Moral Consequences Of Attending Sspx Mass

[PhuturePriest]

Objectively speaking, an Orthodox Mass can fulfill one's obligation, if a Catholic church is not available. The same is not true of, for instance, a Lutheran service.
I do not know the status of an Old Catholic or Polish National church. Perhaps someone can comment on that.

 

Why is it called "Old Catholic" if it's crazy and liberal?

[Nihil Obstat]

Why is it called "Old Catholic" if it's crazy and liberal?

Because that is what they call themselves.
I believe they rejected V1 and papal infallibility, then went off the rails from there. Some people think they are traditionalists- that is a huge mistake. They are heretic schismatics.

[Apotheoun]

As an Eastern Catholic I can get permission from my eparch to attend Eastern Orthodox services on a regular basis. Moreover, in the Middle East intercommunion between Melkites and Antiochian Orthodox is fairly common.

[truthfinder]

AFAIK, Old Catholic would not fulfill the obligation, PNC might if you had no other option. Although, if it was a choice between the PNC and the SSPX and and a non-problematic Catholic Church was not available, I'd always go SSPX (as it sits with their current situation). 

[arfink]

The Eastern Orthodox churches are heretics because they deny the fillioque and the primacy of the Pope.

 

All of this fails to address the problem that if any priest regardless of his cannonical status can say a Mass that fulfills my Sunday obligation, regardless of any licit Masses nearby, why should I actually go to a Catholic Church? There would be no sin in going to an Orthodox church just for fun then, and not going to a Catholic Church. Same with the SSPX and same with the liberal whackos. And same with an ex-priest living with his wife who is still saying Mass behind the back of his bishop.

 

Since Nihil seems unwilling to take this one, I'll try.

 

My best guess, given all the information I have here is that yes, you CAN go to any valid mass, as you say "just for fun," licit or not, and fulfill your Sunday obligation, assuming you are not doing so with wrong intent. Otherwise any liturgical abuse that takes place that is illicit would render your Sunday obligation unfulfilled, and depending on how OCD you wish to be, you may never find a parish you can go to mass at. This is ridiculous.

 

Also, it's not fair to compare the Orthodox or even Eastern Catholics to the SSPX. Why? Because the Eastern ones follow a completely different set of Canon Law. The SSPX masses are illicit because of Roman Catholic Cannon Law, and not because of any sacramental problem. For the Eastern ones, there is no question of whether their masses are licit for them: they are licit. And both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox law have permissions built in to allow their members access to the other's masses in specific circumstances.

 

This is also the case with the SSPX, if what I am told is correct, despite the fact that their masses are illicit. They are still sacramental valid, and the faithful may have recourse to them if they have need. Fulfilling your Sunday obligation is, by definition of an obligation, a NEED.

Edited June 13, 2013 by arfink

[KnightofChrist]

Also, it's not fair to compare the Orthodox or even Eastern Catholics to the SSPX. Why? Because the Eastern ones follow a completely different set of Canon Law. The SSPX masses are illicit because of Roman Catholic Cannon Law, and not because of any sacramental problem. For the Eastern ones, there is no question of whether their masses are licit for them: they are licit. And both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox law have permissions built in to allow their members access to the other's masses in specific circumstances.

Because the Orthodox, that is those not in union with Rome are still technically schismatic, I believe that it is incorrect to state their sacraments are licit, they are indeed valid and true, but by being in schism they are not licit.

[arfink]

Because the Orthodox, that is those not in union with Rome are still technically schismatic, I believe that it is incorrect to state their sacraments are licit, they are indeed valid and true, but by being in schism they are not licit.

 

But is that because their mass is illicit? Or because they do not recognize their union with the rest of the Church? My point was that there isn't anything about their mass itself that is illicit.

[Nihil Obstat]

I believe our canon law dictates that an Orthodox Mass only fulfills our obligation if a Catholic Mass is not available.
The difference is the existence of formal schism, which is why this does not apply to the sspx.

[arfink]

I believe our canon law dictates that an Orthodox Mass only fulfills our obligation if a Catholic Mass is not available.
The difference is the existence of formal schism, which is why this does not apply to the sspx.

 

Yes, so the provision is there given the appropriate circumstances.

[KnightofChrist]

But is that because their mass is illicit? Or because they do not recognize their union with the rest of the Church? My point was that there isn't anything about their mass itself that is illicit.

Well of course there are many different autonomous Orthodox Churches, so their views about union with the West or the Latin Church can differ greatly, some don't even recognize that our sacraments are valid if I recall correctly. The reason their sacraments and Mass would be illicit is because of the schism.

[arfink]

Well of course there are many different autonomous Orthodox Churches, so their views about union with the West or the Latin Church can differ greatly, some don't even recognize that our sacraments are valid if I recall correctly. The reason their sacraments and Mass would be illicit is because of the schism.

 

Thanks for clarifying. :)

 

[Anastasia13]

As an Eastern Catholic I can get permission from my eparch to attend Eastern Orthodox services on a regular basis. Moreover, in the Middle East intercommunion between Melkites and Antiochian Orthodox is fairly common.

There are also intercommunion agreements between the Syriac Orthodox and Syriac Catholics, and was an MO of one between Armenians out of necessity (and their latinization helped).

 

In Eastern canon law, this permission Apo spoke of is also covered by CCEO 670 Â§1.

 

I've read of a Roman Catholic who joined the Greek Orthodox Church, and was not required to confess attending Greek liturgies instead of Mass when he became Greek (Byzantine?) Catholic. From what I read on another forum, most properly educated Eastern Catholic presbyters hold this view that it would not need to be confessed.

 

In the absence of a similar Eastern Catholic Church, many Eastern Catholics would choose to attend an Orthodox liturgy over a Roman one because they are more at home there, they are Eastern and not Roman, etc.  And Rome doesn't want people to have to give up their rites. (Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio said, "To remove, then, all shadow of doubt, this holy Council solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, while remembering the necessary unity of the whole Church, have the power to govern themselves according to the disciplines proper to them, since these are better suited to the character of their faithful, and more for the good of their souls." which indicates that some Easters are better off in an Eastern practice than thrown unnecessarily into a Roman setting that is different than their practice).

Edited June 13, 2013 by Light and Truth

[Anastasia13]

Also, it's not fair to compare the Orthodox or even Eastern Catholics to the SSPX. Why? Because the Eastern ones follow a completely different set of Canon Law.

QFT.

[Dr. Bombay]

I believe our canon law dictates that an Orthodox Mass only fulfills our obligation if a Catholic Mass is not available.
The difference is the existence of formal schism, which is why this does not apply to the sspx.

 

Actually if a Catholic Mass is not available, there is no obligation.

For instance, if one were to travel to an island and the only thing available on Sunday was an Orthodox liturgy, one is under no obligation to attend it whatsoever.  Personally I would never attend an Orthodox church service of any type, but that's just me.

The lesson here is a valuable one.  Never travel to an island without first verifying there is a Catholic church available on said island. I'm looking at you, Hawaii.  All of you...

[Nihil Obstat]

Actually if a Catholic Mass is not available, there is no obligation.

For instance, if one were to travel to an island and the only thing available on Sunday was an Orthodox liturgy, one is under no obligation to attend it whatsoever.  Personally I would never attend an Orthodox church service of any type, but that's just me.

The lesson here is a valuable one.  Never travel to an island without first verifying there is a Catholic church available on said island. I'm looking at you, Hawaii.  All of you...

Interesting. I must have misinterpreted whatever it was I was reading.

It is a matter of "you can fulfill your obligation by doing so, but you need not"?