That is the question. This question arises from a letter sent to parishioners pre-motu by Fr. Jay Scott Newman in South Carolina in which he stated that it is sinful to attend a mass at an SSPX chapel. Brian Mershon has addressed the issues at length in a piece entitled “SSPX in schism? You can believe Fr. Newman… or you can believe the Church” Some excerpts:
In his bulletin letter, Fr. Newman wrote, “For now, however, I write to warn you about a group of renegade bishops and priests who are leading people out of full communion with the Catholic Church in the name of the old liturgy.”
Compare Fr. Newman’s description of the SSPX bishops and priests as “renegade” with the term Darío Cardinal Castrillón, Prefect of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), used at the May 16, 2007 Conference of Latin American bishops where he explained how the PCED was fully engaged with bringing the SSPX bishops and priests into full canonical regularization. Cardinal Castrillón calls them “brothers.”
…
While the PCED confirms that Archbishop Lefebvre and the four consecrated bishops excommunicated themselves when the 1988 ordinations took place, it repeatedly stated that the SSPX priests, while suspended, are not excommunicated, nor schismatic. Despite Fr. Newman’s warnings to the contrary, the lay faithful incur no sin, nor any penalties whatsoever. The SSPX priests, of course, rely upon a canon in the Code of Canon Law which speaks of “a state of emergency within the Church,” and that “the salvation of souls” is the ultimate goal of Canon Law.
Fr. Z has also now weighed in on the topic.
It makes for a very interesting reading. Give it a look.
August 8, 2007 at 7:16 am
I think that we should not attend SSPX masses if we want to stay in full communion with the Church. There liturgy is illicit. I hope the SSPX come back into the fold, but at this point they are wayward brothers.
Why would one chose to act outside of full communion with the Church? While the SSPX priests may be well intentioned, they are not in full communion. Perhaps Fr. Newman should be more precise in what he says and more charitable toward our wayward brothers. But his advice to the everyday Catholic is sound. Why play with matches? Be safe. Stay in full communion with the Church.
August 10, 2007 at 3:53 am
As a “wayward” brother only partially in communion with Rome apparently, I think it’s only fair to remind everyone that there is one reason for receiving the recent clear distinction on the Tridentine Mass. That reason is Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Without him, there would have been no motu proprio and more importantly, none of us born after Vatican II would have ever heard of the Traditional Latin Mass.
Lefebvre was considered suspect by Modernist Rome for one reason – the fact that he would not say the Novus Ordo mass. As is clear to the world now, there was absolutely nothing wrong with that. The Tridentine Mass was never abrogated, and to date the Novus Ordo has never been declared to be obligatory on the part of Catholics to assist at.
Lefebvre was denied his rightful request to consecrate bishops because he would not leave the Traditional faith. Canon law clearly defends his right and actions in consecrating the bishops anyway. No schism, says Canon Law. Obviously not good enough for the “full communion” crowd.
So, Lefebvre was not wrong after all for adhering to the Tridentine Rite, yet his persecution still stands? He was “prevented” from carrying out his right to consecrate bishops for his approved society of priests (Roman approved that is – 1971).
Since we now know the facts (as the SSPX priest always have known) it would seem Rome’s full force against Lefebvre was at the very least a classic over reaction…
If the Tridentine Mass has always been ok, then what’s the problem with the SSPX?
Had Lefebvre chosen to become a clown dressing drag queen child molester, the “full communion” crowd would be lamenting the “fact” that he was still in full communion with Rome.
God Rest Archbishop Lefebvre, Catholic Hero!
Steve Sanborn
August 10, 2007 at 4:37 am
“Canon law clearly defends his right and actions in consecrating the bishops anyway.”
Lefebvre and the four bishops who were consecrated incurred an automatic excommunication for their actions, which were described in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei as “a schmatic act,” even though there was no formal schism. Canon law, in this case, didn’t defend much of anything.
Some of your other comments… oh, I don’t know where to begin.