Moral Consequences Of Attending Sspx Mass

[arfink]

With everything that's been said here, I would like to make one final point:

 

If you're Roman Catholic and you have the option to go to a licit mass, why would you willingly choose an illicit SSPX one? And I don't mean hypothetically. I don't think anyone in this thread could give me a good reason that they themselves would do this. I can't imagine any real-life situation where someone would actually have to do this.

Edited June 14, 2013 by arfink

[Nihil Obstat]

With everything that's been said here, I would like to make one final point:

If you're Roman Catholic and you have the option to go to a licit mass, why would you willingly choose an illicit SSPX one? And I don't mean hypothetically. I don't think anyone in this thread could give me a good reason that they themselves would do this. I can't imagine any real-life situation where someone would actually have to do this.

Assuming a licit trad Mass versus sspx? One might make the argument that a much 'better' priest would be reason enough. I believe some in the Society think that Fraternity priests are too complacent in the face of modernism. A large difference in distance might be a good reason.

[arfink]

Assuming a licit trad Mass versus sspx? One might make the argument that a much 'better' priest would be reason enough. I believe some in the Society think that Fraternity priests are too complacent in the face of modernism. A large difference in distance might be a good reason.

 

I'd like to hear that argument made, because that makes no sense at all. Is licaity worth so little that people are unwilling to travel to get it? Especially from traditionalists, I am shocked to hear that distance would be such an issue for them. People traveled hundreds of miles to see the Cure of Ars and have their confessions heard by him.

 

As for the priest himself, he is In Persona Christi during mass. Why should this be an issue?

[Nihil Obstat]

I'd like to hear that argument made, because that makes no sense at all. Is licaity worth so little that people are unwilling to travel to get it? Especially from traditionalists, I am shocked to hear that distance would be such an issue for them. People traveled hundreds of miles to see the Cure of Ars and have their confessions heard by him.

As for the priest himself, he is In Persona Christi during mass. Why should this be an issue?

Well if I were having a four hour drive to Mass... The time is borderline, and I cannot afford the gas. I drive a half hour each way as is, so not bad at all.
In terms of the priest, unless he were actually a heretic I would not make an issue of it. I do not agree that the Fraternity is modernist or anything. But people have made the argument that the Fraternity's position is essentially modernist.

[arfink]

Well if I were having a four hour drive to Mass... The time is borderline, and I cannot afford the gas. I drive a half hour each way as is, so not bad at all.
In terms of the priest, unless he were actually a heretic I would not make an issue of it. I do not agree that the Fraternity is modernist or anything. But people have made the argument that the Fraternity's position is essentially modernist.

 

Yes, and there are people who will accuse anything that came from after the turn of the 19th century as modernist. I don't buy that argument.

 

One of the biggest things I hear traditionalists say they hate about the OF mass is they believe there are so many abuses and it's so bad it makes the mass illicit, and some of them scream and cry and leave for the SSPX, which I find highly ironic because they're illicit too. If you're going to attend an illicit mass, might as well pick one close to home. Hrmph.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes, and there are people who will accuse anything that came from after the turn of the 19th century as modernist. I don't buy that argument.

One of the biggest things I hear traditionalists say they hate about the OF mass is they believe there are so many abuses and it's so bad it makes the mass illicit, and some of them scream and cry and leave for the SSPX, which I find highly ironic because they're illicit too. If you're going to attend an illicit mass, might as well pick one close to home. Hrmph.

I agree, but it is different from their perspective. They would argue that the existence of a crisis compels and pardons the disobedience from the Society. As always, there are few easy answers. :p
Personally, I think that there are reasons to attend the traditional Mass that are completely unrelated to issues of liturgical abuse and irreverence.

[arfink]

I agree, but it is different from their perspective. They would argue that the existence of a crisis compels and pardons the disobedience from the Society. As always, there are few easy answers. :P
Personally, I think that there are reasons to attend the traditional Mass that are completely unrelated to issues of liturgical abuse and irreverence.

 

Yes, just as I'm sure there are very good reasons to eat filet mignon instead of bread and water. But I wouldn't consider any of those reasons good enough to steal filet mignon when I can have bread and water without adding theft.

 

What do you personally think of all this anyway?

[EmilyAnn]

Well if I were having a four hour drive to Mass... The time is borderline, and I cannot afford the gas. I drive a half hour each way as is, so not bad at all.
In terms of the priest, unless he were actually a heretic I would not make an issue of it. I do not agree that the Fraternity is modernist or anything. But people have made the argument that the Fraternity's position is essentially modernist.

Well a four hour journey to attend Mass would dispense one from obligation anyway, if I understand correctly. Assuming one has both licit and illicit options within a reasonable journey time (I was always taught 1 hour), what would make it necessary to attend an illicit Mass over an available licit one?

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes, just as I'm sure there are very good reasons to eat filet mignon instead of bread and water. But I wouldn't consider any of those reasons good enough to steal filet mignon when I can have bread and water without adding theft.

 

What do you personally think of all this anyway?

 

I do not think the filet / bread analogy holds, because nobody could possibly consider himself morally obligated to eat filet mignon. Someone might reasonably consider themselves morally obligated to attend a traditional Mass. Whether or not they are correct is a different discussion, but I do not think it is an inherently unreasonable position to hold.

 

Right after I posted that last thing I thought of something to add.

 

I think it is entirely possible that a Catholic could be morally convinced that the mission of the FSSPX is gravely necessary to the Church, given the ongoing crisis of Catholic identity. I think it would not be out of the question that such a Catholic, believing the FSSPX to be crucial in revitalizing the Church, might in good conscience support the Society's aims. And it should be kept in mind that the aims of the Society are certainly not opposed to the Church. Most only disagree with their assessment of the nature of the crisis itself, or the most proper response to it.

 

Thought it might be presumptuous of me to say so, I think this may be the camp Marcel Lefebvre himself fell into. I know enough about him to be certain that going against the wishes of Pope Paul and Pope John Paul caused him great pain. I certainly believe he only did what he did because he believed it was truly necessary. History and perspective will tell us just how right or wrong he was, but I do not feel we can adequately assess that just yet.

 

Odd though some may find it, Archbishop Lefebvre was very much a "Roma locuta est, causa finita est" type. The papal condemnation of Action Francaise in 1926 was a prime example of that in him. Apparently his father had very much been an Action Francaise supporter, and he was certainly sympathetic to it, probably also a supporter in some form or another. But when the papal condemnation came down, while he was at the seminary in Rome, he essentially never mentioned it again. That was it.

 

My own thoughts... It is a very charged subject, and I do not want anybody to get the wrong idea about me. I am going to PM you what I just spent a half hour writing up here, and I will decide later whether or not to post it in this thread. :)

 

 

Well a four hour journey to attend Mass would dispense one from obligation anyway, if I understand correctly. Assuming one has both licit and illicit options within a reasonable journey time (I was always taught 1 hour), what would make it necessary to attend an illicit Mass over an available licit one?

Well, I think Arfink and I are in agreement that if one truly believed that the good of one's soul required a Traditional Latin Mass, that this may justify attending an FSSPX Mass. It is a very real scenario in many places that the only traditional Mass within any reasonable distance is a Society Mass. I do not want to condemn someone for doing so.

[jim111]

It does fulfill your obligation. You do not incur sin or canonical penalty simply by attending. The CDF has confirmed this.

That said, an independent (i.e. not SSPX) Mass, which may or may not be SSPX-affiliated, does not fulfill the Sunday obligation.

Receiving communion... I am not sure. And I am not sure I want to have that discussion right now anyway. :sweat:

 

TJMH, the confessions are perhaps not valid. There is a lot of debate on the subject. Confessors require faculties from the ordinary for confessions to be valid - not licit, but valid. The SSPX argue that there is a provision in canon law which supplies faculties in an extraordinary way. Basically that debate is divided down party lines, so you can imagine who argues for what.

 

COuld you show me the source. I would really like to have that document to show people.

[Nihil Obstat]

COuld you show me the source. I would really like to have that document to show people.

As to fulfilling one's Sunday obligation, Canon Law suffices to demonstrate this:
 
 
Canon 1248 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law states:
 

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.
 

 

There is no coherent way to argue that the SSPX do not validly celebrate a Catholic rite. As a simple question of law, there is a clear answer.
 
As to the SSPX not being in schism, Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos wrote about that in the past, while he was president of PCED. He also wrote about it not being sinful in and of itself to assist at an SSPX Mass.

 

This is a long docu-dump, so be warned.

Also I want to make it clear that all these quotes come from the article I have linked to, rather than from myself. I tried to skim it again while I found relevant quotations, but I cannot guarantee with 100% certainty that it completely matches my own thoughts on the matter. That said, I think it probably does.

 

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mershon/070410

 

 

Later in the March 17 interview, Cardinal Castrillón affirmed once again publicly, "The Fraternity of St. Pius X is not a consolidated schism per se, but its history has included some schismatic actions..." The Cardinal continues to explain the illegal consecration of bishops against the express will of the Holy Father and further warns about the danger of schism, and schism leading to heresy and vice versa, according to St. Jerome.

"I know there are in the Fraternity people filled with good will," Cardinal Castrillón said. "The Superior General, His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has in the past years persevered in dialogue."

 

 

[...]

 

Once again, His Eminence confirmed the SSPX is not in formal schism, but that there may be a danger of schism leading to heresy and vice versa within the movement without full canonical regularization, and that Pope Benedict XVI has "open arms" to welcoming the SSPX into full canonical regularization within the Church.

 

In a much overlooked and little discussed interview published February 8, 2007, in the German Die Tagespost, Cardinal Castrillón said he rejected the term and idea of "ecumenism" from within the Church as a reasoning behind the continuing discussions and open communications with the leadership of the SSPX. Specifically, he said the following:

• Please accept that I reject the term "ecumenism ad intra." The bishops, priests and faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebrve who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics.
•  

[...]

 

It is important to note that in nearly every instance of personal correspondence with the PCED by Catholics, Msgr. Perl, the secretary, has affirmed the right of Catholics to attend SSPX chapels and masses with no spiritual sin, nor canonical penalty attached. Correspondence of such matters from the PCED or a curial congregation can be acted upon by Catholics with a clear conscience of moral certitude.

 

[...]

 

In 2001, after a meeting between Bishop Bernard Fellay, SSPX Superior General, and two of the three other SSPX bishops with Cardinal Castrillón, Bishop Fellay said that the Cardinal had told him that he found them to be "neither heretics nor schismatics."

 

Shortly after his March 13, 2004 meeting with Cardinal Castrillón during a visit to Rome, Una Voce International (FIUV) President Ralf Siebenbürger was the first to publicly relay this new attitude in the officialdom of Catholicism that they considered the SSPX priests and bishops not to be in formal schism. Siebenbürger said the following regarding the FIUV delegation meeting with the President of the PCED, Cardinal Castrillón:

• He mentioned that such a proper jurisdiction had only been granted to the Fraternity of St John Vianney at Campos, as the founder of that Fraternity, Bishop de Castro Mayer, had gone much farther than Archbishop Lefebvre. The Cardinal underlined that Archbishop Lefebvre had never founded a proper structure of his fraternity that could be considered as a concrete act of schism. In contrary, Bishop de Castro Mayer had founded a counter-diocese which had been a clear schism. In order to solve this schism, the proper jurisdiction had been granted to the Fraternity and to its faithful at Campos.
•  
•  

What is particularly interesting is that this supposed private conversation between the FIUV president and the PCED president was circulated widely on the internet prior to being expunged from nearly every public site. Reportedly, some within the FIUV hierarchy and the PCED were not at all enamored by this widely circulated report, and ended up eventually being one of the primary reasons for the short-lived FIUV presidency of Ralf Siebenbürger. Of course, Cardinal Castrillón has since confirmed publicly on numerous occasions, especially recently, these same facts regarding the SSPX not being in formal schism.

 

In a 30 Days interview appearing soon after Bishop Fellay's August 29, 2005 meeting with the Holy Father, Cardinal Castrillón again confirmed that the SSPX situation was not a matter of formal heresy, but one of canonical regularization. In answer to a question about the historical situation leading up to the August 2005 meeting, Cardinal Castrillón said, "Unfortunately Monsignor Lefebvre went ahead with the consecration and hence the situation of separation came about, even if it was not a formal schism." Although the cardinal does continue to affirm the original Ecclesia Dei Adflicta motu proprio by Pope John Paul II that Archbishop Lefebvre ordained four bishops without a papal mandate, he is careful to add the caveat that it was not a "formal schism."

Later in the same 30 Days interview, he affirmed that the case of the reconciliation of St. John Maria Vianney priests in Campos, Brazil, was a much different situation, hence a formal schism, than that of the SSPX: "There the situation was very different, because while the Saint Pius X Fraternity is an unrecognized association, served by bishops who declare themselves "auxiliaries," in Brazil instead Bishop Castro Mayer when he renounced the diocese, was followed by 50 or so priests who in fact maintained a parallel organization to the diocese."

Again, this is a reaffirmation that the Cardinal and the Holy See recognize that the bishops of the SSPX do not claim any specific jurisdiction and are canonically auxiliary bishops, ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in what he believed to be "a state of emergency," to administer the sacraments and catechize the lay faithful in the traditional manner prior to the post-conciliar upheaval and chaos. In other words, the Cardinal acknowledged again in a public interview that the SSPX bishops and priests were not in formal schism, even if they continue to be in a canonically irregular situation.

 

[...]

 

Shortly after the publication of the 30 Days interview, Cardinal Castrillón was interviewed on Italian television channel 5, November 13, 2005 regarding the status of the SSPX. In this interview, the Cardinal said the following:

• We are not confronted with a heresy. It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking — as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay — a fuller communion, because communion does exist.
•  

Church Clarification to "Adherence to the Schism"

On September 29, 2006, some news regarding a PCED ruling for the Archdiocese of Salzburg was posted athttp://www.musicasacra.com/blog/archive/2006_09_01_sacredmusic_archive.html, which is a web blog dedicated to the restoration of sacred music.

While never making its way into the mainstream secular or Catholic media, this announcement in the official Gazette of the Archdiocese of Salzburgcontained an English translation from the Verordnungsblatt der Erzdioezese Salzburg no. 5 (5 May 2006) page 85, with the headline "Priestly Fraternity of St Pius X : Information."

Relevant parts of the extended text, shown below, include the following regarding the proper attitude of dioceses and parish priests regarding baptisms administered by priests of the SSPX.

Laymen Who Attend SSPX "Catholic Faithful" Per PCED

The communication to the Archdiocese of Salzburg came from the PCED with a brief history and outline of the facts concerning how the Holy See views the canonical situation of the SSPX:

• The four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre are excommunicated. Priests ordained within the Fraternity are suspended for lack of a valid incardination.
   
• Regarding the faithful who sympathize with the SSPX, we must insist that
  1. we are dealing with Catholic faithful who — provided they have performed no explicit actions — in no way wish to leave the Roman Catholic Church;
      
  2. attending Masses celebrated by priests of the SSPX is not in itself a delict and does not bring about excommunication;
      
  3. only those of the faithful who see the SSPX as the only true church, and who make this visible externally, incur the penalty of excommunication;
      
  4. it is consequently not at all appropriate to regard as non-Catholic the children baptized in the chapels of the SSPX, and to treat their marriages to another Catholic as mixed marriages;
      
  5. when baptism by a priest of the SSPX is attested in writing and the parents of the newly baptized do not see the SSPX as the only true church, then this attestation suffices for registration of the baptism in the Liber Baptizatorum of the parish of baptism, under the running number 0. On the basis of this registration, a baptismal certificate can be issued.
      
• The earlier edict concerning marriage to a Catholic who was baptized in an SSPX chapel (see below) is to be applied only if the Catholic thus baptized sees in the SSPX the only true church and who makes this visible externally.
   
• In order to prevent misunderstandings, the Archiepiscopal Chancery Office will examine each case individually.
   

From the Archiepiscopal Chancery, on 10 May 2006. Protocol number 579/06.

According to the author of this website, several months earlier the same Chancery Office in Salzburg (in the Verordnungsblatt 2006, page 126) had published an edict according to which persons baptized by an SSPX priest were considered to be "non-Roman Catholic Christians," who in the event of marriage to a Catholic, were to be treated as though they were entering a "mixed marriage."

It is clear from the contents of the official communiqué issued by the PCED for the Archdiocese of Salzburg that those lay faithful who attend SSPX chapels and have their children baptized there are Catholics in good standing who should be treated as such by the Archdiocese.

Because this new edict was published publicly after a specific communication from the PCED, it may be regarded as the official view of the Holy See regarding the status of Catholics baptized at SSPX chapels by SSPX priests or SSPX priest "friends" who serve SSPX chapels.

 

[...]

 

The respected German canonist Dr. Georg May, professor emeritus of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, summarized the irony shown above in a January 12, 2003 letter, when he wrote: "The SSPX is not schismatic because she neither rejects the subordination to the Roman Pontiff nor rejects the communion with the bishops (can. 751)." And the explicit irony is found in the immediate following statement where Prof. Georg said, "Rather, the latter reject communion with the Society."

Prof. Georg was the Professor of Canon Law, Law of Church-State Relations and Canonical HIstory from 1960 to 1994 at Mainz University. He has been a well-respected priest for more than 40 years in the Archdiocese of Mainz. The Professor's conclusions appear to be consistent with those of the Holy See as expressed in numerous public interviews and written correspondence emanating from the PCED, specifically Cardinal Castrillón and Msgr. Camille Perl, president and secretary of the commission.

1. The SSPX is not schismatic, because she neither rejects the subordination to the Roman Pope nor rejects the communion with the bishops (can. 751). Rather the latter reject communion with the Society.
    
2. Because the Society is not schismatic, its members are not excommunicated. Both are untrue allegations, made by those, whom the reflective mirror presented to them by the Society irritates.
    
3. Absolutely nobody incurs any punishment by attending the masses of the Society. Of course one can fulfill one's Sunday obligation by attending a Sunday mass in a chapel or church of the Society. Whoever alleges otherwise, reveals that he merely fears concurrence.

 

Edited June 15, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[ToJesusMyHeart]

Could someone very calmly explain to me what exactly the SSPX believes and why they are not fully in union with Rome?

 

Thanks. :)

Edited June 15, 2013 by ToJesusMyHeart

[Nihil Obstat]

Could someone very calmly explain to me what exactly the SSPX believes and why they are not fully in union with Rome?

 

Thanks. :)

At the root of it, it would be that they reject the Novus Ordo (though they do not reject it as inherently invalid) and some aspects of the Second Vatican Council.

In 1989 Marcel Lefebvre, Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galaretta were excommunicated when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated the four of them without a papal mandate. Prior to that the priests of the Society had been suspended a divinis due to the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre operated the Society without papal approval.

A couple years ago the four of them had their excommunications lifted, but they remain suspended and the Society continues to operate without formal ecclesiastical approval.

I may be simplifying a little too much, but that is more or less it.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[arfink]

I do not think the filet / bread analogy holds, because nobody could possibly consider himself morally obligated to eat filet mignon. Someone might reasonably consider themselves morally obligated to attend a traditional Mass. Whether or not they are correct is a different discussion, but I do not think it is an inherently unreasonable position to hold.

 

Yes, that may be.

 

However, I should have clarified: believing yourself to be morally obliged to eat filet mignon and believing yourself to be morally obliged to attend an EF mass instead of an OF one are both indicative of a malformed conscience.

 

To clarify: choosing the EF needs to be a choice. If you're being told by someone else or by your own conscience that you are morally obligated to attend an EF mass, something is wrong.

Edited June 15, 2013 by arfink

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes, that may be.

 

However, I should have clarified: believing yourself to be morally obliged to eat filet mignon and believing yourself to be morally obliged to attend an EF mass instead of an OF one are both indicative of a malformed conscience.

 

To clarify: choosing the EF needs to be a choice. If you're being told by someone else or by your own conscience that you are morally obligated to attend an EF mass, something is wrong.

Were you not just saying earlier in the thread that a person might plausibly discern that the traditional Mass is far more beneficial to his spiritual life?