Would It Be A Sin To Attend Mass

[Seamus_L]

Since people often speak very critically of those who would attend an SSPX mass, I’d like to ask the hypothetical question, would it be a sin to attend mass at a parish where you were already aware that the priest-priests openly support pro-abortion candidates, the ordination of women, homosexual marriage, and have made a number of highly questionable statements about core Catholic teachings such as the Real Presence, the Immaculate Conception, Sacrament of Reconcilliation, etc. And, let’s also say this parish is on good terms with the local bishop who has never once spoken critically of them. Would it be acceptable to attend mass here ?

 

[giuseppeTO]

Since people often speak very critically of those who would attend an SSPX mass, I’d like to ask the hypothetical question, would it be a sin to attend mass at a parish where you were already aware that the priest-priests openly support pro-abortion candidates, the ordination of women, homosexual marriage, and have made a number of highly questionable statements about core Catholic teachings such as the Real Presence, the Immaculate Conception, Sacrament of Reconcilliation, etc. And, let’s also say this parish is on good terms with the local bishop who has never once spoken critically of them. Would it be acceptable to attend mass here ?

It would not be a sin. But you should stay far away from such parishes … they are the abomination of desolation. Being on good terms with the bishop these days does not confirm orthodoxy - is only a statement of the canonical condition. While some on this board would elevate this to be the most important factor, I certainly would not.

 

[CHRIS_DICKSON]

I always prefer to see what our seraphic father, St. Francis of Assisi, has to say about such matters.

“Blessed is that servant of God who has confidence in priests who live according to the laws of the Holy Roman Church. Woe to those who despise them. Even if they fall into sin, no one should pass judgment on them, for God has reserved judgment on them to Himself. They are in a privileged position because they have charge of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which they receive and which they alone administer to others, and so anyone who sins against them commits a greater crime than if he sinned against anyone else in the whole world.” (Admonition XXVI)

Then, “No matter how someone else sins, if you let yourself be upset or angered over it, except for charity’s sake, you store up for yourself - like a treasure - the sin of the other. But, servant of God, if you do not become angry or indignant over someone else, you are living justly” (Admonition XI)

And finally, "“See, every day He humbles Himself as He did when, from His royal throne, He came into the womb of the Virgin; every day He comes to us with the same humility; every day He descends from His Father’s bosom into the hands of the priest at the altar.” (Admonition I)

Do not deny Christ in the Eucharist because of the sin of another. Forgive them as Christ forgives you of all your sins. Then, and only then, will the love of God shine forth from you and lead the priest into the loving arms of Christ! Your one purpose in living may very well be to lead one or all of these men to repentance.

 

[MIKE46]

I always prefer to see what our seraphic father, St. Francis of Assisi, has to say about such matters.

“Blessed is that servant of God who has confidence in priests who live according to the laws of the Holy Roman Church. Woe to those who despise them. Even if they fall into sin, no one should pass judgment on them, for God has reserved judgment on them to Himself. They are in a privileged position because they have charge of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which they receive and which they alone administer to others, and so anyone who sins against them commits a greater crime than if he sinned against anyone else in the whole world.” (Admonition XXVI)

Then, “No matter how someone else sins, if you let yourself be upset or angered over it, except for charity’s sake, you store up for yourself - like a treasure - the sin of the other. But, servant of God, if you do not become angry or indignant over someone else, you are living justly” (Admonition XI)

And finally, "“See, every day He humbles Himself as He did when, from His royal throne, He came into the womb of the Virgin; every day He comes to us with the same humility; every day He descends from His Father’s bosom into the hands of the priest at the altar.” (Admonition I)

Do not deny Christ in the Eucharist because of the sin of another. Forgive them as Christ forgives you of all your sins. Then, and only then, will the love of God shine forth from you and lead the priest into the loving arms of Christ! Your one purpose in living may very well be to lead one or all of these men to repentance.

For arguments sake I would ask the following because I am not sure of the answer.

Some of the requirements for for any of the sacraments to be valid is for the Priest to have the correct intention in performing the ritual and that the proper matter and form is used. Is that correct? For instance we know that if a jelly doughnut or an oreo cookie is used for the host then obviously the consecration is invalid. Or if a baptism is performed using the terminology along the lines of I baptize you in the name of the creator, the helper and the sanctifier, it too is invalid.

Now if the Priest does not accept or even believe in the Real Presence of Christ in The Eucharist, which appears to be the case in the above scenario, would that sacrament even be valid in the first place?

 

[ProVobis]

Now if the Priest does not accept or even believe in the Real Presence of Christ in The Eucharist, which appears to be the case in the above scenario, would that sacrament even be valid in the first place?

It is not his beliefs or state of soul that makes the priest’s Mass invalid. He holds the power from God to consecrate the bread and wine and as long as he performs a Catholic rite and intends the Mass to be valid, the Mass is valid and the consecration is valid.

 

[CHRIS_DICKSON]

I am not a priest, so I cannot answer that sufficiently. I hope one strolls into this discussion as I would really like to know the answer to that myself.

I would liken it to be similar to the Confirmation process. Confirmation is when we receive the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, thus receiving the gifts. Very few in the Church today understand the full scope and power of this sacrament and therefore Confirmation has become for many Catholics nothing more than a “ritual” or “right of passage” into adulthood. For most unenlightened Catholics, they even blaspheme the Holy Spirit by calling this concept heretical (the old adage that the Charismatic gifts died off with the Apostles).

Therefore, if you have no clue as to what you are actually receiving, are you still receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation? The Church says yes.

By virtue of the Bishop ordaining the priest, and by the very nature of his laying-on-of-hands, a man becomes a priest, along with all the ramifications that entails. Does he have to believe? I don’t know the answer to that. Maybe we need to have a bishop stroll into this discussion instead…

 

[MIKE46]

It is not his beliefs or state of soul that makes the priest’s Mass invalid. He holds the power from God to consecrate the bread and wine and as long as he performs a Catholic rite and intends the Mass to be valid, the Mass is valid and the consecration is valid.

If the Priest himself does not believe that the Mass is valid, which if he does not believe in the Real Presence, would appear to be the case, then how could the consecration be valid. I know that the state of his soul is immaterial, but I would think that he would at a minimum have to believe in what he was doing.

If that were the case then baptisms conducted using irregular terminology would be valid because the priest had the correct intention or a valid consecration would result if invalid matter was used. We know that is not the case. So if a Priest clearly does not believe in the Real Presence and does not believe in what he is doing, then how could it be valid?

 

[ProVobis]

If the Priest himself does not believe that the Mass is valid, which if he does not believe in the Real Presence, would appear to be the case, then how could the consecration be valid. I know that the state of his soul is immaterial, but I would think that he would at a minimum have to believe in what he was doing.

If that were the case then baptisms conducted using irregular terminology would be valid because the priest had the correct intention or a valid consecration would result if invalid matter was used. We know that is not the case. So if a Priest clearly does not believe in the Real Presence and does not believe in what he is doing, then how could it be valid?

There are times when priests do say the Mass for education purposes. Then it wouldn’t be valid. I always assume that if there is a Catholic Mass that’s advertised in the bulletin or in the yellow pages, that it’s a valid Catholic Mass. I don’t really know whether the priest believes in the Real Presence or anything else. He might not even speak English enough to know what It is, according to his interpretation of It. The word “real” has a lot of meanings and uses.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Since people often speak very critically of those who would attend an SSPX mass, I’d like to ask the hypothetical question, would it be a sin to attend mass at a parish where you were already aware that the priest-priests openly support pro-abortion candidates, the ordination of women, homosexual marriage, and have made a number of highly questionable statements about core Catholic teachings such as the Real Presence, the Immaculate Conception, Sacrament of Reconcilliation, etc. And, let’s also say this parish is on good terms with the local bishop who has never once spoken critically of them. Would it be acceptable to attend mass here ?

This is NOT a rhetorical answer. (And something tells me that you’re not really asking a rhetorical question, but wanting to make a statment.)

Yes it is acceptable. As long as the priest is exercising his ministry with faculties from the bishop, any sacrament he celebrates according to liturgical norms are valid. The Church teaches that the personal spiritual condition of the priest (much less his political opinions) do NOT affect the efficacy of the sacraments he celebrates. This is a core teaching of the Church, too.

However, YOU might be sinning if you think yourself to be somehow more spiritually pure than or superior to this priest, regardless of WHERE you go to mass.

The Pharisee of the Lord’s parable had all the right answers and beliefs, too. What good did this do him?

Now if the Priest does not accept or even believe in the Real Presence of Christ in The Eucharist, which appears to be the case in the above scenario, would that sacrament even be valid in the first place?

You’ve asked a good question, Mike46.

Lack of intention is really hard to prove. If the priest goes to the trouble of putting on the vestments, saying the prayers, and performing the prescribed acts, intention is presumed.

If that were the case then baptisms conducted using irregular terminology would be valid because the priest had the correct intention or a valid consecration would result if invalid matter was used. We know that is not the case.

As a matter of fact, this IS the case. During the Middle Ages, ignorant village priests would baptize “In the name of the Fatherland [patria], Daughter [filia], and Holy Spirit.” Local councils ruled these baptisms valid, because mere stumbling over the words through ignorance does not in itself invalidate the Sacrament PRECISELY because there was the intention to Baptize. However, it was also directed that Priests be instructed in how to pronounce the liturgical texts properly.

 

[Seamus_L]

I agree Giuseppe. For the life of me I can’t understand people who would condone knowingly attending such masses or Orthodox liturgies, while being critical of those who would attend mass in an SSPX chapel. Ironically, when we refuse to give up church tradition, we’re often accused of being Protestants.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I agree Giuseppe. For the life of me I can’t understand people who would condone knowingly attending such masses or Orthodox liturgies, while being critical of those who would attend mass in an SSPX chapel. Ironically, when we refuse to give up church tradition, we’re often accused of being Protestants.

There is a WIDE range between the “hypothetical” priest that you described and SSPX.

Because the priest/s at Parish A might not be strictly Orthodox (in your view) does NOT necessarily make SSPX the only alternative. There are usually Parishes B, C, and D, too.

In any case, your hypothetical priest is in regular communion with the Church, despite his faults.

SSPX is NOT and on TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS in 2009, Pope Benedict has said that their clergymen exercise “NO LEGITIMATE MINISTRY” in the Catholic Church.

Being valid ministers of the Catholiic Church is a church tradition, too!

So quit talking about “hypothetical priests” and go by what the Pope has actually said about REAL SSPX priests.

 

[Lamentabili]

Since people often speak very critically of those who would attend an SSPX mass, I’d like to ask the hypothetical question, would it be a sin to attend mass at a parish where you were already aware that the priest-priests openly support pro-abortion candidates, the ordination of women, homosexual marriage, and have made a number of highly questionable statements about core Catholic teachings such as the Real Presence, the Immaculate Conception, Sacrament of Reconcilliation, etc. And, let’s also say this parish is on good terms with the local bishop who has never once spoken critically of them. Would it be acceptable to attend mass here ?

In my opinion it would be a sin if one knowingly subjected one’s soul (or the souls of one’s family) to these hypothetical Masses. Why?

1.) One would knowingly subject themselves and their family to heresy (Immaculate Conception and Real Presence are defined dogmas. Church teaching against abortion and homosexual acts is infallible and irreformable.)

2.) By assisting at this Mass knowingly, one is implicitly supporting these heterodox priests by one’s physical presence and support (financially and otherwise) to this parish. In addition one would be serving as a bad example to other Catholics by sending the message that assisting at these Masses is acceptable and that you approve of them.

3.) Seeing as how these priests could deny the Real Presence it is possible they might lack the required intention to make the sacrament valid. They may only have the intention to celebrate a memorial meal, for instance, and specifically intend not to consecrate. In that case the sacrament would be invalid. One is morally bound to avoid doubtful sacraments. In addition, if they are that apt to deny Church teaching, they may also use invalid matter or ad lib the form. Either of these actions would also invalidate the consecration.

Whether or not the Bishop has censured them or agrees with them is immaterial and does not change the reality of the situation. Namely that one should stay far away and shield one’s family from this potential doctrinal poison and danger to their faith.

The situation would be analogous to the time of the Arian crisis. Catholic Bishops fully approved of Masses performed by Catholic priests who denied Christ’s divinity. The Pope at the time had not censured these Bishops nor the priests. If one was a true Catholic during this time one would have had the moral obligation not to attend and lend support to the Masses of these heretics even though they were fully licit.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\For the life of me I can’t understand people who would condone knowingly attending such masses or Orthodox liturgies\

**Pope Benedict himself has attended an Orthodox Divine Liturgy celebrated by the Ecumenical Patriarch, so you can’t condemn this practice as something bad.

And you cannot compare this to a mass celebrated by a priest who does not meet your personal criteria for proper ministry.**

 

[MIKE46]

This is NOT a rhetorical answer. (And something tells me that you’re not really asking a rhetorical question, but wanting to make a statment.)

Yes it is acceptable. As long as the priest is exercising his ministry with faculties from the bishop, any sacrament he celebrates according to liturgical norms are valid. The Church teaches that the personal spiritual condition of the priest (much less his political opinions) do NOT affect the efficacy of the sacraments he celebrates. This is a core teaching of the Church, too.

However, YOU might be sinning if you think yourself to be somehow more spiritually pure than or superior to this priest, regardless of WHERE you go to mass.

The Pharisee of the Lord’s parable had all the right answers and beliefs, too. What good did this do him?

You’ve asked a good question, Mike46.

Lack of intention is really hard to prove. If the priest goes to the trouble of putting on the vestments, saying the prayers, and performing the prescribed acts, intention is presumed.

As a matter of fact, this IS the case. During the Middle Ages, ignorant village priests would baptize “In the name of the Fatherland [patria], Daughter [filia], and Holy Spirit.” Local councils ruled these baptisms valid, because mere stumbling over the words through ignorance does not in itself invalidate the Sacrament PRECISELY because there was the intention to Baptize. However, it was also directed that Priests be instructed in how to pronounce the liturgical texts properly.

Mispronunciartion is not quite the same thing I would think. In Australia several years back hundreds of baptisms were declared to be invalid because the Priests performing them altered the words to I baptize you in the name of the creater, the redeemer and the sanctifier. This invalidated the sacraments and those so baptiozed had to be re-baptized using the proper formula. This occured at St Marys Parish in Brisbane, among other places. In these cases even though there was the intent to Baptize, the proper form was not used which invalidated the sacrament. If a sacrament can be rendered invalid by use of thw wrong matter or form, I would think it would be equally invalidated by a lack of proper intent, In fact I cannot see how it could be any other way, all things considered.

 

[ProVobis]

Mispronunciartion is not quite the same thing I would think. In Australia several years back hundreds of baptisms were declared to be invalid because the Priests performing them altered the words to I baptize you in the name of the creater, the redeemer and the sanctifier. This invalidated the sacraments and those so baptiozed had to be re-baptized using the proper formula. This occured at St Marys Parish in Brisbane, among other places. In these cases even though there was the intent to Baptize, the proper form was not used which invalidated the sacrament. If a sacrament can be rendered invalid by use of thw wrong matter or form, I would think it would be equally invalidated by a lack of proper intent, In fact I cannot see how it could be any other way, all things considered.

You are correct but I just would like to point out that anyone can baptize, even an atheist, as long as he does some pouring of water and uses the correct formula, in whatever language. And you don’t automatically become a Catholic but you do become a Christian by being validly baptized.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\Mispronunciartion is not quite the same thing I would think. In Australia several years back hundreds of baptisms were declared to be invalid because the Priests performing them altered the words to I baptize you in the name of the creater, the redeemer and the sanctifier.\

**Mispronouncing the Latin so it comes out “in nomine patria et filia et spiritu sancto” is one thing.

Deliberately changing the words is another.**

\I would think it would be equally invalidated by a lack of proper intent, In fact I cannot see how it could be any other way, all things considered.\

**As I have said elsewhere, if the minister, matter, and form are valid, intention is presumed, lacking positive and definite evidence to the contrary.

Now, if a priest were to say in the middle of the Anaphora, “I don’t believe any of this, but anyway, In the night in which He was betrayed…” this is obviously clear evidence of lack of intention.

But I’ve never seen anything go this far. Have you?**

 

[giuseppeTO]

There is a WIDE range between the “hypothetical” priest that you described and SSPX.

Because the priest/s at Parish A might not be strictly Orthodox (in your view) does NOT necessarily make SSPX the only alternative. There are usually Parishes B, C, and D, too.

In any case, your hypothetical priest is in regular communion with the Church, despite his faults.

SSPX is NOT and on TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS in 2009, Pope Benedict has said that their clergymen exercise “NO LEGITIMATE MINISTRY” in the Catholic Church.

Being valid ministers of the Catholiic Church is a church tradition, too!

So quit talking about “hypothetical priests” and go by what the Pope has actually said about REAL SSPX priests.

Yup … and that is that it is OK to assist at an SSPX Mass.

 

[Seamus_L]

Thankfully we now have much greater access to the Latin Mass then we did just 10 years ago, but their are places in the world, where I see an occasional necessity for attending an SSPX chapel. In some Dioceses in Germany for instance, I’m thoroughly convinced an SSPX Chapel would provide greater spiritual nourishment then an “orthodox” Roman Catholic parish where they raise money for the building of mosques.

 

[ProVobis]

Thankfully we now have much greater access to the Latin Mass then we did just 10 years ago, but their are places in the world, where I see an occasional necessity for attending an SSPX chapel. In some Dioceses in Germany for instance, I’m thoroughly convinced an SSPX Chapel would provide greater spiritual nourishment then an “orthodox” Roman Catholic parish where they raise money for the building of mosques.

I have heard this also. Because of lack of attendance, they have to sell church buildings to the Muslims. Yet the German bishops hold fast against the Pope’s lifting of the excommunications and vindicating those who assist at the SSPX Masses.

 

[Ignatius]

Since people often speak very critically of those who would attend an SSPX mass, I’d like to ask the hypothetical question, would it be a sin to attend mass at a parish where you were already aware that the priest-priests openly support pro-abortion candidates, the ordination of women, homosexual marriage, and have made a number of highly questionable statements about core Catholic teachings such as the Real Presence, the Immaculate Conception, Sacrament of Reconcilliation, etc. And, let’s also say this parish is on good terms with the local bishop who has never once spoken critically of them. Would it be acceptable to attend mass here ?

It would be better to find a parish that is faithful to the Authentic Teachings of the Magisterium of The Catholic Church. Some of us drive quite a distance in order to be part of a Faithful parish.