Is it a sin to go hear Mass at an SSPX chapel?

[Guest JeffCR07]

As Cam said, [i]if[/i] there is no other factor involved in your going outside of pure curiosity, then it seems (to me at least) that it would not be sinful.

For a similar example, I might go to a Greek Orthodox Divine Liturgy in order to edify myself and learn about what it looks like in practice as opposed to on paper. Even if I were to sing or respond along with the rest of the congregation (though for me that would feel disingenuous), and reverence the Holy Eucharist as we should, my refusal to receive communion would be a clear and sufficient sign of the fact that I am not in communion with these people and do not share all of their beliefs.

Now if the above is permissible - and it is - then [i]prima facie[/i] so is attending an SSPX Mass in like manner. While it is important to point out the (very) significant differences between a schismatic group like the SSPX and the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, we must also keep in mind that the SSPX is much closer to Her Fullness than most other groups.

All of this being said, the practical questions brought up by both Cam and Era are entirely correct: going multiple times is less than advisable and, moreover, if one is familiar with the Tridentine Liturgy, then their is no meaningful edification gained by attending an SSPX Mass, as it is identical in form. Thus, I would be [i]extremely[/i] skeptical of someone who attends the Indult Mass who is going to an SSPX Mass for the sake of "learning" or "curiosity."

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[brendan1104]

[url="http://sspxseminary.org/flashintro.html"]Saint Thomas Aquinas Seminary[/url]

So tempting...

but so dangerous...

Edited April 1, 2006 by brendan1104

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Better:
[url="http://www.fssp.com/main/olgs.html"]http://www.fssp.com/main/olgs.html[/url]

[Era Might]

[quote]While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that:

"The SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass,and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith."

It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

--Monsignor Camille Perl, Secretary of the "Ecclesia Dei" commission[/quote]

[Era Might]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Mar 31 2006, 10:57 PM']and no Era is not a Monsignor.
[right][snapback]930444[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm not?

[Amator Veritatis]

In addition to what had already been said, it seems rather clear that such an act cannot be sinful at least insofar as the Vatican has said that one is permitted to commit such an act. Were it objectively or intrinsically sinful to assist at a Mass of the SSPX, the Vatican would not merely withhold its approval but would absolutely forbid Catholics from doing so. In any event, this seems to be the perfect forum to bring attention to my new signature. Any comments?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

There is really no good reason to bother. It should not be any different from the approved Latin Masses.

[Era Might]

[quote]To be reconciled, or not to be reconciled: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the soul to suffer
The slings and arrows of irregular status
Or to take Council with a sea of Modernists,
And by submitting end them?[/quote]

Sounds like schismatic propaganda.

Edited April 1, 2006 by Era Might

[Amator Veritatis]

Thank you for the comment, if nothing else. I actually wrote it myself with the obvious inspiration and basis being Hamlet's soliloquy in Act III Scene i. of [i]Hamlet[/i]. I think it is rather clever. Perhaps it is a bit ambiguous, for it could not be construed as propaganda in support of the SSPX--even if I were personally to support the Society, which I have not stated--any more than Hamlet's words might be construed as propaganda in support of suicide. The entire nature of the statement is to question which of the two scenarios is more noble. In the case of my signature, it questions which is nobler in the soul, [i]i.e.[/i], which situation is holier or more upright.

[Era Might]

Well it assumes that the Bishop of Rome, to whom the SSPX Bishops refused submission, can be a "modernist".

But that's a discussion for another time, I guess.

[Cam42]

[quote]Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.

In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.

1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.

2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.

Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was "Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass" and our response was:

1.  In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X." His second question was "Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass" and we responded stating:

2.  [b][u]We have already told you that [i]we cannot recommend[/i] your attendance at such a Mass[/u] and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin." [/b]

His third question was: "Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass" to which we responded:

3.  It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified."

Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:

This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the 'traditional' Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.

You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a 'right' to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a 'right'. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church's law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it.

Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice."

We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.

With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary[/quote]

Mons. Perl is clear on this issue. It is all about intent. However, there is a negative recommendation upon attending, this would include curiosity.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Mar 31 2006, 03:10 PM']Ok, here's a senario:

Because I would like to see what SSPX Masses are like, I go to an SSPX chapel for Mass on Sunday, having already attended an indult Mass and fufilled my Sunday Obligation. During Mass at the chapel, I act just as I would at an indult Mass: I would say "et cum spritu tuo" and the like several times; I would stand, sit, and kneel just as everyone else; I would adore the Host at the Mass; and I would possibly join in singing some of the hymns and/or chants. I would not, though, recieve the Host at the SSPX Mass.

Would I commit a sin in doing this. If so, would it be a mortal sin? I've never heard an SSPX Mass, but would like to out of curiosity, if you are wondering why I am asking.

I am asing because I dont really want the opinion of someone who, like many of the posters on FIsheaters, loves the SSPX or attends their Masses.

Thanks,
Tyler
[right][snapback]929982[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

According to Rome right now, it is indeed sinful to attend, but is still a legitimate Mass. But to answer your question, according to Rome it would be considered a sin. They say their Mass is valid but illicit. Illicit means sinful(or does it?). So it's valid but sinful according to Rome.

Edited April 2, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Amator Veritatis]

Cam has already cited the actual document. The Commission stated the following:

If your primary reason for attending [the traditional Mass at a chapel of the SSPX] were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.


As is sufficiently clear, assisting at a Mass of the SSPX, for the sake of assisting at a traditional Mass, is by no means sinful. It would be sinful, of course, to assist at such a Mass with the intention of separating oneself from the Pope. There are very few Catholics who assist at SSPX Masses with the intention of separating from the Roman Pontiff. Most of those who deny the authenticity of the current Pope assist at sedevacantist chapels. In any event, as the document makes clear, to assist at such a Mass, certainly under the conditions enumerated by St. Thomas More, is not sinful. While it is not formally recommended by Rome, it is not forbidden, and it is not sinful.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Apr 2 2006, 04:20 PM']While it is not formally recommended by Rome, it is not forbidden, and it is not sinful.
[right][snapback]933402[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Neither is it formally allowed. Monsignor Camille Perl's letter was intended as a private correspondence addressing a particular situation. He was, in fact, angry when this was presented as a public answer from the Holy See.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Apr 2 2006, 02:20 PM'] In any event, as the document makes clear, to assist at such a Mass, certainly under the conditions enumerated by St. Thomas More, is not sinful. While it is not formally recommended by Rome, it is not forbidden, and it is not sinful.
[right][snapback]933402[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]I agree with this conclusion. In the end, however, only St. Thomas with his spiritual advisor/confessor can answer the question of whether it is sinful for him subjectively. This situation would seem to be something that can be greatly influenced by circumstances be it intention and/or scandal.

Side note: Amator, I enjoyed your sig. As you pointed out, one must understand that the passage is not proposing the answer or solution to the question, but simply stating the question itstelf. The answer one chooses (or sees in the proposal) would seem to reveal something about the individual.