Sin to Receive Communion at SSPX Chapels and to Attend Without Grave Reason?

[StevusMagnus]

               

Just came across this. I had not seen this before. Could the Vatican get any more confusing?

Perl said previously that attendance at an SSPX Mass would not be a sin if done out of love for the TLM, but would be if done to separate oneself from the Pope. However, Perl never specifically addressed receiving communion and gave this advice in response to a private letter.

http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2002_SU_Ferrara_1.html

An Added Mystery
                 To add an element of intrigue to this development,                     Father de Montjoye’s                       article includes an annex consisting of answers to questions                     relative to his article by none other than Monsignor Perl in                     his capacity                       as Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei commission. The answers                       were given on April 15, 2002, only ten days after Cardinal                       Castrillon Hoyos’ letter                       to Bishop Fellay. For some reason, Monsignor Perl’s correspondence                       (at least as reproduced in the article) lacks the protocol                       number that one would expect to see in an official determination                       of the               Commission. Two of the questions and answers are quoted here:

                       

           

                Q. If for a serious reason one has to assist at a Mass of the Fraternite                         Saint-Pie X (marriage, funeral, school feast...) should one abstain                 from Communion?

           

A. Yes. For eucharistic Communion               is also a communion with the Catholic Church (“The Church makes the Eucharist and the Eucharist makes               the Church”) from which these priests have separated themselves.

           

                Q. Has one sinned if one deviated from the discipline of the Church                 concerning the Sunday obligation and the manner of fulfilling it?

           

                A. Yes. The obligation is clearly enunciated and explained by the               Catechism of the Catholic Church at Nos. 2180-2183.

         

                         

                In other words, it is a sin to receive Holy Communion at any SSPX                           chapel or even passively to assist at SSPX Masses without a “grave                           reason”; and one also sins by attending an SSPX Mass to fulfill                           the Sunday obligation. These answers are consistent with Father de                           Montjoye’s novel claim that all SSPX priests and bishops are               non-Catholic ministers.

             

                How can this advice be reconciled with Monsignor Perl’s earlier                           advice that no penalty is incurred by Catholics who attend Mass at                           SSPX chapels “primarily because of an attraction to the earlier                           form of the Roman Rite”? Further, in view of the international                           impact Monsignor Perl’s participation in Father de Montjoye’s                           article would surely have at a very delicate stage in the SSPX negotiation,                           it must be asked: Did Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos authorize Monsignor                           Perl’s intervention before it was published? One ought to presume                           the Cardinal did not; otherwise his own letter of April 5, and his                           entire approach to the SSPX as “brothers,” “Excellencies” and “Monsignors” would               have to be seen as disingenuous.

[PaxVobiscum]

Just yesterday I read in our archdiocesan newspaper that we are not to attend Mass at the SSPX chapel here.  I guess the young priest assigned to answer the question had not read what Msgr. Perl wrote.

[QuisUtDeus]

If there is sacrilege at the local Novus Ordo, I consider that a grave reason.

Beyond that, it gets a little murkier.  If one just likes the TLM better and there is an FSSP Mass, for example, I'm not saying it would be sinful, but I am saying the justification in light of these letters would be more difficult to discern.

The Vatican has, in fact, kind of blown both ways depending on, of all things, which way the SSPX is blowing.  There's been lots of posturing on both sides, quite frankly, and you often see statements from both sides reflecting the current climate.

Probably what happened is Perl gave his authoritative opinion that it fulfills the obligation, and someone higher up frowned upon that, so he gave an authoritative addendum to lessen the strength of that original opinion.

I stress authoritative, because he does speak for the Church at least as far as moral certitude goes.

That said, I don't see how one can fulfill an obligation at the same time they are sinning.   My uninformed opinion is that someone put their foot down on Msgr. Perl's original statement and it was necessary for him to qualify it in some way.    I hold no blame against him for this.  Sometimes we are placed in bad positions by our superiors.

Really, I think Msgr. Perl always tries to be fair and truthful.  That is often difficult when there are all kinds of "political" nuances and people hang on every word you say.  I give him tons of credit for being as fair and truthful as he has been when you know darn well there is tons of pressure on him from the liberal bishops to say that anyone who goes to an SSPX chapel is going to burn in hell.

[Bonifacio]

...from the liberal bishops to say that anyone who goes to an SSPX chapel is going to burn in hell.

Which is quite paradoxical in itself.