Which Place Would Fulfill my Sunday Obligation?

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Well, I do remember reading that the CDF did reply in the negative (last year, I think) when a letter was sent asking if going to an SSPX chapel fulfilled a Sunday obligation. But I can’t seem to find a copy of that letter online anymore.

I believe that was a “friends of SSPX” Question. There was some confusion about that but I believe it was not an SSPX chapel that was being ruled on but rather a breakoff one.

 

[thistle]

With the SSPX an ordained Catholic priest is present. The Mass is in a valid form. And one CAN fulfil one’s obligation at the SSPX Mass. So Where do we find that an illicit Mass relieves you of your obligation. And who makes that decision? There are Masses that meet some level of illicitness in my diocese all the time.

I have to admit its not clear.
For a Mass to be valid it must be celebrated by an validly ordained Catholic priest. In the case of SSPX this is the case. SSPX priestly faculties have been suspended but faculties are not required for the Mass to be valid. In the case of SSPX the Mass is valid but illicit and I can’t find anything in Canon Law that states attending an illicit Mass does not fulfill the Sunday obligation.
The problem is there has been no definitive document from Rome speaking for the Church that states whether the obligation is fulfilled or not at an SSPX.
How hard can it be for such a statement to be made then these threads will cease.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I have to admit its not clear.
For a Mass to be valid it must be celebrated by an validly ordained Catholic priest. In the case of SSPX this is the case. SSPX priestly faculties have been suspended but faculties are not required for the Mass to be valid. In the case of SSPX the Mass is valid but illicit and I can’t find anything in Canon Law that states attending an illicit Mass does not fulfill the Sunday obligation.
The problem is there has been no definitive document from Rome speaking for the Church that states whether the obligation is fulfilled or not at an SSPX.
How hard can it be for such a statement to be made then these threads will cease.

From our perspective I completely agree with you. This could be cleared up with a simple ruling. But I think there are bigger issues at play than annoying threads at CAF.
But hey, I wish a ton of clear rulings to be made that are not. Pro abort politicians, Mass abuses, etc.

But, alas, the Church has to be “pastoral”

 

[thistle]

From our perspective I completely agree with you. This could be cleared up with a simple ruling. But I think there are bigger issues at play than annoying threads at CAF.
But hey, I wish a ton of clear rulings to be made that are not. Pro abort politicians, Mass abuses, etc.

But, alas, the Church has to be “pastoral”

I don’t want to hijack the thread but pro-abort politicians or anyone is clear. They are automatically excommunicated for rejecting an infallible Church teaching. No formal public proceedings are required.
Since I became a Catholic more than 20 years ago I have only attended OF and I have never seen a Mass abuse. I don’t consider holding hands, receiving in the hand, orans posture as abuses even though I do not do any of these things. Maybe you have other things in mind I’m not aware of.

 

[Brendan]

One is an apologist on this site, one is a priest who is well educated in all things SSPX. But I would like to see the actual cannon law on this.

The actual Canon is this

Canon1248 1. The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.

The requirement is that it be celebrated in a Catholic Rite. This simply means in communion with Rome.

That is why the debate goes back and forth, does the ‘irregular’ status of the SSPX mean that it has fully separated from the Catholic Church?

I would point out that licitity does not actually enter into the Canon. If one went to a Mass at a diocesan parish, and the priest used leaven bread for the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Mass would have been illicit. But there would have been no requirement on the part of the faithful to find another Mass later on that day.

 

[Brendan]

This came from Cardinal Hoyos in 2003

web.archive.org/web/20040415000423/http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

“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.”

There is also this letter, that seems to state the reverse, but the chapel in question was not an SSPX chapel, but that of an ‘independent’ priest who adopted a similar name “Friends of the SSPX”.

catholicnewslive.com/story/28359

So it is hard to say if this letter is a reversal of Cardinal Hoyos’ original determination.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The actual Canon is this

The requirement is that it be celebrated in a Catholic Rite. This simply means in communion with Rome.

That is why the debate goes back and forth, does the ‘irregular’ status of the SSPX mean that it has fully separated from the Catholic Church?

I would point out that licitity does not actually enter into the Canon. If one went to a Mass at a diocesan parish, and the priest used leaven bread for the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Mass would have been illicit. But there would have been no requirement on the part of the faithful to find another Mass later on that day.

The SSPX is Mass is done in a Catholic rite by Catholic priests.

Lets make sure we do not go farther than the Church in our personal “rulings” on the SSPX.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This came from Cardinal Hoyos in 2003

web.archive.org/web/20040415000423/http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

“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.”

There is also this letter, that seems to state the reverse, but the chapel in question was not an SSPX chapel, but that of an ‘independent’ priest who adopted a similar name “Friends of the SSPX”.

catholicnewslive.com/story/28359

So it is hard to say if this letter is a reversal of Cardinal Hoyos’ original determination.

It isn’t that hard at all if the letterr was talking about “friends of the SSPX” and not an SSPX chapel. I wonder if the SSPXSO would be outside of the Church more than the SSPX. I would assume so.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I don’t want to hijack the thread but pro-abort politicians or anyone is clear. They are automatically excommunicated for rejecting an infallible Church teaching. No formal public proceedings are required.
Since I became a Catholic more than 20 years ago I have only attended OF and I have never seen a Mass abuse. I don’t consider holding hands, receiving in the hand, orans posture as abuses even though I do not do any of these things. Maybe you have other things in mind I’m not aware of.

Sounds like you have attended in a wonderful parish congratulations!

I have seen the wording of the consecration changed, laity encouraged to say the consecration with the priests, people around the altar, homilies about the Eucharist being symbolic, ETC.

But again, it is a different topic.

I am jealous of people who never have to go through that. Nowadays, in my own parish, I have a similar situation as you describe. One or two annoying things but nothing that rises to illicitness in my opinon. The parish down the street however is a different story.

Technically you may be right about the politicians, but you know as well as I do that it is a public issue that needs public correction. What you are saying is akin to saying if you are in grave sin you are excommunicated. While technically true, we still have excommunication for a reason.

 

[thistle]

Sounds like you have attended in a wonderful parish congratulations!

I have seen the wording of the consecration changed, laity encouraged to say the consecration with the priests, people around the altar, homilies about the Eucharist being symbolic, ETC.

But again, it is a different topic.

I am jealous of people who never have to go through that. Nowadays, in my own parish, I have a similar situation as you describe. One or two annoying things but nothing that rises to illicitness in my opinon. The parish down the street however is a different story.

Technically you may be right about the politicians, but you know as well as I do that it is a public issue that needs public correction. ** What you are saying is akin to saying if you are in grave sin you are excommunicated. ** While technically true, we still have excommunication for a reason.

Not right. Not all mortal sins carry the penalty of excommunication. Rejecting an infallible Church teaching (in this case abortion) carries the penalty of automatic excommunication so there are no formal proceedings.
In fact only two matters require formal proceedings:

Ferendae Sententiae Excommunication (requires formal proceedings):

Canon 1378: The pretended celebration of the Eucharist or of sacramental Confession
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by an interpreter

Latae Sententiae Excommunication (automatic):

Canon 1364: Apostasy, heresy or schism
Canon 1367: Violation of the Sacred Species
Canon 1370: Laying violent hands on the Pope
Canon 1378: Absolution of an accomplice
Canon 1382: Episcopal consecration without authorization from the Holy See
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by a confessor
Canon 1398: Procuring abortion

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Not right. Not all mortal sins carry the penalty of excommunication. Rejecting an infallible Church teaching (in this case abortion) carries the penalty of automatic excommunication so there are no formal proceedings.
In fact only two matters require formal proceedings:

Ferendae Sententiae Excommunication (requires formal proceedings):

Canon 1378: The pretended celebration of the Eucharist or of sacramental Confession
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by an interpreter

Latae Sententiae Excommunication (automatic):

Canon 1364: Apostasy, heresy or schism
Canon 1367: Violation of the Sacred Species
Canon 1370: Laying violent hands on the Pope
Canon 1378: Absolution of an accomplice
Canon 1382: Episcopal consecration without authorization from the Holy See
Canon 1388: Violation of the seal of Confession by a confessor
Canon 1398: Procuring abortion

Do pro abort politicians procure abortions.

Are you saying that Pelosi and Biden are excommunicated? That would be big news!

 

[thistle]

Do pro abort politicians procure abortions.

Are you saying that Pelosi and Biden are excommunicated? That would be big news!

There are two issues here. One is procuring an abortion. That would be the mother of the unborn plus anyone who assisted her to get an abortion.
Then there is the issue of rejecting an infallible Church teaching (whether it is about abortion or other things).

Pro abortion politicians do not need to procure abortions to be committing a sin of grave matter.
Anyone (including politicians) who support abortions are rejecting an infallible Church teaching and assuming they know that then they commit a mortal sin which carries the penalty of automatic excommunication.

 

[Brendan]

Pro abortion politicians do not need to procure abortions to be committing a sin of grave matter.
Anyone (including politicians) who support abortions are rejecting an infallible Church teaching and assuming they know that then they commit a mortal sin which carries the penalty of automatic excommunication.

One thing to keep in mind is that while the excommunication for heresy is automatic, the declaration of someone as a heretic still requires a tribunal. To be subject to canonical punishment, the heresy must be formal, and that determination can only come from an investigative tribunal.

One the verdict of the tribunal is rendered against them, then, and only then does the excommunication take place.

 

[thistle]

One thing to keep in mind is that while the excommunication for heresy is automatic, the declaration of someone as a heretic still requires a tribunal. To be subject to canonical punishment, the heresy must be formal, and that determination can only come from an investigative tribunal.

One the verdict of the tribunal is rendered against them, then, and only then does the excommunication take place.

Can you show me where in Canon Law that is the case.

 

[thistle]

One thing to keep in mind is that while the excommunication for heresy is automatic, the declaration of someone as a heretic still requires a tribunal. To be subject to canonical punishment, the heresy must be formal, and that determination can only come from an investigative tribunal.

One the verdict of the tribunal is rendered against them, then, and only then does the excommunication take place.

As you didn’t respond to my post I’m assuming you can’t give me the canon law on what you said.
Heresy is automatic excommunication and you do not have to first be formally declared a heretic by a tribunal. That’s not even logical.

 

[thistle]

As you didn’t respond to my post I’m assuming you can’t give me the canon law on what you said.
Heresy is automatic excommunication and you do not have to first be formally declared a heretic by a tribunal. That’s not even logical.

I pressed too quickly. What I meant to say is that its not logical for someone to have to be declared a heretic by a tribunal first when heresy carries the penalty of automatic excommunication.

 

[thewanderer]

I pressed too quickly. What I meant to say is that its not logical for someone to have to be declared a heretic by a tribunal first when heresy carries the penalty of automatic excommunication.

I actually thinks it makes a lot of sense. Its like with annulments. Every marriage either is or is not valid. But they are presumed to be valid unless a tribunal determines otherwise. Similarly, every person either is or is not a Heretic, but determining who is and is not a heretic is not always easy, its not just as simple as denying Church teaching. So people are assumed not to be heretics unless and until they are judged to be so by the appropriate authorities. Again, similarly to an annulment, those in invalid but not yet annulled marriages do not sin by behaving as married persons since their marriage is presumed valid, so it would be that until someone has been determined to be a heretic, (and so automatically excommunicated) they are free to act as though they are not. Does that way of looking at it make more sense?

 

[thistle]

I actually thinks it makes a lot of sense. Its like with annulments. Every marriage either is or is not valid. But they are presumed to be valid unless a tribunal determines otherwise. Similarly, every person either is or is not a Heretic, but determining who is and is not a heretic is not always easy, its not just as simple as denying Church teaching. So people are assumed not to be heretics unless and until they are judged to be so by the appropriate authorities. Again, similarly to an annulment, those in invalid but not yet annulled marriages do not sin by behaving as married persons since their marriage is presumed valid, so it would be that until someone has been determined to be a heretic, (and so automatically excommunicated) they are free to act as though they are not. Does that way of looking at it make more sense?

I see what you are saying but I don’t think that is the case. Nobody has produced a Church document to that effect. Neither the CCC nor Canon Law has any such condition. They both say that the penalty for rejecting an infallible teaching is automatic excommunication (of course assuming no coercion or mental incapacity and that the person knows rejecting such a teaching is a sin of grave matter carrying such a penalty).
Canon Law and CCC do not say a ruling must be made by a tribunal first to formally declare a person a heretic.
If a Church document exists about this then I’m happy to reconsider my position.