I am thinking about going to Mass at an SSPX chapel.

[winoblue1]

I wouldn't have any scruples about going to a SSPX mass, however I would have scrupples going to a NO mass. The reason is that the SSPX are clear on doctrine and follow the rubrics of mass exactly, with the NO, you aren't sure what you are going to get and what the priests and people will do next.

For your personal sanity and for your growth in holiness go somewhere for mass where you can pray and be at peace rather than wondering if the priest has the faith and is doing what the church expects him to do.

[Gerard]

But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that I owe complete  obedience to the magisterium in all its decisions.  But some of its decisions are nuts.  

You owe "true" obedience to the hierarchy, not servile obedience.  The Magisterium is not the same thing as saying, "the heirarchy" or "the curia" or "the Pope."   The Pope invokes the Magisterium when he chooses to do so.   His governing decisions are not irresistible when there is an overriding moral issue. 

Part of the major problem is that the SSPX wants the Pope to invoke the Magisterium in defining the issues that contribute to the crisis in the Church.  The heirarchy is loathe to invoke the Magisterium in these cases (ecumenism, religious liberty, syncretism, outside the Church no salvation) because their policies will be proven to have come down on the wrong side of those definitions. 

So we have a heirarchy that indulges in policies that go against the Magisterium in practice and refuses to make solemn definitions that will validate the resistance of those who are disobedient to the heirarchy and loyal to the Magisterium. 

[Joseph11]

Part of the major problem is that the SSPX wants the Pope to invoke the Magisterium in defining the issues that contribute to the crisis in the Church.  The heirarchy is loathe to invoke the Magisterium in these cases (ecumenism, religious liberty, syncretism, outside the Church no salvation) because their policies will be proven to have come down on the wrong side of those definitions. 

So we have a heirarchy that indulges in policies that go against the Magisterium in practice and refuses to make solemn definitions that will validate the resistance of those who are disobedient to the heirarchy and loyal to the Magisterium. 

Wow.  That's very incisive.  That is the general argument of most, if not all, of the official literature I've read from the SSPX.  There's certainly a lot of people who don't realize this.

BWT:  I have been wondering at the fact that Lefebrve and his successors have consistently avoided a number of intellectual extremes (i.e. sedevacantism and the schizophrenia caused by simultaneous adherence to Tradition and the ultramontane point of view).  Not all their priests have succeeded here, and certainly not all attached laity, but most seem to have.  I would venture to say that some form of grace is responsible for this.

[IrishCowboy]

You've done your homework, and you've come to the right conclusions.  Go for it.

[Benno]

Well you don't sound like you're going into it blindly, so go into it, but stay alert. Part of my big problem with the SSPX is that they are impossible to define because there are so many different types/ ideas within them, even among the clergy. Frankly, for all the stuff written by or about them, I'm yet to find any consensus as to what makes the "Society" any kind of cohesive unit. People say that's no different to liberal or conservative non-sspxers, and I say yeah, that's why I wouldn't give myself over totally to any of the ideas that are going on for the last 50 years - I'll just stick to the sacraments and the saints til the dust clears, personally. I take the road of "suspended judgment", at risk of my soul. It's the only road that make sense to me. So spake Benno.  ;D

[Joseph11]

Well, that is certainly the most comfortable road (no offense intended to you, for I'm much attracted to it myself).

[nsper7]

Here is a link to a copy of the letter by Msgr. Camille Perl regarding the issue of the SSPX Masses: http://www.latin-mass-society.org/perl-011803.htm. Here is a link to a more in-depth article on the issue: http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/sspxnis.pdf.

As best I can tell, it does fulfill the Sunday obligation to attend an SSPX Mass (thus, it appears I stand corrected in some of my comments on other threads and some of my own threads). Neither does is it appear to be a sin to attend an SSPX Mass as long as your intention "is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion".

If you are concerned about the Sunday obligation in spite of this letter and article, why not just attend a Diocesan OF/EF parish on the Saturday Vigil and then attend the SSPX parish for Sunday proper? Just an idea though.

If there are any factual errors in the letter or article I linked to, someone please correct me. I do not want to be guilty of giving incorrect information on an issue as important as this. Obviously, obedience to the precepts of the Church, including the Sunday obligation, is extremely important to one's faith and one's soul and I would not want to inadvertently lead a person astray.

[glgas]

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that this is opposite of what Rome has said. If the SSPX are not schismatic, which is Rome's position, how can attendance at a Society Mass not  fulfill your Obligation? The Canon is clear, we may fulfill our Obligation in any Catholic Rite. Nothing is said about  unless 'a Dominican affiliated with Rorate Caeli', says differently.

You are right. The SSPX masses are valid masses and thus fulfill Sunday obligation.

However the priests are suspended, and that distances them from the Church. We shall pray for their leader to understand that from inside they have much more chance to change things than form outside. They are not the teaching Magisterium.

[Joseph11]

Here is a link to a copy of the letter by Msgr. Camille Perl regarding the issue of the SSPX Masses: http://www.latin-mass-society.org/perl-011803.htm. Here is a link to a more in-depth article on the issue: http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/sspxnis.pdf.

As best I can tell, it does fulfill the Sunday obligation to attend an SSPX Mass (thus, it appears I stand corrected in some of my comments on other threads and some of my own threads). Neither does is it appear to be a sin to attend an SSPX Mass as long as your intention "is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion".

If you are concerned about the Sunday obligation in spite of this letter and article, why not just attend a Diocesan OF/EF parish on the Saturday Vigil and then attend the SSPX parish for Sunday proper? Just an idea though.

If there are any factual errors in the letter or article I linked to, someone please correct me. I do not want to be guilty of giving incorrect information on an issue as important as this. Obviously, obedience to the precepts of the Church, including the Sunday obligation, is extremely important to one's faith and one's soul and I would not want to inadvertently lead a person astray.

Actually, I was completely unaware that Mons. Perl had spoken this clearly about the issue of the Sunday obligation.  I ha read the "truncated" form of the letter to which he refers, and, in it, his opinion on this matter does not seem clear.  Thank you for the link to the letter.

[IrishCowboy]

If you are concerned about the Sunday obligation in spite of this letter and article, why not just attend a Diocesan OF/EF parish on the Saturday Vigil and then attend the SSPX parish for Sunday proper?

Because if he wanted to do that, he wouldn't have bothered starting this thread....