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

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

I really do not see a point in going to the Indult....AND THEN going to an SSPX chapel. Just go to the indult, its the same mass of 1962.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Mar 31 2006, 05:10 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]


Why would you adore a piece of bread?

I do not believe that they have the Eucharist.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 2 2006, 09:45 PM']Why would you adore a piece of bread?

I do not believe that they have the Eucharist.
[right][snapback]933697[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


the Vatican Says the Mass is valid.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='Apr 2 2006, 01:23 PM']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.
[right][snapback]933286[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


SSPX has been ecommunicated. Their masses are not valid.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 2 2006, 10:47 PM']the Vatican Says the Mass is valid.
[right][snapback]933700[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Please show me. Everything I've seen say that they have been excommunicated.

How can an excommunicated person hold a valid mass? they can't.




[url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/sspx.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/sspx.asp[/url]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM[/url]

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 2 2006, 08:45 PM']I do not believe that they have the Eucharist.
[right][snapback]933697[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
What makes you say that?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 2 2006, 08:48 PM']How can an excommunicated person hold a valid mass? they can't.
[right][snapback]933704[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Because there are certain things that are required for validity, all of which they "possess."

1)Form-they use the TLM, which is an approved form.

2)Matter-they use the proper matter that has always been used

3)Intent- they have the proper intent of consecrating the matter for the sacrament as in accord with the Church

4)Minister- their priests are validly ordained

I always feel like I am missing something, but I believe that is it.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 2 2006, 09:48 PM']Please show me. Everything I've seen say that they have been excommunicated.

How can an excommunicated person hold a valid mass? they can't.
[right][snapback]933704[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


of course they Can!

the Orthodox Schismatics have a valid mass as well. Excommunicated groups can not have a licit mass. there is a difference.

Cam Already posted this but.... ill post it again for clarities sake.

God bless,

Sam


Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses

Una Voce America has received a communication from the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, concerning an article which appeared in The Remnant newspaper and various websites. At the request of the Commission, we are publishing it below.
[quote]Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses

Una Voce America has received a communication from the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, concerning an article which appeared in The Remnant newspaper and various websites. At the request of the Commission, we are publishing it below.

Pontificia Commissio "Ecclesia Dei" January 18, 2003

Greetings in the Hearts of Jesus & Mary! There have been several inquiries about our letter of 27 September 2002. In order to clarify things, Msgr. Perl has made the following response.

Oremus pro invicem.

In cordibus Jesu et Mariæ,
Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins

Msgr. Camille Perl's response:

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.

[b]2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.
[/b]
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. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass 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."

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]

Edited April 3, 2006 by Extra ecclesiam nulla salus

[ironmonk]

STATUS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X
Msgr Camille Perl
Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following letter was sent to an Australian man in response to a letter he addressed to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. He provided it to EWTN for use as we saw fit. The author is the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission responsible for the implementation of Ecclesia Dei, the Holy Father's letter announcing the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and encouraging broader implementation of the Indult allowing the celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei

N. 343/98
Rome, 27 October 1998




Dear ______,

We wish to acknowledge receipt of your document, Statements and Allegations Made By Some Australian Members of The Society of St. Pius X, which you sent to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger for evaluation. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters that come within our particular competence.

First of all, we thank God that you have been able to be Sufficiently objective about the claims of the Society of St. Pius X to leave it and return to full communion with the Church. We recognize that this has been a long journey for you and your wife and we trust that all that you have experienced has helped you to be a better Catholic, aware of the wounds of the Church in its members on earth, but even more conscious of its indefectibility.

You will have noted that we are that very Pontifical Commission referred to in Father Jean Violette's letter to you of 21 January 1995 as made up of "liberals, modernists who have infiltrated the positions of authority in the Church and who are using their authority to do away with Tradition..." We trust that you will now understand that this is not a fair description of us or of our often difficult and delicate work.

We will now attempt to address ourselves to your questions in the order in which you have raised them.

a. The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that

[b]Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).[/b]

[b]Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.[/b]

b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, [b]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.[/b]

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, [b]all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith[/b].

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.

b. Thus far the Church has not officially declared what Constitutes "formal adherence to the schism" inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition.

c. It may still be difficult to characterize the entire Society of St. Pius X, but the documentation which you have submitted witnesses [b]to a consistent condemnation of the new Mass, the Pope and anyone who disagrees with the authorities of the Society in the smallest degree. Such behaviour is not consistent with the practice of the Catholic faith.[/b]

d. We reiterate what we stated above: "The Pope is the Supreme legislator in the Church." [b]Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself [/b](cf. Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium #22-25).

e. The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.

f. You want to know how authoritative our responses are. We Must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but it is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the variou dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.

g. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts rules primarily on the interpretation of the law. Any more Authoritative response to your questions than the one we have given would be more likely to come from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact that that Congregation has transmitted your dossier to us indicates that at this time our response should be sufficient. Statements of dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which touch on faith and morals are not considered infallible, but should be taken as norms of moral certitude.

i. Our response to your questions may be made public.



With prayerful best wishes I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ,

(signed) Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary

[ironmonk]

All wrongdoing is a sin.

Going to an SSPX mass is wrong.

Therefore going to an SSPX mass is a sin. It may not be a mortal sin but it's still a sin.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 2 2006, 10:00 PM']STATUS OF THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X 
Msgr Camille Perl
Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following letter was sent to an Australian man in response to a letter he addressed to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. He provided it to EWTN for use as we saw fit. The author is the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission responsible for the implementation of Ecclesia Dei, the Holy Father's letter announcing the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and encouraging broader implementation of the Indult allowing the celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei

N. 343/98
Rome, 27 October 1998


Dear ______,

We wish to acknowledge receipt of your document, Statements and Allegations Made By Some Australian Members of The Society of St. Pius X, which you sent to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger for evaluation. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters that come within our particular competence.

First of all, we thank God that you have been able to be Sufficiently objective about the claims of the Society of St. Pius X to leave it and return to full communion with the Church. We recognize that this has been a long journey for you and your wife and we trust that all that you have experienced has helped you to be a better Catholic, aware of the wounds of the Church in its members on earth, but even more conscious of its indefectibility.

You will have noted that we are that very Pontifical Commission referred to in Father Jean Violette's letter to you of 21 January 1995 as made up of "liberals, modernists who have infiltrated the positions of authority in the Church and who are using their authority to do away with Tradition..." We trust that you will now understand that this is not a fair description of us or of our often difficult and delicate work.

We will now attempt to address ourselves to your questions in the order in which you have raised them.

a. The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that

[b]Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382).[/b]

[b]Those mentioned above who are still living and have not asked pardon from the Church for the ill which they have caused are still under the censure of excommunication.[/b]

b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, [b]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.[/b]

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, [b]all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith[/b].

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.

b. Thus far the Church has not officially declared what Constitutes "formal adherence to the schism" inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition.

c. It may still be difficult to characterize the entire Society of St. Pius X, but the documentation which you have submitted witnesses [b]to a consistent condemnation of the new Mass, the Pope and anyone who disagrees with the authorities of the Society in the smallest degree. Such behaviour is not consistent with the practice of the Catholic faith.[/b]

d. We reiterate what we stated above: "The Pope is the Supreme legislator in the Church." [b]Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself [/b](cf. Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium #22-25).

e. The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.

f. You want to know how authoritative our responses are. We Must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but it is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the variou dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.

g. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts rules primarily on the interpretation of the law. Any more Authoritative response to your questions than the one we have given would be more likely to come from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact that that Congregation has transmitted your dossier to us indicates that at this time our response should be sufficient. Statements of dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which touch on faith and morals are not considered infallible, but should be taken as norms of moral certitude.

i. Our response to your questions may be made public.



With prayerful best wishes I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ,

(signed) Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary
[right][snapback]933720[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
None of that proves that the Masses which they celebrate are invalid.

It says they are forbidden from celebrating the sacraments, but it does not say that if they defy that order, that the sacraments they celebrate are invalid.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 2 2006, 10:03 PM']All wrongdoing is a sin.

Going to an SSPX mass is wrong.

Therefore going to an SSPX mass is a sin. It may not be a mortal sin but it's still a sin.
[right][snapback]933722[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



[quote]2.  We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass 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." [/quote]


Once again wrong. NOT a sin nessecarily. Monsignor Perl says it all right there.

[Paphnutius]

Ironmonk,

The letters that you posted did not speak to the validity of the Mass, nor the ordinations for that matter. Notice that it said they were illicit (which no one is denying here), but not invalid.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Apr 2 2006, 10:07 PM']Once again wrong. NOT a sin nessecarily. Monsignor Perl says it all right there.
[right][snapback]933725[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Just some things to remember:

His letter is not the final and difinitive word on the matter. While I agree that attending a SSPX Mass in not a sin only if it is the only Mass offered within reasonable distance to travel to, it is a sin to atttend simply because you cannot go to an indult, and dont like the Novus Ordo. This is what the Church has expressed. This letter does not necesarily reflect this perfectly, because the wording makes it seem as if it is alright to go to one for the sake of attending a TLM. However, if you are attending one because you don't like the NO or think it is of "questionable validity", then you are separating yourself from the Holy Father by rejecting his authority to change the Mass, and you are rejecting attending a licit and valid Mass of the Church for an illicit schismatic Mass instead.