Document saying the SSPX fulfills one's Sunday Obligation?

[Phillipus Iacobus]

Canon 1248 of the 1983 code of canon law:

"A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P4N.HTM

Close the book.

Correct.
The Missal of 1969 is a Mass in a Catholic rite.

I wasn't talking about that, but okay. My post is the document saying an SSPX Mass fulfills the obligation.

[Old Salt]

Canon 1248 of the 1983 code of canon law:

"A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P4N.HTM

Close the book.

Correct.
The Missal of 1969 is a Mass in a Catholic rite.

I wasn't talking about that, but okay. My post is the document saying an SSPX Mass fulfills the obligation.

Sorry about that.

[Phillipus Iacobus]

No worries

[kingofspades]

Sorry for necroposting in this topic, but I joined recently and I find the implications of this topic really interesting.

Being a diocesan priest in the Netherlands, I have a SSPX parish very nearby, in Gerwen.  I have of course contact with people who also attend Mass at SSPX but I always warn them not to receive Communion... why not?

The problem with people attending Mass at SSPX is not the validity of the Mass, since the ordination is presumably valid. And so people attending Mass at SSPX have no problem with sunday obligation. If only they don't receive Communion, which is no obligation of course.

Because.. even while the excommunication of the SSPX is lifted, the suspension of all the priests and bishops isn't... And it's a suspensio a dvinis . That is the reason for Rome not wanting SSPX to ordain new priests, and Abp Müller was so angry on the SSPX in Zaitskofen for the same reason. And he is right imo.

And therefore the Mass at SSPX is valid, but still illegitimate...

And therefore, even while the confession at SSPX is valid in death peril because the ordination is valid and the suspension rules are so (CIC 1335), a SSPX priest can never have jurisdiction because of his suspension. A suspended SSPX bishop is also suspended from giving jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a legal matter of course, and suspension makes every act of priesthood illegitimate, even if it is valid.

And so the faithful who want to receive holy communion in a SSPX church need to go for confession to a not-suspended priest with jurisdiction. Confessing to a suspended priest is valid, but a sin in itself of course and so...

Matrimony is not valid in a SSPX church, not just because of the suspension of the priest which makes him not a legal celebrant, but also because the local parish priest needs to give faculty for the validity - which is impossible because of the suspension. (Can.  1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or  deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the  following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned etc...) So...

Baptism is valid of course, although illegitimate. A suspended priest can never be the required celebrant.

And therefore, there is a real legal problem. It is the one and only reason why there is still no possibilty to incorporate the SSPX in the diocese where I live. Even if the SSPX community would accept our bishop (which probably a lot of the member won't do because he is ordained in 1979 and I know a lot of the SSPX people in Gerwen don't believe his ordination was valid...) he cannot do anything for the SSPX priests as long as there is no solution about the suspension, and the suspension will stay when SSPX will not accept the conditions of the Pope and the Ecclesia Dei. The only hope is the 'Ecclesia supplet' and the 'common error' principle for the SSPX members...

Of course the SSPX members here will not like what I write. I'm sorry. And as some will know, I am not the only one considering it like this.
(http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconceptions-what-the-lifting-of-the-sspx-excoms-means-for-people/)

[TrentCath]

Sorry for necroposting in this topic, but I joined recently and I find the implications of this topic really interesting.

Being a diocesan priest in the Netherlands, I have a SSPX parish very nearby, in Gerwen.  I have of course contact with people who also attend Mass at SSPX but I always warn them not to receive Communion... why not?

The problem with people attending Mass at SSPX is not the validity of the Mass, since the ordination is presumably valid. And so people attending Mass at SSPX have no problem with sunday obligation. If only they don't receive Communion, which is no obligation of course.

Because.. even while the excommunication of the SSPX is lifted, the suspension of all the priests and bishops isn't... And it's a suspensio a dvinis . That is the reason for Rome not wanting SSPX to ordain new priests, and Abp Müller was so angry on the SSPX in Zaitskofen for the same reason. And he is right imo.

And therefore the Mass at SSPX is valid, but still illegitimate...

And therefore, even while the confession at SSPX is valid in death peril because the ordination is valid and the suspension rules are so (CIC 1335), a SSPX priest can never have jurisdiction because of his suspension. A suspended SSPX bishop is also suspended from giving jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a legal matter of course, and suspension makes every act of priesthood illegitimate, even if it is valid.

And so the faithful who want to receive holy communion in a SSPX church need to go for confession to a not-suspended priest with jurisdiction. Confessing to a suspended priest is valid, but a sin in itself of course and so...

Matrimony is not valid in a SSPX church, not just because of the suspension of the priest which makes him not a legal celebrant, but also because the local parish priest needs to give faculty for the validity - which is impossible because of the suspension. (Can.  1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or  deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the  following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned etc...) So...

Baptism is valid of course, although illegitimate. A suspended priest can never be the required celebrant.

And therefore, there is a real legal problem. It is the one and only reason why there is still no possibilty to incorporate the SSPX in the diocese where I live. Even if the SSPX community would accept our bishop (which probably a lot of the member won't do because he is ordained in 1979 and I know a lot of the SSPX people in Gerwen don't believe his ordination was valid...) he cannot do anything for the SSPX priests as long as there is no solution about the suspension, and the suspension will stay when SSPX will not accept the conditions of the Pope and the Ecclesia Dei. The only hope is the 'Ecclesia supplet' and the 'common error' principle for the SSPX members...

Of course the SSPX members here will not like what I write. I'm sorry. And as some will know, I am not the only one considering it like this.
(http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconceptions-what-the-lifting-of-the-sspx-excoms-means-for-people/)

You could perhaps have warned us you were a priest earlier Father, I wouldn't have responded as I did on other threads as I did, if I'd known 

As for the arguments you present, well, Fr I don't think we're going to agree and I think thats pretty obvious. Ultimately if one doesn't accept the state of necessity then there is no argument for the SSPX, but given the state of the church in the last 40 years, I find it hard for anyone to argue otherwise.

[Cooler King]

Sorry for necroposting in this topic, but I joined recently and I find the implications of this topic really interesting.

Being a diocesan priest in the Netherlands, I have a SSPX parish very nearby, in Gerwen.  I have of course contact with people who also attend Mass at SSPX but I always warn them not to receive Communion... why not?

The problem with people attending Mass at SSPX is not the validity of the Mass, since the ordination is presumably valid. And so people attending Mass at SSPX have no problem with sunday obligation. If only they don't receive Communion, which is no obligation of course.

Because.. even while the excommunication of the SSPX is lifted, the suspension of all the priests and bishops isn't... And it's a suspensio a dvinis . That is the reason for Rome not wanting SSPX to ordain new priests, and Abp Müller was so angry on the SSPX in Zaitskofen for the same reason. And he is right imo.

And therefore the Mass at SSPX is valid, but still illegitimate...

And therefore, even while the confession at SSPX is valid in death peril because the ordination is valid and the suspension rules are so (CIC 1335), a SSPX priest can never have jurisdiction because of his suspension. A suspended SSPX bishop is also suspended from giving jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a legal matter of course, and suspension makes every act of priesthood illegitimate, even if it is valid.

And so the faithful who want to receive holy communion in a SSPX church need to go for confession to a not-suspended priest with jurisdiction. Confessing to a suspended priest is valid, but a sin in itself of course and so...

Matrimony is not valid in a SSPX church, not just because of the suspension of the priest which makes him not a legal celebrant, but also because the local parish priest needs to give faculty for the validity - which is impossible because of the suspension. (Can.  1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or  deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the  following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned etc...) So...

Baptism is valid of course, although illegitimate. A suspended priest can never be the required celebrant.

And therefore, there is a real legal problem. It is the one and only reason why there is still no possibilty to incorporate the SSPX in the diocese where I live. Even if the SSPX community would accept our bishop (which probably a lot of the member won't do because he is ordained in 1979 and I know a lot of the SSPX people in Gerwen don't believe his ordination was valid...) he cannot do anything for the SSPX priests as long as there is no solution about the suspension, and the suspension will stay when SSPX will not accept the conditions of the Pope and the Ecclesia Dei. The only hope is the 'Ecclesia supplet' and the 'common error' principle for the SSPX members...

Of course the SSPX members here will not like what I write. I'm sorry. And as some will know, I am not the only one considering it like this.
(http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconceptions-what-the-lifting-of-the-sspx-excoms-means-for-people/)

This.

[JayneK]

You could perhaps have warned us you were a priest earlier Father, I wouldn't have responded as I did on other threads as I did, if I'd known 

He said it in his intro post and also on his profile.

[TrentCath]

You could perhaps have warned us you were a priest earlier Father, I wouldn't have responded as I did on other threads as I did, if I'd known 

He said it in his intro post and also on his profile.

On the other thread? Really? Meh, fail on my part 

[kingofspades]

Back on topic: I hope TrentCath also understands why I always emphasize obiedience for the SSPX adherers. As we all know suspension is nothing more than a means to let the suspended cleric know that he should change his life and opinion. If he changes, the suspension is temporary.

The fact that a catholic can fulfill his sunday obligation in a SSPX church is only because of the validity and the benefit for his soul. However, supporting a suspended priest actively in his disobedience, makes you an accomplice in his disobedience. That there is a huge group disobedient, and saying that there is a kind of 'common error' is not the best excuse for those who always point with their own fingers to others in matters of the 6th commandment, where there is of course also a 'common error' and still no excuse. And after all, it's in the SSPX situation a real matter of the Catholic Faith, because the suspension is a divinis (and not because of causa feminae or so) , which makes the disobedience automatically a grave sin, if not mortal sin.

I understand completely the standpoint of the Vatican, that the disobedience should stop, and the lack of humility on the SSPX side is shocking to me.

And on topic, the sunday obligation for the benefit of the soul: I would never encourage catholics to fulfull the sunday obligation in a Mass, even if it is a really Holy Mass, if there is an alternative. Even a OF Latin Mass is much better than a SSPX Mass, because of the illegitmate status of the SSPX Mass!  But of course, the hate against the OF Mass is so deeply rooted - even for goud arguments - in the SSPX, that they make the free choice for disobedience and thus for sin, in order to 'save their own soul'. Weird argument imo and in my confessional of course nobody gets an absolution for that if he would be persevering.

The whole discussion about sunday obligation is of course just an attempt for a legitimation in the 3rd commandment, which is of course never meant to cover up another sinful act.

[Stubborn]

Back on topic: I hope TrentCath also understands why I always emphasize obiedience for the SSPX adherers. As we all know suspension is nothing more than a means to let the suspended cleric know that he should change his life and opinion. If he changes, the suspension is temporary.

The fact that a catholic can fulfill his sunday obligation in a SSPX church is only because of the validity and the benefit for his soul. However, supporting a suspended priest actively in his disobedience, makes you an accomplice in his disobedience. That there is a huge group disobedient, and saying that there is a kind of 'common error' is not the best excuse for those who always point with their own fingers to others in matters of the 6th commandment, where there is of course also a 'common error' and still no excuse. And after all, it's in the SSPX situation a real matter of the Catholic Faith, because the suspension is a divinis (and not because of causa feminae or so) , which makes the disobedience automatically a grave sin, if not mortal sin.

I understand completely the standpoint of the Vatican, that the disobedience should stop, and the lack of humility on the SSPX side is shocking to me.

And on topic, the sunday obligation for the benefit of the soul: I would never encourage catholics to fulfull the sunday obligation in a Mass, even if it is a really Holy Mass, if there is an alternative. Even a OF Latin Mass is much better than a SSPX Mass, because of the illegitmate status of the SSPX Mass!  But of course, the hate against the OF Mass is so deeply rooted - even for goud arguments - in the SSPX, that they make the free choice for disobedience and thus for sin, in order to 'save their own soul'. Weird argument imo and in my confessional of course nobody gets an absolution for that if he would be persevering.

The whole discussion about sunday obligation is of course just an attempt for a legitimation in the 3rd commandment, which is of course never meant to cover up another sinful act.

To paraphrase, +Fellay "We'd be treated better by Rome if we were Protestants."

True. So true.

What we have lost....and the road to restoration