SSPX & Sunday Obligation

[maurin]

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.

His Holiness referred to the status of the Society as an internal matter of reconciliation within the Church last year, not the good Cardinal Hoyos.

I believe that there is a “lack of difinitive statement from the The Holy See” because in some ways the Holy See may just be sympathetic to a portion of the Society’s position…one only need to read Cardinal Ratzinger’s “The Spirit of the Liturgy” to come to that conclusion. Nota Bene that this is my own conclusion, and need not be yours or others’.

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.

We may be waiting awhile longer…you might consider praying the Rosary in November for the intention of reconciliation of the Society.

 

[jmcrae]

How so? It seems to be he is merely reiterating what members of the Church hierarchy have already said.

Msgr. Camille Perl (PCED’s Secretary) stated that, “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…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.”

“You” in this case was a specific, single individual. This was not a public document; it was private correspondence between Msgr. Perl and a woman who was seeking his advice in a very specific situation (which we do not know, since it would have been outlined in the letter to which he was responding - which we don’t have access to). We should not read this letter as if it had been addressed to ourselves; it was not.

I don’t think the Holy See considers itself to have authority over non-member organizations; thus, it does not instruct the SSPX on what it may do or not do.

We, as Catholics fulfill our Sunday obligation to attend Mass at parish churches, oratories, and chapels that are in full communion with our local Bishops.

 

[franklinf]

I don’t think the Holy See considers itself to have authority over non-member organizations; thus, it does not instruct the SSPX on what it may do or not do.

We, as Catholics fulfill our Sunday obligation to attend Mass at parish churches, oratories, and chapels that are in full communion with our local Bishops.

Columnist Brian Mershon has written the PCED and asked some questions in regards to the SSPX.

“PCED: “Statements made by Cardinal Castrillón need to be understood in a technical, canonical sense. Stating that the Society of St. Pius X “is not in formal schism” is to say that there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism. Up to now, the Church has sought to show the maximum charity, courtesy and consideration to all those involved with the hope that such a declaration will not eventually be necessary.Up to now the Catholic Church has acted as if the situation of the Society of St. Pius X is an internal matter within the Catholic Church and not a matter of ecumenical dialogue.””

Your statement that the SSPX is a “non-member organization” is erroneous as it is the Church’s position that the SSPX is “not in formal schism” i.e. it is still a member organization of HMC. It is an internal matter further reinforcing it is a member organization.

The PCED also wrote that “Catholics who frequent the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X do not incur any sin or canonical delict by doing so.”

This further reinforces the previously mentioned letter. One may attend a SSPX Mass (and fulfill their Sunday obligation), provided it is done out of love and devotion towards the TLM. One doesn’t incur any sin or canonical delict

In regards to the authority of the PCED, the PCED wrote that,“This Pontifical Commission does its best to transmit responses which are in full accord with the magisterium and the present canonical practices of the Catholic Church. One should accept them with docility and can act upon them with moral certainty. We would further add that no dicastery of the Holy See will give other responses than those which we have given here.”

 

[franklinf]

We may be waiting awhile longer…you might consider praying the Rosary in November for the intention of reconciliation of the Society.

That’s rather ironic, given the recent rumors and renewal of the Rosary Crusade.

 

[jmcrae]

This further reinforces the previously mentioned letter. One may attend a SSPX Mass (and fulfill their Sunday obligation), provided it is done out of love and devotion towards the TLM. One doesn’t incur any sin or canonical delict

That particular woman, to whom the letter was addressed, does not. She has received permission from Msgr. Perl. But each person who attends the SSPX would have to receive individual permission from his or her parish priest to do so. We can’t look at a letter that gives permission to someone else, and then take it as if that permission had been given to ourselves. Each person must receive his or her own permission. The parish priest is the person who is responsible for your soul, so you should ask your parish priest.

 

[franklinf]

That particular woman, to whom the letter was addressed, does not. She has received permission from Msgr. Perl. But each person who attends the SSPX would have to receive individual permission from his or her parish priest to do so. We can’t look at a letter that gives permission to someone else, and then take it as if that permission had been given to ourselves. Each person must receive his or her own permission. The parish priest is the person who is responsible for your soul, so you should ask your parish priest.

No, the quotes from my post are not from that letter. The PCED explicitly stated that “**Catholics who frequent the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X do not incur any sin or canonical delict by doing so.” ** We can agree to disagree on that letter, but in this letter the PCED is referring to all Catholics.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

As I understand it, the priest receives his faculties (to say mass and administer the sacraments) from the bishop of his geographic area. If a priest does this without the permission of the bishop of the diocese, the sacraments (at least in the Latin rite) would be valid but illicit. It seems to me that it would be wrong for a Catholic to regularly attend masses that are illicit because they aren’t sanctioned by the bishop of the diocese.

Some may say that masses in their parish are illicit because of abuses. But surely there must be some parish within reasonable driving distance (the distance one would drive to go to a movie or eat at a special restaurant or shop at the outlets) which has a licit mass??

 

[pnewton]

Some may say that masses in their parish are illicit because of abuses. But surely there must be some parish within reasonable driving distance (the distance one would drive to go to a movie or eat at a special restaurant or shop at the outlets) which has a licit mass??

Another thought on this: while some Masses may contain an illicit practice, or several, the Mass offered by the SSPX is illicit from start to finish by the nature of it not being authorized by the local bishop. Therefore the excuse of the Mass in one area being illicit as a reason to attend an SSPX is dubious. Obviously if one has an invalid Mass (priest changing the host to Saltines, for example) this would be a different issue.

I think the important thing is to be straightforward with the reason one would attend an unauthorized Mass. If it is just because you like it better, be honest about that. If it is because you believe the current Mass to be invalid, do not hide behind an illogical reason.

 

[look2thyheart]

Another thought on this: while some Masses may contain an illicit practice, or several, the Mass offered by the SSPX is illicit from start to finish by the nature of it not being authorized by the local bishop. Therefore the excuse of the Mass in one area being illicit as a reason to attend an SSPX is dubious. Obviously if one has an invalid Mass (priest changing the host to Saltines, for example) this would be a different issue.

I think the important thing is to be straightforward with the reason one would attend an unauthorized Mass. If it is just because you like it better, be honest about that. If it is because you believe the current Mass to be invalid, do not hide behind an illogical reason.

Can you tell me where in the U.S. any local bishop authorized the SSPX to give Mass? The authority the SSPX has now to say Mass is from Rome. What you have stated is false.

 

[jmcrae]

Can you tell me where in the U.S. any local bishop authorized the SSPX to give Mass?

No where.

The authority the SSPX has now to say Mass is from Rome. What you have stated is false.

This is completely false. The SSPX is not even in communion with Rome; they certainly have no authority from Rome to do anything at all.

You are thinking of the FSSP, I think, which is headed by the Pope himself, and thus, doesn’t need authority from a local Bishop (but for courtesy’s sake, they never go in without the local Bishop’s permission, anyway).

 

[pnewton]

Can you tell me where in the U.S. any local bishop authorized the SSPX to give Mass?

No where in the U.S. that I have ever heard of has any local bishop authorised the SSPX to give Mass. So, no, I can not tell you where this has happened. Considering their current status, I do not think any bishop would allow such a thing.

I do not understand your question.

 

[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, sure it can be an occasion of sin. If, it leads to a self righteous attitude toward Rome and those who embrace Rome on bended knee. But by “it”, I mean the support of the Society without acknowledging that regularization must be realized soon.

Deserving or not, there is indeed a stigma under which the Society’s flock live. And the origins of that stigma are a sad thing.

 

[Binx]

As for what the Holy Father might or might do, I mention again Cardinal Kasper, who says a great MANY puzzling things for which the Holy Father does not muzzle him.

Curious, that.

 

[stccp]

These comments, along with a complete omission of the NO Mass (which the Pope has clearly stated to be the Ordinary Form) sounds an awful lot like SSPX prostelyzation to me.

I agree with ethelzguy. When he starts quwstioning the authority of the pope, that is the tip off.

 

[Binx]

I agree with ethelzguy. When he starts quwstioning the authority of the pope, that is the tip off.

Ugh. maurin is not questioning the authority of the Pope. Neither is the SSPX.

ethelzguy: There is no proselytism in maurin’s post. Anything but.

 

[pnewton]

Ugh. maurin is not questioning the authority of the Pope. Neither is the SSPX.
.

Questioning is an inaccurate word. Ignoring would be more accurate, unless they have submitted to his authority and been reconciled somewhere that I missed.

They are founded on an act of disobedience to the Holy Father. It is the single event that defines them as a group.

 

[603304529]

Questioning is an inaccurate word. Ignoring would be more accurate, unless they have submitted to his authority and been reconciled somewhere that I missed.

They are founded on an act of disobedience to the Holy Father. It is the single event that defines them as a group.

LOL! PNewton! What the!? Everyone who knows anything about the SSPX situation realises that they were well and truly established, and very strong, in the 1970’s! The falling out between JP2 and Archbishop Lefebvre didn’t happen til 1988.

Please. Please, get your facts straight before preaching them! It adds so much more credibility to your arguments if your facts can be backed up by a simple google search…

 

[requiemaeturnum]

If the SSPX does not fulfill your Sunday obligation then I am screwed.

Seriously though, you can probably go to a sede Mass and fulfill your obligation.

 

[DonaNobis_Pacem]

If the SSPX does not fulfill your Sunday obligation then I am screwed.

Seriously though, you can probably go to a sede Mass and fulfill your obligation.

The obligation at an SSPX chapel can only be fulfilled, without incurring sin, if you can’t get to a Mass in the Extraordinary Form at another parish near you. Even then, it’s only if you attend the chapel out of love for the older form of the Mass. However, if you go because you intend on setting yourself in opposition to the Holy Father, then it’s sinful because you can possibly imbibe the spirit of schism by separating yourself from visible union with Christ’s Vicar.

Requiemaeturnum, I’d strongly advise you not to encourage attending a sedevacantist chapel to other people here, at least if you don’t want your stay here to be short-lived. It gives the impression that you are prosyletizing and influencing others to believe that taking up a mentality of separatism from the Catholic Church, for the sake of experiencing the Extraordinary Form of Mass, is okay.

 

[pnewton]

Please. Please, get your facts straight before preaching them! It adds so much more credibility to your arguments if your facts can be backed up by a simple google search…

You are right. I mispoke. The disobedience is not the basis of the founding. That action and attitude came later. But the fact remains that they have not reconciled, so words of obedience ring hollow.

Mistakes happen and people mispost. I am sorry this is an issue with you. But it does no good insulting and digging people when you have posted a handful of times yourself. Just some advice for you.