Which of the following would you feel most comfortable attending?

[Ad_Gentes]

The Vatican has never denied the VALIDITY of the SSPX sacrament (I assume you mean the Eucharist) nor the validity of orders.

That is true. Their orders (and thus their sacraments) are valid, but NOT licit.

And with what I know of canon law, both the SSPX and Eastern Orthodox Mass do fulfill your Sunday obligation.

Actually, none fulfill the Sunday obligation since Catholics are only “permitted” to receive their sacraments if “necessity requires it” and “it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister…” (Can. 844 § 2)

Eastern Orthodox: Schismatics for centuries

The historical reasons that lead to the Great Schism were more political, geographical, and cultural than theological, and both Churches (as well as external forces) were somewhat responsible. Although not in full/perfect communion, both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the TRUE Church of Christ.

SSPX: Told we can attend their Masses, told we can receive Holy Communion there, both without sin. Are not in schism, since the lifting of the excommunications at least, have a valid Communion. Are in a controversial, irregular standing with Rome, do, in my opinion, need to get some of their severe obedience orders under control, but all this combines to make them a slightly renegade, but Catholic, religious order.

True, the excommunication were lifted. Also true, we are not in full/perfect communion. One day, we will be (I hope and pray). Until then, the Catholic faithful is not at liberty to attend “their Masses” unless there is a real “necessity”, i.e. no other Catholic Eucharist is available within reason. That being said, the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligations is abrogated when a Catholic Mass is not available.

 

[m134e5]

This is sheer curiosity and someone briefly referenced it in another thread, so I thought I’d get some opinions here.

The question is pretty simple: Given the two options, as they exist today, which would you feel more comfortable attending:

A. An Eastern Orthodox Service
B. Mass at an SSPX Chapel

The purpose of this thread is merely to gauge initial reactions - which option (if any) is further outside/closer to your “comfort” zone?

My initial reaction would be to prefer an Eastern Orthodox Liturgy over an SSPX Mass. Eastern Orthodoxy has been separated from the Catholic Church for almost 1000 years. The Eastern Orthodox I have known are generally friendly towards Catholicism- though they do not agree with the Catholic Church on some things, and they do not allow Catholics to receive communion (and I’m sorry to say I’ve seen some exceptions to that friendliness- but converts from fundamentalism seem to be the ones fanning those flames- not lifelong Eastern Orthodox).

SSPX Chapels, on the other hand, are full of Catholics (many who are converts from fundamentalists as well- but they are Catholic- the SSPX *is *Catholic- it’s just in some trouble right now) most of whom have made a conscious choice to go to a parish that is not in communion with their diocesan bishop. Their priests do not have faculties to celebrate the Sacraments in the diocese they are in, so their Masses- while valid- are illicit, and their confessions are invalid (unless the person going to confession is at the point of death).

 

[I_Believe]

This is sheer curiosity and someone briefly referenced it in another thread, so I thought I’d get some opinions here.

The question is pretty simple: Given the two options, as they exist today, which would you feel more comfortable attending:

A. An Eastern Orthodox Service
B. Mass at an SSPX Chapel

The purpose of this thread is merely to gauge initial reactions - which option (if any) is further outside/closer to your “comfort” zone?

Hi Onegin, since you ask for initial reactions, my choice was immediately SSPX.

I’m a cradle Roman Catholic, so naturally, I’d go to the Latin Rite.

 

[I_Believe]

I’m not Catholic, but it’s an interesting thought. I’d go to the Orthodox service. I think the SSPX want to have their cake and eat it too- that is, that their position is self-contradictory.

MT 25:33
And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.

just kidding, have a piece of

 

[Bluegoat]

MT 25:33
And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.

just kidding, have a piece of

But who are the sheep and goats???

I have a funny relationship with this bit of Scripture. I used to keep and love goats, despite their rosebush denuding ways and fence-busting, but I can’t stand sheep. Most of them are vapid creatures.

 

[Rawb]

The historical reasons that lead to the Great Schism were more political, geographical, and cultural than theological, and both Churches (as well as external forces) were somewhat responsible. Although not in full/perfect communion, both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are the TRUE Church of Christ.

No. I do not believe that last line to be true. Yes the Orthodox Church is a true church; they have valid apostolic succession. One of the Marks of the Church, however, is that it is “One”, which references the fact that all members of Christ’s Church submit, rightfully, to the Bishop of Rome as their earthly leader. I do not know why you think that schismatics, who willfully separate themselves for over a thousand years from that bishop are, in association WITH the Catholic Church the True Church of Christ; the Eastern Rite Catholics are the true continuation of those churches found in the East. The Orthodox are schismatics, regardless of WHY, they refuse to submit to the Holy Father. Orthodoxy and Catholicism have little, if any communion. Far from the “full/perfect” communion you imply they are near.

True, the excommunication were lifted. Also true, we are not in full/perfect communion. One day, we will be (I hope and pray). Until then, the Catholic faithful is not at liberty to attend “their Masses” unless there is a real “necessity”, i.e. no other Catholic Eucharist is available within reason. That being said, the obligation to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligations is abrogated when a Catholic Mass is not available.

“not at liberty to attend their Masses unless their is a real necessity; i.e. no other Catholic Eucharist is available within reason.” Well, what exactly do you think a situation where you are only presented with an Orthodox Liturgy or SSPX Mass is? If those are the only options, I will receive my Lord in the SSPX Mass, a Catholic Mass that, even under your strict definition, I am at liberty to attend. As this is a Catholic Mass, I fail to understand why you mention the abrogation of our Sunday Obligation; there is a Catholic Mass to attend, so in this situation our obligation would not be abrogated. I will also mention that we are much, much closer to full communion with SSPX (perhaps already in full communion) than with the Orthodox.

 

[corsair]

Definately SSPX.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually, none fulfill the Sunday obligation since Catholics are only “permitted” to receive their sacraments if “necessity requires it” and “it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister…” (Can. 844 § 2)

Actually receiving the sacraments is not a requirement to satisfy the obligation.

Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.

I believe both the SSPX and Eastern Orthodox are valid Catholic rites.

 

[Rawb]

I believe both the SSPX and Eastern Orthodox are valid Catholic rites.

Eastern Orthodox are not Catholic. Eastern Catholic Rites are Catholic, sometimes called “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”. Is that what you’re referring to?

 

[Onegin]

It would seem that Catholic Answers has a page on Eastern Orthodoxy for those who are curious about the similarities/differences with Roman Catholicism:

catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

Additionally, this link on Catholic Answers (from 1996) seems to indicate that attending an Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy would not satisfy the Sunday obligation since, although they have a valid Eucharist, their Liturgy has not been approved for use in the Catholic Church.

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9612qq.asp

Hopefully this provides some clarification.

As far as I know, there is no Catholic Answers informational page on the SSPX.

 

[passus]

I probably wouldn’t feel very comfortable at either of them for various reasons, but I’d pick the Orthodox.

 

[moon1234]

Wow. There is a lot of mis-information in here.

1. Any Catholic may attend an SSPX chapel on any Sunday and fulfill their Sunday obligation. Ecclesia Dei commission said so. They went further and said that any Catholic who wishes to attend Mass at an SSPX chapel is allowed to as long as they have no intention of seperating themselves from Rome.
2. Confessions to an SSPX priest are valid under the following circumstances:
   a. The penitent is ignorant of the lack of faculties.
   b. The penitent is in immediate risk of death and needs a confessor.

In both of the above described situations the Church supplies faculties.

1. Marraiges are invalid without faculties supplied from a local ordinary. (Applies to all priests regardless of which order they belong to.)
2. Ordinations are valid, but the new Priest is suspended. This means he does not have permission to function. This is different from the sacraments being valid. Even a laicized Priest can still validly confect the sacrements allowed his office as long as he uses proper form and intent.

The choice here is a no brainer. The SSPX chapel. The eastern orthodox are not even Catholic. This debate is silly. The SSPX also do not rejct the council as if it never happened. They recognize it happened. They reject some of the pastoral teachings of VII because what they teach or the way they were implemented were a break with the Traditional teachings of the Catholic church. What the SSPX want is clarity on WHAT VII actually taught and how those teachings can be reconciled with Tradition.

We are under no compunction to blindly follow any teaching that causes rupture with tradition. What once was holy and valid in the Church and made many saints can not be considered unholy now. All of the saints that were made over the last 1000 years would NOT recognize the Mass were they alive today. These are serious issues that need the clarification that the SSPX is calling for.

 

[Seamus_L]

I’d go to the one that wouldn’t have a problem with Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, and the Filioque.

 

[Onegin]

The choice here is a no brainer. The SSPX chapel. The eastern orthodox are not even Catholic. This debate is silly.

And yet, based on responses to this thread, the split is about 50/50, slightly favoring the Orthodox.

I posted this poll because I was interested to know, as a matter of reaction, which option people would prefer because - in other threads - I got the vibe that many here would have less difficulty attending a non-Catholic church than an SSPX Mass.

 

[4EverHis]

The Vatican has never denied the VALIDITY of the SSPX sacrament (I assume you mean the Eucharist) nor the validity of orders. And with what I know of canon law, both the SSPX and Eastern Orthodox Mass do fulfill your Sunday obligation.

I don’t know about SSPX, but I read that the EO Divine Liturgy only fuflills Sunday obligation if you can’t get to any Catholic church… and we can’t receive the Eucharist there unless in normal circumstances

 

[4EverHis]

I’d be fine with visiting either, but if I had to choose one to fulfill my Sunday obligation, provided that I can’t make it to any Catholic church… then I’d probably choose SSPX.

 

[moon1234]

I’d be fine with visiting either, but if I had to choose one to fulfill my Sunday obligation, provided that I can’t make it to any Catholic church… then I’d probably choose SSPX.

Again SSPX IS Catholic. Eastern Orthodox IS NOT. The only difference with SSPX is legalistic. Eastern Orthodox have dogma problems which are orders of magnitude greater in their separation.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

B. Mass at an SSPX Chapel

 

[Bluegoat]

Again SSPX IS Catholic. Eastern Orthodox IS NOT. The only difference with SSPX is legalistic. Eastern Orthodox have dogma problems which are orders of magnitude greater in their separation.

I’ve been thinking about this, and here is the difference that I find most difficult with regard to the SSXPX, and I suspect several others may as well.

The OC is seperate from the Catholic Church, but they do understand the idea of authority and obedience. They simply disagree with the Catholic Church on where exactally the authority lies. By all appearences, it is an honest disagerement. But they try hard to put themselves in a proper relation to the Church authority they understand, to Scripture and Tradition. And of course they aren’t the actual individuals that split from the Western Church - they were all born well after the split occured.

The SSPX are in a rather different position. THey say they are Catholic, but do not put themselves under the same obedience one would expect of Catholics. They seem, to many, to both affirm the authority of the Pope and the Church, and to take that authority on themselves.

So despite the much greater theological differences with the Orthodox as well as different views on where authority lies, I think many people are more comfortable with their motives and their actual acceptance of the idea of obedience and authority. The SSPX position just makes people uncomfortable, as if there is something willfully suspect going on.

 

[Seamus_L]

Not everyone’s uncomfortable with the SSPX.