Okay to attend an SSPX Mass if

Is it okay to attend an SSPX Mass if you also attend a licit OF/EF Mass? For example, you go to a Saturday Vigil OF Mass and then attend an SSPX Mass on Sunday or vise-versa? Wouldn’t this fulfill the Sunday requirement?

I think it is better to attend a licit EF if there is one around on Sunday. However, if there is no other option, I’d do the vigil then go to EF at an SSPX on Sunday.

Technically, assisting at an SSPX mass is perfectly fine, so long as one does not attend with the intention of breaking with Rome (i.e. schism). However, I would caution against it for this reason: assistance at such a mass (to me) could be considered tacit support of the SSPX and their positions. It could also be construed as condoning the act of suspended clergy celebrating mass and other sacraments. Now this is just my opinion, and you should feel free to accept or reject it as you see fit.

God bless.

Chris

I think you might consider Communing at the OF Vigil, but not at the SSPX because you would be promoting a Sacramental unity which does not yet exist.

My opinion…

Laus Deo

Yeah. I agree. I would also not take Communion at the SSPX parish. Just my opinion.

In all reality, its so much easier if you can just find a licit EF parish. Although this can be impossible sometimes.

Too late for that as we all seem to be promoting SSPX simply by discussing them. Nothing sells like controversy. My opinion.

Well if we stop discussing them, the only thing we would discuss on this forum is appropriate dress for women in church! :slight_smile:

Chris

I do look forward though that one day the SSPX may become a Society of Apostolic Life. I think one day Msgr. Lefebvre could be Canonized a Saint, just as St. Athanasius was mocked during his lifetime (and he faced a true manifest heresy), Lefebvre’s actions may have saved TLM.

Laus Deo

Beyond that, I look forward to the availability of one genuine TLM per week in every Catholic church on Earth.

It is okay to attend an SSPX Mass without an “if.”

You can even receive communion there without an “if.”

The only thing you probably should wait for strict approval (like full communion, no questions asked, from Rome) for is things like confession, as this is jurisdictional and the priests in the SSPX don’t really have a jurisdiction.

But by all means, go to Mass there.

I do look forward though that one day the SSPX may become a Society of Apostolic Life. I think one day Msgr. Lefebvre could be Canonized a Saint, just as St. Athanasius was mocked during his lifetime (and he faced a true manifest heresy), Lefebvre’s actions may have saved TLM.

Beyond that, I look forward to the availability of one genuine TLM per week in every Catholic church on Earth.

Music to my ears.

Two problems with going to the SSPX:

  1. They don’t have jurisdiction yet (though if Pope Benedict keeps on his current track, that won’t be the case for long!), so confessions and marriages are invalid.

  2. Insofar as they reject Vatican II as a genuine ecumenical council guided by the Holy Spirit, and its teachings on ecumenism (which, in its true form, is a form of evangelization:thumbsup:) and religious liberty, they are commiting heresy. Last time I checked, their website still claims that Catholics have a moral obligation to reject FSSP Masses, which is also heresy. Obviously, to frequently attend a church where heresy is taught from the pulpit on a regular basis is spiritually dangerous.

Two reasons why we might want to go there anyway:

  1. Heresy is just as bad a sin as schism. If all of the “novus ordo” churches are committing complete heresy in a liberal/modernist way, then what you’re getting is no better, and usually much worse spiritually than SSPX fare.

  2. Liturgical abuses are just as bad as heresy. Even though you shouldn’t go to confession or get married by the SSPX, sometimes they’re the only way you can get real spiritual nourishment.

I personally have never actually been to the SSPX - I drive (half an hour) across the state line every week to go to a TLM in a diocese where the bishop actually encourages that Mass rather than refusing to provide it when petitioned for one (I was the 150-something signature, so there was definitely enough demand to warrant finding a priest who could do it). This has been getting rather expensive gas-wise, but the nearest SSPX are over an hour away - if they were closer than the licit TLM, I would go there in a heart-beat.

Why would you even WANT to go to the SSPX if there is a TLM approved by the diocese in your area? This makes no sense. Find yourself an approved TLM or an Eastern Catholic Liturgy and forget about the SSPX. If you even have to ask the question if it fulfills your Sunday obligation that is a sign that you shouldn’t go there.

nsper,
As long as the SSPX priest is validly ordained, you can go. I know you are not asking, but I would say the same thing, even more so, if the priest was valid and not accepting of today’s Vatican. The Church is in the catacombs at present, and we must seek her out. It is in eclipse. We can’t obey those who give us false teaching(today’s ecumenical movement, Holy Communion being permitted to be received by those in the Protestant religion, etc). Your job on earth is to get to heaven.
I recommend to you a book, very thin, by Cardinal Manning written in 1861. It is a series of lectures. It is titled “The Pope and the Antichrist” put out by tradibooks and can be found at lulu.com. It is very scholarly and it points out that one day you will go to Churches that were Catholic but you find out that Our Lord is not there. He wrote this 300 yrs after the Protestant revolt. He states that he is only using the approved writings of the Fathers of the Church and those approved by the Holy See. He is putting it together, not prognosticating on his own behalf. It will be some of the best $18.00 that you spend.
Even if one doesn’t accept my above statement on where to attend, if you can, do yourself a favor and read Cardinal Manning’s work.

Joe

Which is why I don’t go to the N.O. anymore.

This question was answered ten years ago and the answer is: Yes, Catholics may attend Mass offered by an SSPX priest without incurring penalty (see item #3 of unavoce.org/resources/protocol-53999/). The only qualification is that you don’t adhere to a “schismatic spirit,” something that’s possible no matter where you attend Mass as it’s a matter of one’s individual intentions.

(BTW, more recent documents from PCED affirm that the SSPX is not in schism, so if you’re looking for such an attitude, the SSPX might not be the best place to find it. :slight_smile: )

You’re all over the board on the sspx but I want to draw particular attention to the above. None of the items you mention are dogmatic in any way shape or form. They’re pure novelty and as such one does not commit “heresy” for refusing to go along with them.

Theological Comittee During Vatican II:

“…that for a notable number of Council Fathers the teaching and practical applications of the schema are not acceptable in conscience. In fact, the fundamental principle of the schema has remained unchanged despite the amendments that have been introduced: that is, the right of error… Since the declaration on religious freedom has no dogmatic value, the negative votes of the Council Fathers will constitute a factor of great importance for the future studies of the declaration itself, and particularly for the interpretation to be placed upon it.

Ecumenism and religious liberty have no basis in the Bible or the Tradition of the Church or magisterium - in fact the opposite is true and each of these are historically opposed by the Church and the Bible. The above quote clearly shows the questionable nature of adopting such novelties in the face of clear and consistent Church teaching. One cannot said to be in “heresy” for opposing ecumenism or religious liberty anymore than one can be in heresy for opposing altar girls.

Well, I understand anything coming from any council as being the teaching of the Church, and I had thought that religious freedom was dogmatic. I am not, through my conscience, going to oppose myself to what the Council taught, even if religious freedom is not “de fide”. I am a Catholic and I wish to think as closely as possible with the mind of the Church, and I’m not going to oppose the Church’s teaching on anything. It is heretical to me for someone (like the SSPX) to claim that the Council’s teaching is heretical; even if it is wrong, what an Ecumenical Council teaches cannot be heresy.

By the way, the purpose of ecumenism as it is supposed to be practiced is twofold: (1) explain to non-Catholics what Catholicism actually teaches and correct false understandings of it (as Bishop Fulton J. Sheen said, very few people reject the teaching of the Catholic Church - but many reject what they think is the Church’s teachings), and (2) to bring those people out of schism and into the Church (especially the Orthodox). Ecumenism was never intended (by the Church) to be a watering-down of the Church’s teachings; rather, quite the opposite. What the SSPX probably really rejects is false ecumenism - but they need to recognize that there is such a thing as true ecumenism as well. (True ecumenism was that which was practiced at the Second Council of Lyons, at the Council of Florence, and the Union of Brest, for example - and in the Church’s discussions with the Traditional Anglican Communion.)

Not a single jot or tittle of Vatican II can be rejected by any Catholic. Many, if not all, ecumenical councils have dealt with Church discipline as well as doctrine, but the Church made it clear that they were nevertheless to be accepted in toto. Ecumenism and religious liberty may not be dogmas, but the teachings do require your assent, as they taught via the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Pope Paul VI made this perfectly clear to Archbishop Lefebvre:

“You cannot invoke the distinction between dogmatic and pastoral in order to accept certain texts of the Council and to refute others. Certainly, all that was said in the Council does not demand an assent of the same nature; only that which is affirmed as an object of faith or truth attached to the faith, by definitive acts, require an assent of faith. But the rest is also a part of the solemn Magisterium of the Church to which all faithful must make a confident reception and a sincere application” (Nov. 10, 1976).

Moreover, ecumenism and religious liberty are NOT novelties. What Vatican II instructed was TRUE ecumenism, not that false “let’s all just get along” nonsense that, unfortunately, has become common in some places. True ecumenism involves helping bring folks to the Church – by dialogue, acknowledging the truths they share with Catholics, etc. and letting them hear our side and having them hear why the Church’s position is right. Many of the saints have dialogued with non-Christians (although in that instance, it’s not ecumenism but religious dialogue – ecumenism refers to other Christian bodies) and Protestants, the goal being their conversion. "Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false irenicism, in which the purity of Catholic doctrine suffers loss and its genuine and certain meaning is clouded” (P****aul VI UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO). Also, remember that we have no more Catholic kings or Catholic armies, and so the Church has to take an alternate route in winning the world for Christ – diplomacy. The goal is still to bring souls to the Church – just in a different manner and without sacrificing doctrine. Although another poster in a different thread on here said that we shouldn’t call true ecumenism “ecumenism” to begin with, as for Protestants ecumenism involves overlooking and watering down differences. I’d say he has a point there.

As for religious liberty, the way you understand Dignitais Humanae in your private judgment is wrong. Pope Paul VI and John Paul II don’t teach contrary to Quas Primas or Quanta Cura, but rather in perfect harmony with them.

Quas Primas and Quanta Cura were against the Freemasonry idea of religious freedom. That teaching has never changed. Dignitatis Humanae and Paul VI were against COMMUNIST dictatorships that FORCED their people to be Godless.

Do you remember the time of Dignitatis Humane? Does the Soviet Empire tell you something? Catholic Poland, Catholic Lithuania, etc. under Communist slavery? Millions of Christians in Ukraine, Vietnam, Cuba, Slovenia, etc under Communist and official atheism tells you something?

It’s extremely easy: Quas Primas or Quanta Cura against Freemasonry state, Dignitatis Humanae against Communist slavery that forced their people to live without God.

Have you ever read the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2108 and 2109? Or do you consider it “modernist” and to be avoided? Something tells me you’d view it as the latter. So here it is: 2108 The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error,* (37 Cf. Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum 18; Pius XII AAS 1953,799)** but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right (Pius XII, 6 December 1953).*

2109 * The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner (Cf. Pius VI, Quod aliquantum (1791) 10; Pius IX, Quanta cura 3). The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order.” (cf Pío IX, enc. “Quanta cura”).* So now you can see. The “modernist” Catechism of the Catholic Church goes to Quanta Cura and keep its teaching alive. There’s no moral freedom to choose a religion. All is about a political freedom so Communist states don’t impose anti-God teaching. “In order to be faithful to the divine command, “teach all nations” (Matt. 28:19-20), the Catholic Church must work with all urgency and concern “that the word of God be spread abroad and glorified” (2 Thess. 3:1). Hence the Church earnestly begs of its children that, “first of all, supplications, prayers, petitions, acts of thanksgiving be made for all men… For this is good and agreeable in the sight of God our Savior, who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1-4). In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. (35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, “in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth” (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood” (Dignitatis Humanae).

Only the proper understanding and teaching, which can only be ascertained in light of tradition, demands assent. Ambiguous texts wrongfully implemented and imposed by liberal factions hardly require any assent at all which is why Pope Benedict XVI demands no less than a ‘hermeneutic of continuity.’ The text I quoted above, found in The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, was promulgated with the understanding that the teaching on ‘religious liberty’ was to be further studied and interpreted but yet the opposite has happened, apart from the efforts of the SSPX, and the majority accept it word for word as ‘superdogma’.

Can you tell me where I might find this ‘true ecumenism’?

Good! Then we’re in agreement that there is no such thing as religious freedom. Religious tolerance; yes. Freedom; no.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.