@ Jaynek

You quoted different parts of my post and replied pertinently to each one. How does one do this?

When one selects the quote option, it opens a composing screen with the entire quoted post.  Delete the sections of the post that one wishes to leave for later and respond to what remains.  Then look below the composing screen in the Topic Summary and find the post that one is responding to there.  At the upper right of the post are the words "insert quote".  When one clicks this, the entire post is inserted into the composing screen at the cursor.  Again, delete the parts one does not want to respond to and then respond to what is left.  Keep repeating this process until all the different parts have a response.

Usually sacrilege against the Eucharist refers to treating the Hosts with disrespect or irreverence  (for example, during Communion in the hand) or receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin.  Here is a conciliar source at https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=36218 that gives examples of "deliberate invalid reception of the sacraments, simulation of Mass, grave irreverence to the Eucharist." Here is a pre-conciliar source http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13321a.htm that says "the administration or reception of the sacraments (or in the case of the Holy Eucharist by celebration) in the state of mortal sin, as also by advertently doing any of those things invalidly."

Thank you Jaynek, I studied these links and the devotion with which I would approach SSPX (or any other) Eucharist seems to exclude that I commit sacrilege.

I have never heard of a principle that participating in an illicit Mass is automatically sacrilegious, although, as you can see, it is sacrilege to deliberately participate in an invalid Sacrament.

And, this, has my concern. Is an SSPX Eucharist valid or invalid?

As you later confrim, Rome explicitly authorizes SSPX to offer liberally only the Sacrament of confession and requires special permission for the sacrament of Marriage. Rome makes no mention of other Sacraments. On this concern, therefore, I should assume that the sacrament of Eucharist is not permitted. If this assumption, regarding this particular concern, were to be correct, then an SSPX Eucharist would be invalid on this "count". Are my assumptions and deductions correct based on this particular concern?

However, other concerns, that you discuss later on in your post, overcome this particular concern of explicit permission.

And, in addition to the other concerns discussed later, this concern of permission, would not be worrisome, if I were to believe that the circuмstances are exceptional and that we (I) are (am) in a state of necessity. A specific Canon (which is it?) law provides for this, correct?.

I am slowly convincing myself that we are in a state of necessity and this would be confirmed by (a) the papal revocation of the SSPX excommunication consequent to the four bishops' creation (although the excommunication could have been revoked for other reasons by Pope Bergoglio), (b) Pope Francis behaviour and convictions and, possibly, (c) the malefic fruits generated by V2.

In my experience, conciliar arguments against receiving Sacraments from SSPX typically rest on claims that the organization is in schism.

I do not believe SSPX to be in schism even if cardinal Burke, Voris/Vortex and others affirms that it is.

... puts one in danger of developing a schismatic mentality.  

To this, I admit.

I fear that I am developing a schismatic mentality. However, it is important to underline that this would not be because the of the SSPX Mass but because of my own studies. The SSPX Mass is only a consequence, not a cause, of my studies.

I am becoming convinced that the hierarchy of Rome is no longer representative of our Church, validly or licitly. It is also important to underline that the convictions that I am developing do not want to be schismatic in intention! They would be shismatic in conseqence: Rome would excommunicate me because I would refuse to recognize the Pope as a legitimate authority because of his errors and heresies.

I am beginning to believe that this Pope is in error concerning doctrine and may be in heresy concerning dogmas. Jaynek, I am in tears at night during my prayers. I do not want to harbour the thoughts that I harbour. I try to push them away by talking about mundane matters to my wife or watching a film or... but they keep coming back. I cannot stop thinking that this Pope is violating so many principles on which my Faith is founded.

... if I were to consolidate, in my heart and mind, the conviction of such heresies then, automatically, this would have the consequence that:
i)  I would enter a condition of extraordinary necessity, and
ii) I could disregard any determination deriving from an invalid or illicit Pope, including my automatic excommunication for participating in a Sacrament/Eucharist which He deems invalid. This based on the assumption that an invalid/illicit Pope's determination would be worthless.

A question arises, here: who or what determines the state of extraordinary of necessity (as per Canon laws)? Can a faithful determine this in his own heart?

The other Sacrament affected by jurisdiction is that of Matrimony.  Again there is an SSPX argument for supplied jurisdiction.  If you are actually contemplating marriage, you may want to do the research to reach your own position on this.  If you are not getting married, then you can probably leave this question until later.

I am already married.

I was under modernist convictions when I married an Orthodox who, I am blessed, is the perfect, devout, adorable, loving wife (except for her religion, but her beliefs are closer to a Catholic than the beliefs of a modern Catholic). It took us three years to obtain dispensation from the Orthodox Church (that tried to convert me in every possible way during very long interviews) at the condition that I would omit the word Catholic during the Credo and that we would raise our children Orthodox.

Incredibly, Rome considered the marriage to an Orthodox to be "canonic" and the Catholic priest who celebrated the marriage even said that I could omit the word "Catholic" and that I would not invalidate my Credo and, ultimately absurd, I could raise our daughter Christian, not necessarily Catholic.

In the end I said the word Catholic in my Credo, disregarding the Orthodox Church condition and my wife and I reached an agreement: I would never try to convert her and she would let me raise our daughter Catholic (and my wife has been keeping her promise perfectly).

Here is an article from a conciliar perspective by a canon lawyer explaining why the 5 Sacraments not affected by jurisdiction are all validly performed by SSPX priests:  https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2013/08/01/are-sspx-sacraments-valid-part-i/  As you can see, he says that SSPX priests have valid ordinations and can validly consecrate.  As you say, it makes no sense to claim that they can only validly consecrate when they have permission.  That is simply not how the Eucharist works..

I have no words to thank you for your time and expertise. You are helping to relieve my heart from an enormous burden and this last piece of information will be instrumental in my study. You are confirming my logical deductions and you supplying me with corroborating and scholarly opinions.

I am just so @#*!%# frustrated that a simple Catholic with no ambition to become a canon scholar and who only wants to feed his soul with the Eucharist to be close to Jesus, should go through such an intellectual ordeal. I wonder how other Catholics, with less time and less predisposition for studying, will cope. How can everyday Catholics know what to do, assuming that they even have the chance in the fist place to question these matters?

Any conciliar priest who makes such claims cannot be trusted.  You pretty much need to throw out any information you have received from such sources.  You cannot base decisions or doubts on it.  I have cited reasonable representatives of conciliar positions in this post.  Obviously, there is still disagreement between conciliar and SSPX positions, but it is not correct, even from the conciliar perspective, to claim that that receiving Holy Communion from an SSPX priest means automatic excommunication.

Yes, you are correct. Even conciliar apologists have no grounds to affirm that an SSPX priest cannot offer valid and licit Eucharist.

As a last comment, in order to sin or commit sacrilege there must be knowledge and intention. The time and care that I have devoted to ensure that I would not offend our Lord, sin or commit sacrilege should vouch for my soul's safety and my intellectual integrity. What I fear is that these studies are distancing me more and more from our Holy Father and this hurts me immensely as my family has had special and formal ties with the Church's hierarchy for many generations. The only thing that comforts my prayers is that I am acting in good faith and with pure intentions.
Jaynek, thank you. You have been instrumental in helping me and I owe you a huge debt of gratitude. I will pray for you, please pray for me.

Tommaso

Tommaso,

I hesitate to offer my advice on the issue of where to attend Mass, since you've already received many good replies on the subject, and it can be confusing to have differing opinions.

Meg,
Do not hesitate. The more replies, the better. I like to create my own opinion after listening to as many different perspectives as possible. Yes, it is confusing, but I always welcome the additonal informatoin.

Have you tried praying about the issue?

Yes! Hours and hours. Tears and tears.

My personal opinion is that it's fine to attend either an SSPX TLM, or a diocesan TLM. I attend both, but there was a time when I was worried about it, as you do. Resistance Masses are good, but they are few and far between.

There's a serious Crisis in the Church. God doesn't expect us to know everything regarding the Crisis. Do what seems right, and realize that you may never really know for certain about what Mass is best to attend. It's okay to be confused, and to just do our best.

Thank you, Meg. Jaynek and others have provided me intellectual and docuмental instruments to conclude that receiving Eucharist from SSPX is not a sin or a sacrilege.

I still harbour a small doubt, in my heart, as I fear God. In Italy, when I was a child, one used to say: "He is fearful of God" meaning that a person was a good character. Today this is no longer a compliment, but I still believe in hell and I am still scared of God's wrath. I still talk to him with a mixture of fear, love and confidence that if I get in trouble, he will help me. But this confidence that he will support me, still cannot bring me to see God as a friend with whom I can have a pal to pal chat, as many suggest that I should do.

It is strange, but I would like my daughter to see me with the same mix: respect (perhaps not fear), love and certainty that I will always support and forgive her.

Jaynek provided me a link where it states: "... Indeed deliberate and notable irreverence towards the Holy Eucharist ...". My irreverence would not be deliberate as I am doing all in power to ensure that I am not irreverent. So, in the end, your last comment is what sets my heart to rest: I am in good faith and the Lord will recognize this pure intention and absolve me of my sin, if sin it is.

The question of state of necessity does not affect the validity of the Mass.  In practice, a conclusion that there is a state of necessity satisfies ones conscience that there is justification to attend the SSPX in spite of the lack of permission.  Normally it is wrong to attend an unauthorized Mass.  But you do not need to worry about whether it is valid.

Ah, but according to the New Code of Canon Law one may assist at and even fulfill one's obligation at any VALID Mass ... if there's a (vague) "just" cause to attend.  So if I state that the Tridentine Mass at an SSPX chapel is more edifying and therefore conducive to my spiritual welfare, I can apply Canon Law to assist at it.

Ah, but according to the New Code of Canon Law one may assist at and even fulfill one's obligation at any VALID Mass ... if there's a (vague) "just" cause to attend.  So if I state that the Tridentine Mass at an SSPX chapel is more edifying and therefore conducive to my spiritual welfare, I can apply Canon Law to assist at it.

Ladislaus, thank you for helping us, here. I appreciate it.

The challenge lies in the fact that this thread discusses ICK Mass and, in relation to that, I harbour doubts about the alternative SSPX Mass. Following your argument I would not be justified to seek SSPX Mass if Tridentine liturgy were the motive, as ICK Mass is available in my city.

One member suggested that I attend ICK Mass and Eucharist instead of NO or SSPX since I am worried that I sin if I do one thing (SSPX Mass/Eucharist) and sin if I do the opposite (conciliar N.O. Mass/Eucharist).
I have found conviction that SSPX Mass is both valid and legitimate while I found conviction that SSPX Eucharist is only valid and I still harbour some doubts as it its legitimacy.

Ladislaus, thank you for helping us, here. I appreciate it.

The challenge lies in the fact that this thread discusses ICK Mass and, in relation to that, I harbour doubts about the alternative SSPX Mass. Following your argument I would not be justified to seek SSPX Mass if Tridentine liturgy were the motive, as ICK Mass is available in my city.

Consider that it is an indisputable fact that if it weren't for the SSPX, there would not be an ICK at all. You do not know the history involved here but many of us who tell you to stay away from all things NO do.

The reality of the situation is that the ICK is the alternative Mass, not the SSPX. The ICK mass is the NO's alternative to the new "mass" - they refer to it as  the "extraordinary form of mass." As far as Rome is concerned, they would rejoice if ICK and the other indults were to completely die off. So don't worry about what the conciliar church says.

Consider that it is an indisputable fact that if it weren't for the SSPX, there would not be an ICK at all. You do not know the history involved here but many of us who tell you to stay away from all things NO do.

I have studied the ICKSS case and I agree on this point, 100%. Similarly other societies too, owe their existence to Card Lefebvre.

The reality of the situation is that the ICK is the alternative Mass, not the SSPX. The ICK mass is the NO's alternative to the new "mass" - they refer to it as  the "extraordinary form of mass." As far as Rome is concerned, they would rejoice if ICK and the other indults were to completely die off. So don't worry about what the conciliar church says.

I agree also about this.

But these truths do not address this concern to Ladislaus' recommendation: "The challenge lies in the fact that this thread discusses ICK Mass and, in relation to that, I harbour doubts about the alternative SSPX Mass. Following your argument I would not be justified to seek SSPX Mass if Tridentine liturgy were the motive, as ICK Mass is available in my city."

Jaynek, thank you for correcting me re 1323/4.

I truly appreciate your time and determination to help me and not to let go. I understand that I am very meticulous and annoying so I appreciate your help doubly.

I wish i could express my gratitude more tangibly; your time is greatly progressing my studies and convictions to the point that my NO priests insists that I must absolutely stop communicating on this forum which, to me is a good indication that I am on the right road and should continue! :P

I cited canon 1323 but you are looking at 1324.  Canon 1323 discusses not being liable to a penalty at all, while 1324 is about liability being diminished.  Both consider the question of state of necessity.  In 1323, one is not liable at all if there is actually a state of necessity or one thinks through no fault of one's own that such necessity exists.  In 1324, liability is diminished if one culpably holds a mistaken belief that there is a state of necessity.

You are correct (of course), canon 1323 does remove liability alltogether. You refer to comma 2/a, correct? It states that: "a person who, without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;"

In other words:
i. negligent: I would not be negligent because I am making every reasonable effort to determine truth in order to follow the Church (*), by investing days and hours in non prejudiced studies. In other words I am not constructing an artificial justification to pursue what I feel is right and I am truly prepared to accept wherever my quest for truth leads me.
ii. error: If I make a mistake the second phrase "error is equivalent to ignorance" comes into effect.

At the end of my quest whatever I determine I should, therefore, not be liable to canonic penalties.

You have removed my last earthly restraint.


Now the only remaining restraint would be sin itself which, from our previous conversations, I understand that I should not be incurring into, because in order to sin, one must have knowledge that that action is a sin.



(*) here, in good faith I determine that the Church is not legitimately or correctly governed and, therefore, the decision to withhold jurisdiction from the SSPX is not licit. But this generates another doubt... can a faithful usurp the decision/ruling that should rest ptoper only with an Ecclesiastical court? Is it not pride to substitute oneself because one's opinions contradict that of the church? Sorry for this never ending chain of questoins...

If it would help to consider some arguments applying these canons, this comes up often in discussions of the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre. This was done on the grounds that he ordained bishops without permission.  He, however, believed that it was necessary.  This raises the questions of whether he was correct or mistaken and, if mistaken, whether he was culpable for the mistake.  According to these canons, even if he were culpably mistaken, the penalty should have been reduced.  Therefore the excommunicaton was unjust, perhaps invalid.  (Personally, I think his belief that it was necessary was justified.)  Anyhow, if exploring  this would shed some light, I can probably find some articles for you.

Thank you for offering but I have red lots about how the Secretary of State usurped the right to decide if to accept or refuse Card Lefebvre appeal to the Ecclesiastic Supreme Court (I forgot its name) which appeal was, therefore, never heard and/or ruled on.

I admit that I agree with you. There were no grounds for excommunication in the first place but, even if there had been, then canon 1323 would have removed the penalty.

It may comfort you to know that I spent years attending SSPX celebrated Masses before I reached the conclusion that it would be OK to receive the Eucharist at them.  I can understand why you find this difficult.

How long did you wait and what did you do inbetween? No Eucharist? No Confession? Only Mass?


-----------------------------------

This brings into light a new topic, the martyrs... Canon 1323 #4 suggests that martyrs could have saved themselves without incurring in canonic liability. Would this assumption be correct?