Moral Consequences Of Attending Sspx Mass

[arfink]

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?

 

Yes, but there is a difference between a possible benefit and an obligation.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes, but there is a difference between a possible benefit and an obligation.

What if a person discerned for himself a disproportionatly enormous benefit to attending a traditional Mass?

Note that I am talking about attending the traditional Mass, rather than avoiding the Novus Ordo.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[arfink]

What if a person discerned for himself a disproportionatly enormous benefit to attending a traditional Mass?

 

I do not think it would or should override the need to attend a licit mass.

[Nihil Obstat]

I do not think it would or should override the need to attend a licit mass.

You seem to have changed your mind then. You said earlier:

 

"I know that there are Catholics whose consciences are formed such that they believe themselves to be committing acts of wrongdoing by attending the Ordinary Form of the mass. These are Catholics for whom the Extraordinary Form becomes a matter of the health of their souls, and I would say that if they are barred from the Extraordinary Form in a licit way, they could seek the SSPX.

 

Or even more subjectively, there are even more Catholics who find the Extraordinary Form encourages their spiritual life more. How much is that benefit worth, however, when you risk the errors of the SSPX in the process? I do think it's very subjective, and will definitely differ from one person to the next."

 

I have to say, I preferred the approach in that post. :sweat:

[arfink]

Yes, you are right, one must obey even a malformed conscience if you believe yourself to be morally obligated to do something by said conscience.

 

That said, we can't encourage such malformation of conscience that says you have to go to the SSPX because the OF is unacceptable. ;) Sorry about the confusion.

 

Also, without a malformed conscience which tells you that you have a moral obligation to attend an SSPX mass, it becomes much much more difficult to figure out whether it's OK to go to an SSPX mass. I am inclined to think the risk is not worth the reward in any case I can think of.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yes, you are right, one must obey even a malformed conscience if you believe yourself to be morally obligated to do something by said conscience.

 

That said, we can't encourage such malformation of conscience that says you have to go to the SSPX because the OF is unacceptable. ;) Sorry about the confusion.

 

Also, without a malformed conscience which tells you that you have a moral obligation to attend an SSPX mass, it becomes much much more difficult to figure out whether it's OK to go to an SSPX mass. I am inclined to think the risk is not worth the reward in any case I can think of.

Well, whether or not such a conscience is necessarily malformed is a completely different discussion, which I am not really inclined to have. At least not now and here. But I do not think it is necessarily the case.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

And what is the difference between a licit Mass and a non-licit Mass? If the Eucharist manifests itself in both, what makes them different? 

[Nihil Obstat]

And what is the difference between a licit Mass and a non-licit Mass? If the Eucharist manifests itself in both, what makes them different? 

Licit = legal, so if something happens that is against the rules, then it is illicit. Since the SSPX do not have canonical standing, and since their priests and bishops are suspended, their Masses are therefore illicit according to a typical reading of canon law.

It would also be illicit, and I would argue much more seriously so, for a priest to omit the entirety of the Liturgy of the Word, for instance, though the Mass would presumably remain valid.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

I'm confused. The SSPX website says the following: 

The Society of Saint Pius X is a priestly society of common life without vows, founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, established in the Roman Catholic Church with Canonical approval on November 1st, 1970.

 

Canonical approval??

[ToJesusMyHeart]

Licit = legal, so if something happens that is against the rules, then it is illicit. Since the SSPX do not have canonical standing, and since their priests and bishops are suspended, their Masses are therefore illicit according to a typical reading of canon law.

It would also be illicit, and I would argue much more seriously so, for a priest to omit the entirety of the Liturgy of the Word, for instance, though the Mass would presumably remain valid.

Yeah I get that, but what does that MEAN? 

 

What is "bad" about an illicit Mass? If the Eucharist is the same, what is the problem? (please nobody assume I'm supporting the SSPX, I'm just confused about what it practically means to have an illicit Mass.)

[Dr. Bombay]

I'm confused. The SSPX website says the following: 

 

Canonical approval??

The Society had the approval of the local ordinary when it was first established but that approval was later withdrawn.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm confused. The SSPX website says the following: 

 

Canonical approval??

 

Yes, they had approval when they began. That was in the diocese of Sion, and Nestor Adam approved them initially as an Institute of Diocesan right, if I am properly recalling my terminology.

Actually there was a bit of borderline foul-play that led to them losing their canonical approval in the first place. I cannot remember the details just now, but the Society had good reason to feel maligned when they lost official recognition.

 

Yeah I get that, but what does that MEAN? 

 

What is "bad" about an illicit Mass? If the Eucharist is the same, what is the problem? (please nobody assume I'm supporting the SSPX, I'm just confused about what it practically means to have an illicit Mass.)

 

Well, set aside the SSPX issue. Think about it in more common terms. If a priest is flouting the rubrics, what he is doing is illicit. It is more or less self-evident that this is bad, even if the Mass remains valid, yes? The presumption is that Church laws are good and right, and therefore worthy of obedience.

Certainly it could be the case that some laws are bad - after all, canon law enjoys no guarantees of infallibility - but generally we should assume that a Church law is worthy of our obedience.

 

So, objectively speaking, the SSPX have broken quite a few rules. They did not cease to function as a Society when they lost canonical recognition. Archbishop Lefebvre continued to ordain his seminarians, despite being told not to. His priests continued in their various and sundry activities across the world, despite their Society not legally existing, and despite not being welcome in most places. Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four men to the episcopate without a papal mandate, and those bishops have followed in his footsteps.

 

So yes, they certainly have done many illicit things. Nobody can deny that. Although there are grey areas in some of those things, but we will consider that irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

What the question hinges on is not whether or not the actions of Marcel Lefebvre and the Society were legal, because they were not. The question is whether or not their illegal actions were justified under circumstances X Y and Z.

 

Again, it is not logically impossible for Church laws to be wrong. The Cadaver Synod was disgusting and immoral, even though the Pope is the legitimate arbiter of laws in the Roman Church. And I want to make it clear also that I am not saying the SSPX is or was justified in all their actions. I am just trying to illustrate the context in which we find ourselves. The question is not (in most cases) whether or not laws were broken, but whether or not it was ok to break those laws.

[Nihil Obstat]

To clarify, the presumption must be that it was not ok to break those laws, all things being equal.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

Out of context, but to clarify and make it real to me--

 

the question is not (in most cases) whether or not laws were broken, but whether or not it was ok to break those laws.

Is this the same as saying, for example, that in Operation Rescue, the faithful were breaking the law by barring abortion clinic entrances, but they were justified in breaking the law because it was necessary (because abortion kills babies, harms mothers, destroys souls, etc..) ??

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

Out of context, but to clarify and make it real to me--

 

Is this the same as saying, for example, that in Operation Rescue, the faithful were breaking the law by barring abortion clinic entrances, but they were justified in breaking the law because it was necessary (because abortion kills babies, harms mothers, destroys souls, etc..) ??

If we were talking about a hypothetically unjust point in canon law, then yes, that would be a decent analogy. Although I am sure there are no laws comparable in gravity currently existing in canon law. :hehe:

So, I would not claim that the two concrete situations are comparable. But talking in purely hypothetical terms, it is not impossible for that kind of situation to come about.