Independent Chapels

[Amator Veritatis]

I just read this thread and thought I would pose a situation to those learnèd members of the forums who feel compelled to answer. If every [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] in one's diocese (or at least in one's general area) is replete with abuses and sacrilegious and scandalous liturgical actions, would one be permitted to assist at a Mass not recognised by the local ordinary? Further, if a person's faith and that of his family were at stake as a result of Modernist sermons and the sacrilegious manner in which the Holy Eucharist is treated, would he be permitted to bring his family to a Mass not recognised by the local ordinary which is certainly valid and only illicit--if it be illicit at all--as a result of the fact that it be not recognised by the local ordinary? If the answer is in the negative, what are the reasons for this response, and what are the references to support them? Thank you.

Edited March 8, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[Cam42]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis']If every Novus Ordo Missae in one's diocese (or at least in one's general area) is replete with abuses and sacrilegious and scandalous liturgical actions, would one be permitted to assist at a Mass not recognised by the local ordinary?[/quote]

In a word, no. One has the right to the Sacrament, not the one of his choosing. We do not have the right to attend whatever Mass we choose. We have the right to Mass. If we take issue with what goes on at Mass, we are compelled to present it first to the pastor, then to the local Ordinary, then to the Holy See. (cf. Redemptoris Sacramentum #183-184)

[quote name='Redemptoris Sacramentum #183']In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.[/quote]

[quote name='Redemptoris Sacramentum #184']Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.[/quote]
[i]CIC can. 1417 § 1[/i]

However, we cannot simply abandon the Missa Normativa. This is contrary to all Catholic Tradition. This is alluded to in Ecclesia Dei #5a.

[quote name='Ecclesia Dei #5a']The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church's Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.[/quote]

So, in a word, no, we cannot simply abandon the Missa Normativa for the Independents.

[quote name='Amator Veritatis']Further, if a person's faith and that of his family were at stake as a result of Modernist sermons and the sacrilegious manner in which the Holy Eucharist is treated, would he be permitted to bring his family to a Mass not recognised by the local ordinary which is certainly valid and only illicit--if it be illicit at all--as a result of the fact that it be not recognised by the local ordinary?[/quote]

Again, the answer is no. For the very same reasons.

[goldenchild17]

Sam I won't get involved because it seems the last thread I responded to was closed. But I don't see anything in any document that says there must be no licit Mass for an illicit Mass to fulfill the Sunday obligation. It is valid, though illicit and sinful according to the Church, but according to those documents in the closed thread I don't see how it would not fulfill the Sunday obligation if it is valid. BTW, I don't advocate going(at least not at this point in my search ) but I don't see how it would not fulfill the Sunday obligation.

[Cam42]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Mar 9 2006, 12:56 AM'] But I don't see anything in any document that says there must be no licit Mass for an illicit Mass to fulfill the Sunday obligation.  [right][snapback]907084[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is because it had been discussed in other documentation and in other letters.....that is why this statement was worded the way it was, from Mons. Camille Perl:

[quote name='Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses #2'][b]We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why.[/b][/quote]

He also says earlier that in a strict sense; yes the obligation is fulfilled.

However, in a strict sense, attend the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox fulfills the Sunday obligation, but Catholics don't run off to the Eastern Liturgy willy nilly.

It is amazing how far out of context this gets taken. It is morally illicit to attend the Mass of the SSPX.

[cpp]

I asked my spiritual director if I could stop going to my parish on sundays (because the music and the abuses and the heterodoxies distracted me from praying) and he said that it was OK. One should be focused on the Mass, and not on what the priest came up with; it's dangerous for the soul. Attending irreverent Masses can lead to distraction, anger, murmuration, and things like that -which are bad for the soul.

(Obviously that doesn't cover non-catholic Masses. Only Rome-approved®, schism-free, Catholic-rite Masses)

[Donna]

Cam, do you have children?

[Donna]

Cam, and let's add that Msr Perl said nothing about morally illicit, only you did. The monsignor said if the reason to attend an sspx Mass is to assist at it devotionally - why else in the world go to ANY Mass? - it is not sinful. Like, that takes a prelate to answer.

Sometimes the things you say conjure up cartoons of evil trads, pissed off with guns, going to that sspx place JUST TO SHOW the diocese they disown Peter. Get a grip, people.

Side note, it's not the same, sspx and orthodox. The sspx doesn't appear in that ecumenical directory of non-Catholic communites (unless it's been updated).

I wonder what Msr, Perl would say if the question was put between orthodox and sspx mass - which one?

Also, would someone please provide a source (I may have missed it) re: one cannot attend sspx if an indult is within one (or two) hundered miles of them.

The yoke that some of you put forth is...maybe a reminder that in all of us a little trad lurks.

Edited March 13, 2006 by Donna

[Cam42]

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 13 2006, 01:50 AM']Cam, do you have children?
[right][snapback]909952[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Nope. But that has no bearing on anything....I am not married.

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 13 2006, 01:55 AM']Cam, and let's add that Msr Perl said nothing about morally illicit, only you did. The monsignor said if the reason to attend an sspx Mass is to assist at it devotionally - why else in the world go to ANY Mass? - it is not sinful. Like, that takes a prelate to answer.

Sometimes the things you say conjure up cartoons of evil trads, pissed off with guns, going to that sspx place JUST TO SHOW the diocese they disown Peter. Get a grip, people.

Side note, it's not the same, sspx and orthodox. The sspx doesn't appear in that ecumenical directory of non-Catholic communites (unless it's been updated).

I wonder what Msr, Perl would say if the question was put between orthodox and sspx mass - which one?

Also, would someone please provide a source (I may have missed it) re: one cannot attend sspx if an indult is within one (or two) hundered miles of them.

The yoke that some of you put forth is...maybe a reminder that in all of us a little trad lurks.[/quote]

[quote name='Pontifical Commission ECCLESIA DEI in protocol N. 117/95']2. The Masses [the SSPX] celebrate are also valid, but it is considered [b]morally illicit[/b] for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2).  The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.[/quote]

The ordinary means for Catholics to fulfill their Sunday Mass obligation is through attendance at locations approved by Rome and none other. This was clearly indicated when the Commission Ecclesia Dei said "The Masses the SSPX celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing. (Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2) The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called 'Tridentine' Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses."

Is that clear enough for you.....? And the "morally issue....." That is not for you to discern, but rather the local Ordinary. If you have concerns, follow the directive of Redemptoris Sacramentum #184.

[quote]Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.  It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.[/quote]

I am sorry that you think that what I say is cartoonish, but I assure you that I can back up EVERYTHING that I post. Incidentally, in case you have ignored this in the past......I assist at the indult Mass.

[Donna]

Cam, If you haven't children, how can you know that would have no bearing on anything? It's easy to say "law" but I wonder if anyone of us was for example, the father of that autistic boy refused communion (because he spat the Host out), I wonder what the ultimate law would become then.

I am not impressed with Ecclessia Dei - this outfit is supposed to be for Tradition? It's the same thing: go to this, or go without. Or move across the country. This is some pastoral fruit. Have ptatience, in years to come a bishop WILL BE OBEDIENT to THE POPE who asked for a wide and generous application of the Indult. Tick tock, the children grow old and unreachable, the patrimony due to them also unreachable...when this Mass was the mainstay of Christendom for centuries.

OK, Tradition in that sense, is a law, too. What the Church did, what she loved. To someone simple like me, it seems like calling good evil : by the very fact of some serious hoops which must be jumped thru in order to simply worship God in peace at the "approved" Latin Mass. Like God is going to let the old sacrament be contained. That canon law comes at least 500 years too late - for someone simple like me.

Eclessia Dei, the same which ousted Fr. Bisig and with lightening speed did present and enforce protocol 1411 while C. Law and others were/are playing around.

I am aware that you assist at the indult.

I am sorry to be childish in answering. It is beyond me to look into many, much less every source you have. I did try to do this study some time ago - before I came to Phatmass. The more I studied, the more I became like the child I am now.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Donna' date='Mar 14 2006, 03:00 AM']Cam, If you haven't children, how can you know that would have no bearing on anything? It's easy to say "law" but I wonder if anyone of us was for example, the father of that autistic boy refused communion (because he spat the Host out), I wonder what the ultimate law would become then.

I am not impressed with Ecclessia Dei - this outfit is supposed to be for Tradition? It's the same thing: go to this, or go without. Or move across the country. This is some pastoral fruit. Have ptatience, in years to come a bishop WILL BE OBEDIENT to THE POPE who asked for a wide and generous application of the Indult.  Tick tock, the children grow old and unreachable,  the patrimony due to them also unreachable...when this Mass was the mainstay of Christendom for centuries.

OK, Tradition in that sense, is a law, too. What the Church did, what she loved. To someone simple like me, it seems like calling good evil : by the very fact of some serious hoops which must be jumped thru in order to simply worship God in peace at the "approved" Latin Mass. Like God is going to let the old sacrament be contained. That canon law comes at least 500 years too late - for someone simple like me.

Eclessia Dei, the same which ousted Fr. Bisig and with lightening speed did present and enforce protocol 1411 while C. Law and others were/are playing around.

I am aware that you assist at the indult.

I am sorry to be childish in answering. It is beyond me to look into many, much less every source you have. I did try to do this study some time ago  -  before I came to Phatmass. The more I studied, the more I became like the child I am now.
[right][snapback]910998[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It really doesn't matter if you are impressed with Ecclesia Dei or not. The fact of the matter is, you owe your obedience to them when it comes to the regulation of the indult. They speak for the Holy Father when it comes to the regulation of the indult on a daily basis. If the Holy Father chooses to make a specific statement, then he will, however, Ecclesia Dei handles the day to day operation.

As far as the law is concerned, we are to find the spirit of the law in the letter of the law. While I don't have any children, again, that has no bearing on anything.....to speak to your analogy, if the Blessed Sacrament were to be spit out, it would be incumbent upon the priest or his server to recover the Sacred Species and protect it until it can be properly disposed. That has nothing to do with my ability to parent or my choice not to.

The Church can never do evil in order to bring about good. There are no "hoops" to jump through on the part of the faithful when it comes to the indult Mass. Simply put, the faithful are to go to an indult Mass which is approved by Rome, unless it either morally or physically impossible to do so. But then again the moral aspect is up to the compitent authority, not us. The geographic (physical) aspect a dispensation can be granted if one cannot attend Mass from one's pastor, which relieves one from attending Mass at all, so there is no licit reason to attend a Mass that is not in union with Rome. Whatever "hoops" exist, exist on the part of the clergy. And that is their job. They are to remain faithful and they are to celebrate the Mass faithfully. If it is the indult, then it is according to the Missal of 1962, while understanding that the Missa Normativa is the "regularized" Mass and accepting the tennants of Vatican Council II. It really is not all that hard.

If it is beyond you to look into every source that I have, then stop calling me out. I say this precisely because it is NOT beyond me to prove my position. I need to do that in order to properly support the Church's position.

[goldenchild17]

[quote]He also says earlier that in a strict sense; yes the obligation is fulfilled.  [/quote]
That's all the original question asked. That's all I answered.

[quote]However, in a strict sense, attend the Divine Liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox fulfills the Sunday obligation, but Catholics don't run off to the Eastern Liturgy willy nilly. [/quote]
No they don't, but if the Vatican says their Mass fulfills a Sunday obligation then it fulfills the Sunday obligation, no matter how bad of an idea it is. The question was asked whether or not going to an independent Mass fulfilled an obligation, I'm answering that it does. I'm not advocating it, I'm simply answering the question in the affirmative.

[quote]It is amazing how far out of context this gets taken. It is morally illicit to attend the Mass of the SSPX. [/quote]
I never said it was not illicit... I think I specifically said in the post that the Vatican considers it to be illicit. Even though it is illicit it is valid and fulfills the obligation, that is the question that was asked so that is the answer given.

[Cam42]

By simply stating the affirmative, you are not doing justice to the position of the Church. The Church has qualified the reasoning for allowing it.

Your simplistic view doesn't really explain the whole of the situation.

[Donna]

Cam,

Obedience is not the Faith, but a servant to It. Obedience has become the new papolatry.

You can site sources, and I can counter cite with the Denzinger, with the pricipals of non-contradiction, blah blah blah. This I have done in the past before you came to PM. My state does not allow this anymore.

If the debtate table required official debating rules I guess you and only a couple others would qualify. You needn't respond to anything I say since my methods are beneath proper debate.

If there are hoops so be it: (having to travel long distances or to move in order to attend Mass - or even to partake in the odd Indult parish life eg; watching the "Indult stage" of the sanctuary be changed back and forth to the "real" Novus Ordo parish and all that implies to church-goers including little children). But when these are erected by committees of churchmen who ALSO let in the sspx-ers to Rome on pligrimage, that is mind games plain and simple.

And you in effect say "smell of elderberries it up."

How pastoral.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Mar 14 2006, 07:50 PM']By simply stating the affirmative, you are not doing justice to the position of the Church.  The Church has qualified the reasoning for allowing it.

Your simplistic view doesn't really explain the whole of the situation.
[right][snapback]911920[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I said that it was illicit and bad to fulfill the obligation in this way and that according to the Vatican it is not to be condoned, but it is valid.