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

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

im pretty sure we have had this conversation. lets not have it again.

[ironmonk]

[quote][b]Vatican has replaced faith, SSPX bishop charges  [/b]

Mar. 18 (CWNews.com) - A bishop of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has said that he and Vatican officials "belong to two different religions."


In a monthly email message to supporters, Bishop Richard Williamson disclosed that he made that observation to Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos (bio - news), the prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, during a meeting in Rome in August 2000. When Cardinal Castillon Hoyos replied that he and the SSPX leader shared a common faith in the Eucharist and the doctrines of the Catholic Church, Bishop Williamson recalled, he answered that "we do and we don't; mainly we don't." [/quote]


[quote][url="http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6572361&cKey=1143149011000"]http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.htm...y=1143149011000[/url]
FOCUS ON TRADITIONALISTS

The main topic at the morning session was how to bring an ultra-traditionalist Catholic movement known as the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) back into the Church.

The SSPX, founded by the late French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, rejects many of the reforms of the 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council and is the only group to break away from Rome because of them.

It sticks to the old Latin Mass and opposes recognising the validity of other religions, particularly non-Christians.

"Our arms are open for the Lefebvrists, but we are studying the best method" to reintegrate them, said Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, the Vatican official negotiating with them.

The late Pope John Paul sanctioned the excommunication of the traditionalist leaders in 1988 when Lefebvre defied his warnings and ordained four bishops without papal permission.

Under Benedict, the Vatican has been trying to open new lines of dialogue for a reconciliation with the traditionalists, who number about 1 million members or supporters worldwide. One cardinal said any reconciliation would take years.[/quote]


Ok, the Mass is valid...
[url="http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm"]http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm[/url]


but they are still excommunicated... Pope Benedict has not lifted it yet.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Amator Veritatis' date='Apr 2 2006, 02:20 PM']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.
[right][snapback]933402[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

True, I missed that when reading it before. So it looks like Rome is even more okay with it, just as long as you don't support the schismatic order that does the Mass.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 2 2006, 08:45 PM']Why would you adore a piece of bread?

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

Even Rome says their Mass is valid...

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 2 2006, 08:47 PM']SSPX has been ecommunicated. Their masses are not valid.
[right][snapback]933702[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's not what the Church documents stored in EWTN's library says. They are excommunicated but valid Mass.

Edited April 3, 2006 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 2 2006, 09:26 PM']Ok, the Mass is valid...
[url="http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm"]http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm[/url]
but they are still excommunicated... Pope Benedict has not lifted it yet.
[right][snapback]933737[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Okie, that's cleared up. True Dat

[Amator Veritatis]

[quote]His letter is not the final and difinitive (sic) 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 (sic) 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 (sic) 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. [/quote]

In what manner has the Church expressed that one cannot go to the SSPX simply to assist at a traditional Mass, in the event that there be no other traditional Mass within a reasonable distance? The point made in this letter is precisely that one can assist at Mass at an SSPX chapel for the sake of assisting at a traditional Mass. The letter does not represent the contrary view whatsoever, and the wording makes it clear that this is the case. Could you provide the place where the Church, in any capacity, has said that one may not assist at an SSPX Mass in order simply to assist at the traditional Mass out of devotion?


[quote]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. [/quote]

This scenario, also, is not necessarily the case. A person who assists at an SSPX Mass because he believes that the [i]Novus Ordo Missae [/i]is questionably valid, at least according to what has been written by the [i]Ecclesia Dei [/i]Commission, does not separate himself from the Holy Father or the Church necessarily. If one were to hold that the vernacular forms of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae [/i]were questionably valid as a result of the improper rendering of the Consecration of the Chalice as [i]pro omnibus[/i] rather than [i]pro multis[/i], he would not only fail to reject the authority of the Church--for the vernacular translations are not the promulgated form of the [i]Novus Ordo Missae [/i]but merely translations written by various commissions approved, in some manner, by the Church--but would act morally by refusing to assist at such a Mass. For one to commit an act against his conscience, even if he have an erroneous conscience, is a sin. That much is a principle of moral theology. Besides, regarding the Sacraments, the Church has already spoken that one is forbidden to assist at a questionably valid Sacrament, even if the Sacrament be probable. In addition, such a person would not be rejecting a licit and valid Mass of the Church, at least in his own mind. He would refuse, rather, to assist at a questionably valid Mass. Besides, even if the SSPX Mass is illicit, that is, contrary to law, it is not schismatic. The Mass is still Catholic, offered by a Catholic priest who is within the Church but, as a letter previously cited states, is suspended [i]a divinis[/i], which is precisely the reason the Mass is contrary to the law of the Church. In any event, such a person would be acting in a moral manner insofar as the Church permits Catholics to assist at Masses of the SSPX for the sake of assisting at a traditional Mass and as a result of the fact that he could not morally assist at a [i]Novus Ordo Missae[/i] as a result of his conscience, whether erroneous or otherwise.


By the way, Paphnutius, thank you for the comment regarding my signature. I am glad I did not confuse everyone with it.

[Dave]

You forget that while the vernacular translations may not be in themselves infallible or even the best translations, the Church DID approve them, which means the Church considers vernacular Novus Ordo Masses valid. Thus, we're to do so as well lest we sin (a threefold mortal sin of blasphemy, heresy, and schism). "Following one's conscience" is no excuse to avoid the Novus Ordo Mass because we have to form a CORRECT conscience, that is, one that is faithful to the Church in all matters of dogma, doctrine, AND discipline. Anyone whose conscience tells them it's a bad thing to attend Novus Ordo Masses for whatever reason doesn't have a correct conscience but rather an erroneous conscience ... or maybe even a dead conscience.

I could talk about the issue of "pro multis" vs. "pro omnibus," but that would probably hijack the thread even worse than I've already hijacked it. So for that it would be better to start a new thread ... if anyone wants to discuss that.

[Amator Veritatis]

I am unaware of any proclamation or applied principle that would hold a Catholic guilty of blasphemy, heresy or schism for having doubts regarding the validity of a given Sacrament. If a person were to hold that the Consecration of the Chalice in the vernacular languages, for example, were questionably valid, in what manner would he commit a blasphemy against God? He has uttered nothing of the sort. He has simply expressed his reservations regarding a form which deviates from the promulgated form of the Church and from the definition of the Council of Florence, the teaching of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the principles established in [i]De Defectibus formae [/i]from [i]De Defectibus in celebratione Missarum occurrentibus[/i]. N.B., [i]Si quis autem aliquid diminueret, vel immutaret de forma Consecrationis Corporis, et Sanguinis, et in ipsa veborum immutatione verba idem non significarent, non conficeret Sacramentum[/i], i.e., If anyone, however, were to lessen or were to alter the form of Consecration of the Body and of the Blood, and by the alteration of the words, the words were not to signify the same meaning, he would not confect the Sacrament.


In addition, to committing no sin of blasphemy, such a person has not committed an act of heresy either. There is not even an Article of Faith in question which he might reject. Finally, he would not commit a mortal sin of schism, for he has in no way separated himself from the Church. He has merely expressed moral reservations in the participation of a doubtful Sacrament. To state that the very act of assuming doubt in such a matter would constitute schism is unsubstantiated. If you would like, perhaps you could expound this point more fully. I would be likely to disagree, and perhaps this would be a point which might be discussed in the thread you have suggested. Regardless of any circumstances, however, such a person would commit neither the sin of blasphemy nor the sin of heresy. In any event, as you have stated, this discussion might be better engaged on a different thread. Perhaps I shall start a thread for this purpose, if it be permissible according to the norms of these forums.


N.B., the above translation is my own and is a direct translation from the Latin. I have seen the following given as a non-direct translation of the meaning: If any omission or alteration is made in the formula of consecration of the Body and Blood, involving a change of meaning, the consecration is invalid. Cf., [i]On the Mass [/i]from [i]The Angelus[/i], September 1978, Volume I, Number 9.

Edited April 3, 2006 by Amator Veritatis

[son_of_angels]

I might reply that the words of consecration, properly, are "This is my body" and "This is the cup of my blood" when, by intent, referring properly to Jesus.

I feel that the translation should be "for many" as does any good reader of Latin, but that is immaterial to the consecration's validity, only to the ability of the various translators to separate their social/theological agendas from the actual text.

As to whether or not to attend SSPX, one should know that, as they are not subject and do not have proper authorization to perform the sacraments, the sacraments are illicit. Go somewhere else. If you are going to their mass just to see a traditional mass, but do not receive communion, it is ok.

However, you should NOT receive Confession from them, as it is rendered invalid by their relationship to the local ordinary.

[Amator Veritatis]

Filius Angelorum, please see the new thread which I have begun both to discuss the former matter more precisely and to avoid changing the purpose of this thread.

[popestpiusx]

no (to answer the original question)

[Resurrexi]

Could I recieve Communion from the SSPX?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Apr 3 2006, 09:39 PM']Could I recieve Communion from the SSPX?
[right][snapback]934749[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

they are going to say no. i am going to say yes. if you have a problem with the SSPX just go to the indult.

[Amator Veritatis]

If one is permitted to assist at Mass, it would follow logically that he is permitted to assist completely, including the reception of Holy Communion.