I am blessed with a TLM minutes from where I live, I know many others aren’t and have little choice but to attend an SSPX Mass. I will certainly be praying for the full reconciliation of SSPX with Mother Church so that all may experience the fullness of the Catholic Faith, without the overhang (is that even a word?) of the irregular canonical standing

 

[pnewton]

Okay,

Here is your definitive link to links to ALL relevant magisterial documents related to this subject:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=269697

Ah! A suggestion to go to source documents instead of swapping opinions. Thanks for the link.

 

[jflare29]

What’s unclear about it?

Did the motu proprio authorize practice of the traditional Mass or not?

The question did not necessarily address all the other concerns about communion with Rome and what not. That’s why I commented–hinted?–that one must be careful when approaching their Mass.

Note that the question didn’t specify whether this was to be a long-term effort or only a one-time event. Someone may be curious about it and need to learn…

Hmm. More I think about it, this statement is rather self contradictory. It’s OK, but check it out? Whoops!

I suppose that’s the real answer though: Check it out from those who know the best.

 

[I_Believe]

The lack of a definitive statement from Rome can only be interpreted , IMO, that the laity commits nothing wrong by *assisting *at a Mass prayed by a SSPX priest. That coupled with the fact that Rome has declared the Mass itself valid, would lead me to believe one can indeed assist at such Mass with a clear conscience. And receive the Blessed Sacrament.

The problem, however, is when “internal matters” are presented and commented on, from the pulpit. That is the issue of concern for me. When such topics are the focus, then it can become seed for contempt for the authority of our churchmen, and thus schismatic attitudes. Are the Society’s concerns valid concerns ? IMO, yes.

But, we need to hear about Catholicism from the pulpit. Good catechesis. Not an encouragement to distance ourselves from our hierarchy. Or what some may take as such. I’m not saying that every homily at a SSPX Mass harps on the stance of the Society, but, when one does, is that the way to prepare the flock for the Credo and the Holy Sacrifice ? When the issues of Doctrine and so forth are spoken upon from the pulpit, there can’t help but be an implied line drawn.

We wind up on one hand, in a homily that takes issue with the upper echelons of the Hierarchy, warned of the smoke of Satan. Yet on the other hand, in the Canon our local Bishop and the Bishop of Rome are acknowledged as “ours”, who “govern”, and are included with “all orthodox believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith”.

But wait, weren’t we just warned about these folks ?

And that, is what I think is the problem the Society has to face. There is a word in that Canon prayer that precedes the acknowledgement of our Bishops. And it starts with the letter “U”.

So, the argument that attendance at a Society Mass can lead to schismatic attitudes is indeed a valid concern. I’ve been walking around trying to convince myself that I will be the Catholic I want to be no matter what Mass I attend, SSPX, diocesan parish EF, or Novus Ordo. But I’m starting to realize that if the priest who is praying that Mass presents a homily that contains anything other than solid catechesis, acknowledgement of revealed Truth, or praise of the things that are of God, the souls of those to whom he speaks are left vulnerable. We can’t benefit from mixed signals and takes. Christ’s Will of Unity in His Name can’t be set aside IMHO. Both the Society and the Holy See would do well to consider this, for it is a problem both “sides” share.

:twocents:

 

[I_Believe]

I’ll add that some of you may have seen my posts mentioning a priest I have a great love for. He prays the EF at a local diocesan parish, and I’ve praised him for speaking his mind. He shares his opinion of the things he has seen go in the wrong direction the last 40 years or so. When praising the Summorum Pontificum recently, he added, “the devil has had his day”.

But he always stops short of condemning Rome. No matter how much he laments the crisis we’ve faced/face, he never draws a line between himself and Rome. And he always remembers what he is standing on that pulpit for. If his words bring us down, he leaves us in sorrow, not anger or self righteousness.

Oh, what today’s clergy could learn from that Holy priest. He is in his 90’s and seen first hand the happenings the rest of us can only read about.

 

[jflare29]

The lack of a definitive statement from Rome can only be interpreted , IMO, that the laity commits nothing wrong by *assisting *at a Mass prayed by a SSPX priest. That coupled with the fact that Rome has declared the Mass itself valid, would lead me to believe one can indeed assist at such Mass with a clear conscience. And receive the Blessed Sacrament.

The problem, however, is when “internal matters” are presented and commented on, from the pulpit. That is the issue of concern for me. When such topics are the focus, then it can become seed for contempt for the authority of our churchmen, and thus schismatic attitudes. Are the Society’s concerns valid concerns ? IMO, yes.

But, we need to hear about Catholicism from the pulpit. Good catechesis. Not an encouragement to distance ourselves from our hierarchy. Or what some may take as such. I’m not saying that every homily at a SSPX Mass harps on the stance of the Society, but, when one does, is that the way to prepare the flock for the Credo and the Holy Sacrifice ? When the issues of Doctrine and so forth are spoken upon from the pulpit, there can’t help but be an implied line drawn.

We wind up on one hand, in a homily that takes issue with the upper echelons of the Hierarchy, warned of the smoke of Satan. Yet on the other hand, in the Canon our local Bishop and the Bishop of Rome are acknowledged as “ours”, who “govern”, and are included with “all orthodox believers and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith”.

But wait, weren’t we just warned about these folks ?

And that, is what I think is the problem the Society has to face. There is a word in that Canon prayer that precedes the acknowledgement of our Bishops. And it starts with the letter “U”.

So, the argument that attendance at a Society Mass can lead to schismatic attitudes is indeed a valid concern. I’ve been walking around trying to convince myself that I will be the Catholic I want to be no matter what Mass I attend, SSPX, diocesan parish EF, or Novus Ordo. But I’m starting to realize that if the priest who is praying that Mass presents a homily that contains anything other than solid catechesis, acknowledgement of revealed Truth, or praise of the things that are of God, the souls of those to whom he speaks are left vulnerable. We can’t benefit from mixed signals and takes. Christ’s Will of Unity in His Name can’t be set aside IMHO. Both the Society and the Holy See would do well to consider this, for it is a problem both “sides” share.

:twocents:

I agree with much of this, I_Believe, but there may a concern that we haven’t addressed much:
Does the murky state of SSPX relative to the universal Church in some some way create other difficulties that should be avoided, if possible?
In other words, if SSPX–and thus their priests–is not openly in communion with Rome, does their Mass become inherently illicit, even if still valid? Even though the priest intends what the Church intends, so the Eucharist is, er, created, and even though the Motu Proprio allows the celebration of the Latin Mass, I find I’m wondering if the SSPX Mass might still be technically illegal, thus a theoretical occasion of sin to attend, by virtue of a possibility that they’re still rejecting the Church’s authority?

I think that’s the essence of what others have been arguing.

I don’t know the answer to that.
I’m not sure if anyone outside Rome does.

 

[I_Believe]

I agree with much of this, I_Believe, but there may a concern that we haven’t addressed much:
Does the murky state of SSPX relative to the universal Church in some some way create other difficulties that should be avoided, if possible?
In other words, if SSPX–and thus their priests–is not openly in communion with Rome, does their Mass become inherently illicit, even if still valid? Even though the priest intends what the Church intends, so the Eucharist is, er, created, and even though the Motu Proprio allows the celebration of the Latin Mass, I find I’m wondering if the SSPX Mass might still be technically illegal, thus a theoretical occasion of sin to attend, by virtue of a possibility that they’re still rejecting the Church’s authority?

I think that’s the essence of what others have been arguing.

I don’t know the answer to that.
I’m not sure if anyone outside Rome does.

Well, in the eyes of Rome, the Mass is ilicit by virtue of the suspensions of the clergy. They are all suspended, and the remaining Bishops ordained by Bishop LeFebvre are excommunicated. But the mass is indeed a valid Mass.

The problem is, or question rather, is, if the Bishops are truly excommunicated, then how can the situation be described as an “internal matter” as Cardinal Hoyos has said ?

Again, it is a lack of a definitive statement from The Holy See that leads to confusion. Perhaps by saying it is an internal matter, H.E. Cardinal Hoyos is hinting that the laity shouldn’t even be discussing it. But then again, if he does mean that, then why don’t we have a clear statement stating such.

Over in Liturgy and Sacraments, I described an incident I encountered in the confessional. A priest who is a member of the forums confirmed my concern by explaining my confession was valid, and that I did indeed receive Absolution, but the priest in question did in fact stray from the prescribed form of administering the Sacrament and acted ilicitly. So again, we have the “valid but ilicit” issue.

It’s a tough thing to grasp. The Mass is valid, so there is no fault of the laity in that regard as far as attending it, but to do so lends support to an ilicit act. But we are left to let our conscience be our guide in the absence of a TLM at a diocesan parish.

We need to hear a yes or no from Rome. Si Si No No.

 

[pnewton]

The lack of a definitive statement from Rome can only be interpreted , IMO, that the laity commits nothing wrong by *assisting *at a Mass prayed by a SSPX priest.

I think there is another reason. From the second link above:

On the other hand, in the case of the rest of the faithful it is obvious that an occasional participation in liturgical acts or the activity of the Lefebvrian movement, done without making one’s own the attitude of doctrinal and disciplinary disunion of such a movement, does not suffice for one to be able to speak of formal adherence to the movement. In pastoral practice the result can be that it is more difficult to judge their situation. One must take account above all of the person’s intentions, and the putting into practice of this internal disposition. For this reason the various situations are going to be judged case by case, in the competent forums both internal and external.

1. All the same, it will always be necessary to distinguish between the moral question on the existence or not of the sin of schism and the juridical-penal question on the existence of the delict of schism, and its consequent sanction. In this latter case the dispositions of Book V1 of the Code of Canon Law (including Cann.1323-1324) will be applied.
2. It does not seem advisable to make more precise the requirements for the delict of schism

It is not that there is a lack of definitive answer to the problem, as a definitive answer does not exist. Since the Mass is valid and attending such Masses does not equate to a formal act of schism, the moral aspect remains. By the very nature of any act that is not inherently immoral, it can only be examined on a case by case basis.