I can't find any formal statement from the Church saying it's OK to attend Mass offered by an SSPX priest although I have found references to that effect from people who are likely to know the current situation. For example, here's Tim Staples from Catholic Answers saying that permission has been given for those who love the Latin Mass to attend SSPX parishes: https://www.catholic.com/video/is-an-sspx-mass-valid-for-our-sunday-obligation I can't find a date for the CA article but the embedded video was uploaded to YouTube in January 2018. He seems to be putting it in the context of situations where the TLM is unavailable or very difficult to get to in a parish with full canonical status. That seems to fit with what I read on the Canon Law Made easy website. Tim Staples doesn't strike me as the type of person who would make such a statement without checking his facts. It's very confusing for the average Catholic.
I agree it’s confusing. But I have a definite aversion to borrowing trouble with the SSPX, so I have chosen to wait on the Lord. The SSPX itself does not have full canonical status. I feel as though I have one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel. So I’m not making any leaps.
It is true, the SSPX does not have full canonical status. That said, the CA article is also correct, the Vatican has given permission to the faithful to receive sacraments from the SSPX. https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2020/04/23/attend-sspx-church-parish-closed/
We are certainly living in confusing times. Whatever I am posting here is only my view as a layman. I am often unsure, we live in times of diabolical disorientation.
Yes, there is more Scripture in the NO but Fr. Ripperger pointed out that education/edification of the laity is secondary to worship of God. I know from personal experience that it is possible for person to hear Mass in the vernacular where every syllable is understandable yet not recall a single word of the readings within a few minutes of leaving the church. Maybe that's just me. Thanks be to God, those days are behind me and I hope that any forgetfulness in the future will be down to the effects of age rather than lack of reverence. I think it would be hard to refute the claim that one of the worst effects of the NO has been shifting the focus from God to the people at Mass. Maybe it would have been better had the priests not been permitted to face the people rather than liturgical East. Everything these days seems to be about pleasing the people - even down to choirs or individual singers facing the pews rather than the altar. I suppose that's what happens when Mass is just a celebratory meal. We end up celebrating ourselves.
Ditto to the one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. We're living in precarious times. That Bishop Bonney in Belgium can declare that he is ashamed of the Church for not celebrating homosexual unions and remain a Bishop is a red light for me. While not as blatant as the Belgian or German Bishops, my own Archbishop has made some strange statements on that topic and on the question of ordaining women. Between that and the Government making it a criminal offence for a priest to hear Confession or celebrate a public Mass, I want to make sure that I'm not left bereft of the Sacraments if things get really bad within the next few years. Faithful priests may be hard to find. They will also need to be extra careful, which could mean that only people familiar to them will know the details of when and where the Sacraments are available. Fr. "We must follow the advice of medical scientists" doesn't fill me with confidence that he will take any risks if the going gets tough. Priests offering the TLM despite being labelled reactionary fanatics might be less likely to crumble under pressure. I'm doing my homework now.
That's the article I was referring to in my previous post. Thanks for linking it. Here's another very interesting piece from that website "The Virus and the Bishops: Twisting a Vatican Document to Further an Agenda".https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2020/11/12/virus-bishops-twisting-vatican-documents-further-agenda/ It brought to mind the situation here in Ireland. I'm reluctant to criticise the Bishops because they are in an awkward situation where many of the laity and possibly more than a few priests seem to have more faith in politicians and "scientists" than in God. The Bishops are between a rock and a hard place, but I do think there could have been a better effort made to, for instance, make Holy Communion and Confession available to the faithful. It's ridiculous that I can walk into McDonalds and come out with a burger and chips but can't walk into my parish church and receive Communion.
What would I do? It's far easier to wax courageously on a forum. When push comes to shove... Hmmm! How many of us are willing to disobey an unjust law and suffer the consequences. When the financial burden or unsavory consequences are deemed painful, would I be willing to say to my wife, "Sorry, my love, I'll see you on the other end of my jail sentence. And on top of that tighten up the budget because I don't know if the Church will keep my chaplaincy position waiting for me." Safe Under Mary's Mantle!
https://gript.ie/top-tcd-law-professor-says-catholic-confession-is-illegal-under-new-lockdown-rules/ Top TCD Law Professor says Catholic confession is illegal under new lockdown rules Posted by Ben Scallan | Apr 20, 2021 | Irish News Professor Oran Doyle from the Covid-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory at Trinity College has said that under the government’s new covid-19 lockdown rules, attending Catholic confession, even socially-distanced outdoors, is now a criminal offence. Speaking during an interview on RTÉ Radio 1 this week, Professor Doyle was asked if even outdoor religious events had been made illegal. “Yes, that is correct,” he said. “So it’s this new provision applied to both indoor and outdoor events, and that’s where it is different from the restrictions on other events. So, for example, if a priest were to do the sacrament of confession with one parishioner outside, socially-distanced, that would be a criminal offence. But if the priest were to meet the parishioner for a chat, that wouldn’t be a criminal offence, because that’s dealt with under the other regulations.” At this point, Professor Doyle was asked if, in the eyes of the law, the criminal offence was committed by the person organising the confession – i.e. the priest – or the person attending the confession. “The offence is attending,” he replied. “So the offence is committed by somebody who attends, not by somebody who organises. Although of course an organiser might also be attending the event,” he added. “What’s changed is really the legal treatment. Apart from the first lockdown last April or May, into the start of June 2020, there hasn’t been a legal prohibition on religious services. The government has talked in terms of levels, but really those levels aren’t always backed up by law. “In the case of religious services in general – there are different rules for funerals, but in general – there was no legal prohibition. So this is the first time that a clear legal prohibition on religious services has been put in place since the first lockdown.” It was put to Doyle that Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly said over the weekend that the ban was a blanket ban on indoor gatherings, and not specifically singling out religious services. “Well that can’t be correct,” replied Doyle, “because previously in the legislation there was a clear ban on any event in your household, and there was also a ban on what they described as “relevant events”, which in the law has a very clear definition as events for social recreational purposes. Things like that. So most types of events were already banned, but religious events weren’t. And they seem to be the most obvious thing that has been caught by this change in the law last week.” Asked whether the change in the law could effectively be challenged on constitutional grounds, Doyle said it was “possible”, but “unlikely.” “There’s always the possibility of challenge. We’ve seen some other countries where courts have intervened. So it’s possible that the Irish courts could intervene. “My own instinct is that probably for as long as broadly similar events are treated in the same way, it’s unlikely that there would be a successful challenge. But already there are small differences opening up, like the treatment of outdoor events that I mentioned earlier. So if we see things like easing of restrictions in other areas ahead of easing of restrictions in relation to religious services, then the possibility for a successful challenge becomes stronger.”
I think eventually not to refuse to cooperate with evil laws becomes sinful and makes s part of the evil itself. At the Nuremberg War Trials the key defense of the Nazi Accused was that they were, 'Only following orders'. This was rejected by the Court on the grounds that we each of s had an individual rather than a collective responsibility to do what is right. This is very much a Christian understanding of Moral responsibility. At the time of King Henry viii only one single Bishop in the whole of England and Wales St Cardinal John Fisher stood up and refused to recognise Henry as Head of the Church rather than the Pope . St John Fisher himself admitted that being a very old man with a lot less to loose made it a lot easier for him. I think the main danger is that when you consent to evil once, maybe in quite a small thing then it makes it harder to refuse when they come back to ask for consent to a greater evil. They will just keep coming back and asking more and more and more evils. Masks are one of these things. I used to go along with them because I thought to myself, 'What the heck, its only a small thing! Who cares?' But after a while I saw that the mask itself was only a symbol of compliance. It was an open symbol that I was going along with the whole deal. Kind of like the rings that slaves used to wear around their necks as a mark of their enslavement. I can only say that I have been a lot happier since dumping mine. I still wear it in the hospital when I really have to do, but even then I try to severely limit their use. This is not so bad since we have always had to wear mask in hospitals in certain clinical environments, sch as ICU's. I must admit I was expecting a great howling and abuse thing from people when stopped wearing my mask, but apart from a few dirty looks and matters, really nothing. We can't all be like St John Fisher of St Thomas Moore but we can at least do little things. The reason why Cardinals wear Scarlet is to show their aptness to shed their blood for the Faith. The reason why Bishops carry Croziers is to protect, as Shepherds their flocks from the wolves. Let us all summon up our courage and at least do the little that we can face so that at least when we come before the Throne of God for Judgement on or behavior during these Dark Days, they will not be totally empty. That we have fought back at least a little bit. St Thomas A Becket is another very good example of someone who was prepared to risk doing a little bit in the face of evil and Power.
Not all of us are called to show great courage and great deeds in these terrible times. But if we called to do small things that show small courage, well then at least may we do or those small things well. To whom much is given, much will be required (Luke 12:48)
Good words, Padraig. We must realize, however, that the more we clear away the cobwebs of deception, the more accountable we become. Stand fast for persecution will only deepen. Safe in the Refuge of the Immaculate Heart!
You are honest and that is rare. Talk is cheap I fear. I don't dare to say I will do anything because I don't trust myself. I do trust the grace of God to be given in the moment its needed. When I was young I was bold and I put my money where my mouth was but somewhere along the way I got old and tired and cowardly.
I must take time, Terry to go back to the Fathers of the Church and read up on how the Early Christians handled all this. Also to take a look at how Modern Christians are dealing with it and have dealt with it.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/20/corrupt-chicago-archbishop-to-college-kids-dont-go-to-mass/ Corrupt Chicago Archbishop To College Kids: Don’t Go To Mass In an email a religious leader wrote to me in February, he said turning people away from Mass to comply with social distancing is 'how we show obedience to our bishop as Catholics.' By Evita Duffy April 20, 2021 University of Chicago students couldn’t attend Mass this weekend because church officials insisted it’s unsafe to worship when 0.6 percent of young people threatened more by flu contracts COVID-19. This was not the result of a directive from the secular UChicago administration. The decision came directly from the archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Blase Joseph Cupich, who ordered the campus church to cancel Mass for students due to the campus COVID “outbreak.” Not only did the bishop cancel Mass for students on campus, but he instructed them not to attend anywhere else. Per Cupich’s directive, Calvert House Chaplain Fr. Andrew Liaugminas and Associate Director of Campus Ministry Matthew Moran agreed to bar students from the Eucharist. Moran wrote the following in an April 16 email to undergrads: “Recognizing that most of our congregation is affiliated with the University, the Archdiocese has asked us to refrain from all in-person liturgies and events while the special measures are in force.” Moran confirmed on the phone that the archdiocese requested students not go to Mass or seek Holy Communion at St. Thomas the Apostle, a nearby open Catholic church. He wrote in his email to students that it would be “risky” and “scandalous for those aware of the [university] restrictions.” Providing the university administration doesn’t extend its amped-up lockdowns, Calvert House is set to resume Mass on Wednesday. Unfortunately, Mass resumption at the campus Catholic Church still isn’t pre-pandemic “business as usual.” Calvert House makes it as difficult as possible for students to attend Mass by forcing them to sign up in advance and imposing strict capacity limits and social distancing. Students are turned away if they fail to sign up for Mass and the chapel is at capacity.
Your Body Is More Important Than Your Soul In an email Moran wrote to me in February, he said turning people away from Mass to comply with social distancing is “how we show obedience to our bishop as Catholics.” But when college-aged individuals have a 99.9 percent COVID survivability rate and are suffering unprecedented rates of depression and suicidal thoughts, canceling Mass based on the whims of the university administration and Chicago public health department is wrong. Church attendance has plummeted at precisely the time people need it most. Submitting to university and government recommendations that are not even based on science sends a callous and cowardly message to one’s flock. To those who live in the Archdiocese of Chicago, Cupich’s lack of courage and evangelical zeal is not the least bit surprising. In a survey that scaled the trustworthiness and orthodoxy of individual U.S. bishops, Cupich was ranked the “worst” U.S. bishop. Since the onset of the pandemic, Cupich has been one of the most compliant bishops in America. He immediately shuttered churches and, when they finally reopened, he made it as difficult as possible for people to attend Mass. A year ago, a group of laity in Chicago formed the “Saint Charles Borromeo Society” to call on Cupich to reopen churches and restore public Mass. “We are desperately in need of spiritual leadership during this pandemic, and that is sorely lacking in the archdiocese of Chicago,” said one of the organizers. Cupich coldly and arrogantly refused to meet with the group. Not only is Cupich collapsing church attendance by voluntarily imposing excessive COVID rules and regulations, but he is permanently closing many historic and beautiful Catholic Chicago Churches with “vibrant communities.” Julie Sawicki, president of the Society of St. Adalbert, a group fighting to preserve St. Adalbert Church in Pilsen, Chicago, recently lambasted Cupich for failing to take care of the faithful in these difficult times: “It is especially disappointing and painful that the Archdiocese of Chicago embarked on a path of closure, liquidation and sale instead of one of renewal and revitalization. Cardinal [Blase] Cupich we ask you please follow canon law, guide the faithful, [and] cater to the faithful, not to investors.” Cupich’s Moral Failures Are Well-Known Cupich has a history of poor leadership and out-of-touch priorities. He has repeatedly made woke statements to the Chicago Catholic community and taken stands on partisan current events. Following the January Capitol riot, Cupich released a strong statement, calling those involved a “national disgrace.” However, on the long summer of Black Lives Matter riots that continue to the present, Cupich remains silent. He also doesn’t have a history of standing up for Catholic teachings. After the inauguration of Joe Biden, Cupich slammed the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for publicly criticizing Biden’s immoral and anti-Catholic positions on abortion, human sexuality, and the family. Cupich shared his own congratulatory statement for the inauguration of the most radically pro-abortion administration in American history, and his letter did not even include a defense of Catholic values. In June 2019, Cupich refused to enforce Canon 915 and withhold the Eucharist from pro-abortion politicians, while chastising priests who do. Given that Cupich scandalously told priests in 2011 not to participate in 40 Days for Life vigils, one has to wonder if he is pro-life at all. In January 2019, Cupich was the keynote speaker at the annual conference for the Association of U.S. Catholic Priests, a dissonant, leftist group of priests who have called for the “open discussion” of women priests.
