An FSSP response to the SSPX

[geocajun]

I believe, and I could be wrong, that because the Mass is considered valid, that you can receive Holy Communion, otherwise, if the Church did not believe the consecration to be valid and transubstantiation to take place, a warning would not be needed as to its validity (like attending a Protestant service would bear a warning and communion there invalid).

But, I could always be wrong on this.

PP, first, thanks for the article. The Monsignor makes good points however he only address very specific questions. I am certain given his good sense of reason, he would have indicated that one cannot licitly receive Holy Communion with schismatics - which the SSPX are. We cannot receive Communion with them, because they refuse Communion with us (i.e. schismatic).

 

[Paul S]

PP, first, thanks for the article. The Monsignor makes good points however he only address very specific questions. I am certain given his good sense of reason, he would have indicated that one cannot licitly receive Holy Communion with schismatics - which the SSPX are. We cannot receive Communion with them, because they refuse Communion with us (i.e. schismatic).

In certain circumstances, we can receive Communion at schismatic churches where the Sacrament is valid. If we can receive with the Orthodox, why not the SSPX?

 

[geocajun]

In certain circumstances, we can receive Communion at schismatic churches where the Sacrament is valid. If we can receive with the Orthodox, why not the SSPX?

those circumstances would be the same - however simply having no other trid mass nearby would not qualify.

 

[PeterPaul]

those circumstances would be the same - however simply having no other trid mass nearby would not qualify.

Geo, you may be right, however the Ecclesia Dei commission says otherwise. Attending a Mass for the purposes of enjoying a "service" would rarely turn the head of any Bishop nowadays (while the past may have been different).

So, my question, and again it could be my ignorance, is what is validity? We can't be talking about a homily, so what else in the Mass could he be refering to other than transubstantiation?

Again, it is a tough call because many in the priesthood have chimed in on this subject and trust me, it is tough to get an answer. However, if we can fulfill our Sunday obligation by attending an SSPX Mass why would Communion be denied?

Again, I don't know.

Anyway, I hope everyone enjoyed the piece. It took me a long time to type it out!

 

[plainswolf]

GREAT ARTICLE!!!!!


God bless the FSSP!!!!!!

Mark

 

[NDIrish]

In certain circumstances, we can receive Communion at schismatic churches where the Sacrament is valid. If we can receive with the Orthodox, why not the SSPX?

This is the million dollar question.

 

[geocajun]

Geo, you may be right, however the Ecclesia Dei commission says otherwise. Attending a Mass for the purposes of enjoying a "service" would rarely turn the head of any Bishop nowadays (while the past may have been different).

PP, show me where the E.D. shows otherwise. All you've shown is a priest saying that one can attend the illicit (unlawful) but valid (sacramental) sspx mass. To take this a step further and indicate that a catholic can attend an already illicit Mass, and then receive Holy Communion is bogus, especially under the premise that there is no other trid mass nearby - assuming of course there is an Novus Ordo Mass nearby.
In fact, a compelling argument can easily be made that those who attend Mass with schismatics (SSPX) rather than attend the Novus Ordo Mass when it is available is itself a defiant act of refusing communion with the true body of believers, in favor of those who have been excommunicated.

 

[Benedicta00]

In certain circumstances, we can receive Communion at schismatic churches where the Sacrament is valid. If we can receive with the Orthodox, why not the SSPX?

I would assume in theory this would be correct but I can not see a circumstance where it would even be the case.

 

[PeterPaul]

Guys, can we concentrate on the article please?

 

[Benedicta00]

Guys, can we concentrate on the article please?

Guys? Is this is male only thread or something PP?

 

[PeterPaul]

Guys? Is this is male only thread or something PP?

Is this is? See....these southerners

 

[Benedicta00]

Is this is? See....these southerners

Type-o PP- now, is this here a male only thread? Is this what we have here PP?

 

[PeterPaul]

Type-o PP- now, is this here a male only thread? Is this what we have here PP?

"You don't have to be a male to slingshot your mother" - Dr. Phil

 

[Benedicta00]

"You don't have to be a male to slingshot your mother" - Dr. Phil

is that a yes- would you like for me- a female- to leave yer yankee male thread?

 

[PeterPaul]

is that a yes- would you like for me- a female- to leave yer yankee male thread?

Of course not honey.

 

[geocajun]

In certain circumstances, we can receive Communion at schismatic churches where the Sacrament is valid. If we can receive with the Orthodox, why not the SSPX?

There is a special provision in place within canon law for the EO which does not exist for the SSPX.

 

[Paul S]

There is a special provision in place within canon law for the EO which does not exist for the SSPX.

Canon 844:
§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.


That's the law which allows receiving Communion from the Orthodox. The special mention of the "eastern churches not in full communion" with Rome is in §3, but that deals with the Orthodox receiving from a Catholic priest.

If a Catholic feels that it's "morally impossible" to receive from a Catholic priest, then he could receive from a schismatic priest.

 

[Benedicta00]

But who defines morally impossible?

 

[geocajun]

Canon 844:
§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.


That's the law which allows receiving Communion from the Orthodox. The special mention of the "eastern churches not in full communion" with Rome is in §3, but that deals with the Orthodox receiving from a Catholic priest.

If a Catholic feels that it's "morally impossible" to receive from a Catholic priest, then he could receive from a schismatic priest.

SSPX is not a "Church" - but rather its a non-catholic movement with no real incardination. I don't think this canon is not applicable to them for that reason.
For example, going to confession with an SSPX priest is invalid because he has no faculties to hear confession from the Latin Church Bishop from which his orders were suppressed.

 

[Paul S]

SSPX is not a "Church" - but rather its a non-catholic movement with no real incardination. I don't think this canon is not applicable to them for that reason.
For example, going to confession with an SSPX priest is invalid because he has no faculties to hear confession from the Latin Church Bishop from which his orders were suppressed.

They do, however, have valid priests and bishops, just like the Orthodox. I see no difference between the two, other than the Orthodox have been around a lot longer.

I certainly don't advocate attending schismatic Masses of any sort, but I do have a problem with the attitude that "the Orthodox are fine, the Protestants are fine, just stay far away from the SSPX". As far as I know, SSPX is only schismatic, not heretical, making them the closest of the three to the Church. If I had to choose between receiving the Sacraments from the Orthodox or the SSPX, I'd pick the latter, whether they're a "church" or not.