Which Place Would Fulfill my Sunday Obligation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adawgj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

adawgj

Guest
This might be a more hypothetical question, but here it goes.

Lets say you are in a town. The only two places to go to church are an Eastern Orthodox Church and a SSPX Chapel. Which one would be better to go to fulfill Sunday obligation?
 
I believe you would not be obliged to attend at all, but could go to either church to fill your own need to worship God.
 
adawgj said:
This might be a more hypothetical question, but here it goes.

Lets say you are in a town. The only two places to go to church are an Eastern Orthodox Church and a SSPX Chapel. Which one would be better to go to fulfill Sunday obligation?
Click to expand...
I don’t know why you would ask this as it is not the case anywhere in the world so it can only divide and cause problems.🤷

But the SSPX while in an irregular status are not in schism. So the Mass would be valid but not licit. So, I would go to the SSPX Mass.

Perhaps the question would be better if you just asked the main question instead of pitting Churches against each other.

The main question you have is what is the difference between the status of the SSPX and the Orthodox?
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Valid AND licit. Only one of those applies to the SSPX.
Click to expand...
SSPX Masses may be valid, but they are illicit. Therefore, if, speaking hypothetically, an SSPX Mass was the only Mass near you, you would have no obligation.
 
bben15 said:
SSPX Masses may be valid, but they are illicit. Therefore, if, speaking hypothetically, an SSPX Mass was the only Mass near you, you would have no obligation.
Click to expand...
There have been confusing letters from the CDF about this issue specifically. And the situation is so fluid that no real “factual” statement can be made about that. But again, where is this an issue? Nowhere.

A person can in fact, go to an SSPX Chapel for love of the EF, when no EF is available. And since both forms of Mass are valid, it does not make sense to say that it does not fulfill the obligation. If that were true the Vatican would have said that one does not fulfil the Sunday obligation at the SSPX, but they stopped short of that, in fact they even noted the difference about which sacraments do NOT fulfil obligations. (marriage and reconciliation)

In short, if I go to an SSPX confession, I did not fulfil my obligation to confess, I have not completed the sacrament. I should do it at a proper place. There is no requirement that if you have attended an SSPX Mass, you must then go to a regular Mass again on the same day if you have access to one.

So, it would seem that there are differences between obligations being fulfilled and not depending on the status, day, and availability of other avenues.

The situation with the SSPX is so volatile and fluid that I just do not see the value of this thread.
 
On a side note. And this is the optimist in me.

Pope Francis is such an enigma to so many as Pope. When the media, or any group that thinks they know him, zags, he zigs, there is not one person, myself included who has not at one point done the head turn and the “whaaaaat?” at some of the moves by this Pope in such a short time. The Pope has done this in a way that it would not suprise me in the least if he welcomed the SSPX carte blanche, and in the same breath, opened the door for issues that the “progressives” would be happy with. He is just that kind of guy. And that is why I love him!
 
Then again, if you attend Sunday Mass out of concern of obligation to the precepts of the church as opposed to an earnest desire to worship God, we have a whole different discussion!

I find obligation in this matter is best viewed through the rear view mirror, in that after experiencing the joy of the Mass we realize we also met an important obligation!
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
There have been confusing letters from the CDF about this issue specifically. And the situation is so fluid that no real “factual” statement can be made about that. But again, where is this an issue? Nowhere.

A person can in fact, go to an SSPX Chapel for love of the EF, when no EF is available. And since both forms of Mass are valid, it does not make sense to say that it does not fulfill the obligation. If that were true the Vatican would have said that one does not fulfil the Sunday obligation at the SSPX, but they stopped short of that, in fact they even noted the difference about which sacraments do NOT fulfil obligations. (marriage and reconciliation)

In short, if I go to an SSPX confession, I did not fulfil my obligation to confess, I have not completed the sacrament. I should do it at a proper place. There is no requirement that if you have attended an SSPX Mass, you must then go to a regular Mass again on the same day if you have access to one.

So, it would seem that there are differences between obligations being fulfilled and not depending on the status, day, and availability of other avenues.

The situation with the SSPX is so volatile and fluid that I just do not see the value of this thread.
Click to expand...
The OP did not ask if he can go to an SSPX chapel in place of a licit Mass to fulfill the obligation. The OP asked if it would be better to either go to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy or an SSPX Mass if no licit Mass was available. The answer to his question is: He would have no obligation since he has no access to a licit Mass.
 
bben15 said:
The OP did not ask if he can go to an SSPX chapel in place of a licit Mass to fulfill the obligation. The OP asked if it would be better to either go to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy or an SSPX Mass if no licit Mass was available. The answer to his question is: He would have no obligation since he has no access to a licit Mass.
Click to expand...
Is obligation negated by illicitness or invalidity?
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
On a side note. And this is the optimist in me.

Pope Francis is such an enigma to so many as Pope. When the media, or any group that thinks they know him, zags, he zigs, there is not one person, myself included who has not at one point done the head turn and the “whaaaaat?” at some of the moves by this Pope in such a short time. The Pope has done this in a way that it would not suprise me in the least if he welcomed the SSPX carte blanche, and in the same breath, opened the door for issues that the “progressives” would be happy with. He is just that kind of guy. And that is why I love him!
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I seriously doubt the SSPX would be interested under those circumstances.
 
babochka said:
Perhaps, but I seriously doubt the SSPX would be interested under those circumstances.
Click to expand...
In, my imagination it wouldn’t matter if they were interested. The Pope is the Pope, he can do what he wishes. He could in fact put them on equal footing as any other group in the Church. He could say that the SSPX are indeed in communion. He could say they have a personal prelature, and he could not require anything of the SSPX at all.

I would love this solution because then the SSPX could write their own path, come into the Church, and have the freedom to teach and say as you wish, and see if they get themselves in more trouble than other types of groups.
 
adawgj said:
This might be a more hypothetical question, but here it goes.

Lets say you are in a town. The only two places to go to church are an Eastern Orthodox Church and a SSPX Chapel. Which one would be better to go to fulfill Sunday obligation?
Click to expand...
In such a scenario you would not have a obligation.
 
adawgj said:
This might be a more hypothetical question, but here it goes.

Lets say you are in a town. The only two places to go to church are an Eastern Orthodox Church and a SSPX Chapel. Which one would be better to go to fulfill Sunday obligation?
Click to expand...
In such a scenario you would not have a obligation.
 
bben15 said:
Yes, if you don’t have access to both a valid and licit Mass, you have no obligation.
Click to expand...
Where is that stated?

Here is a thread from a few years ago talking about if one fulfills an obligation at an illicit Mass. The consensus is yes. Interesting that when you add the letters SSPX to the discussion the answer changes.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=583167

Everyone says that the obligation is fulfilled, not that there is no obligation.
 
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.🤷
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
There have been confusing letters from the CDF about this issue specifically. And the situation is so fluid that no real “factual” statement can be made about that. But again, where is this an issue? Nowhere.

A person can in fact, go to an SSPX Chapel for love of the EF, when no EF is available. And since both forms of Mass are valid, it does not make sense to say that it does not fulfill the obligation. If that were true the Vatican would have said that one does not fulfil the Sunday obligation at the SSPX, but they stopped short of that, in fact they even noted the difference about which sacraments do NOT fulfil obligations. (marriage and reconciliation)

In short, if I go to an SSPX confession, I did not fulfil my obligation to confess, I have not completed the sacrament. I should do it at a proper place. There is no requirement that if you have attended an SSPX Mass, you must then go to a regular Mass again on the same day if you have access to one.

So, it would seem that there are differences between obligations being fulfilled and not depending on the status, day, and availability of other avenues.

The situation with the SSPX is so volatile and fluid that I just do not see the value of this thread.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top