Catholics, the SSPX, the Sacraments & AND THE SUNDAY OBLIGATION

On January 11th, 2000, I sent a letter to Fr. Peter Scott, District Superior of the United States for the Society of St. Pius the Tenth concerning a letter he wrote to his priests in March of 1999.   I asked him if, indeed, he actually wrote that letter and also asked that he respond by 2/1/2000.  That date has now come and gone.  Do I have to tell you the response I received?  You're correct.  As usual, none.  I had told him I would have to assume the letter was genuine if I did not hear from him to the contrary by the date above.  WPG

In March of 1999, Fr. Peter Scott, the Society of St. Pius the Tenth Superior for the United States District, had to issue a letter to bring all of his priests into line with party thinking with respect to the various types of people who patronize Society missions, chapels and churches.

It seems that besides turning out priests poorly trained in theology, the Society cannot even get its story straight as to how its priests should handled various "types" of Catholics.

We are told that a Society patron wrote a letter to Fr. Scott and complained that when he asked Society priests whether or not one could attend the Indult Masses, he was given three different answers.  Fr. Scott admits that the Society's priests are giving their patrons differing messages on what to believe when he says that   "...we cannot expect the faithful to take us seriously when we oppose one another in front of the faithful on matters of prudence, but especially when it concerns moral or theological questions..."

Fr. Scott told his priests that the Indult Mass is, indeed, valid and admitted that it satisfies the Sunday Obligation "according to the letter of the law."

As flip-flopping is a specialty of the Society, Fr. Scott then tells his priests that Catholics "should firmly and positively be told that they do not have the right to attend Indult Masses, even if they have no other way of satisfying their Sunday obligation."   Here Fr. Scott directly contradicts Rome.

So Fr. Scott has again usurped the authority of the Catholic Church.   As he just can't seem to take the final step and formally leave the Church, so he has to admit that the Indult is valid for all Catholics.  But that doesn't stop him from assuming the authority of the Holy Father and declaring that the Indult is invalid for Catholics because the Society doesn't like it.  In a schismatic act he contravenes legitimate authority and assumes a jurisdiction not his to assume, and decides what the laws will be which govern Catholics.

He goes on to say that by attending Indult Masses it is thereby "an admission of the legitimacy and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Mass..."   Yet, Fr. Scott did this himself on October 18th, 1992, at the Society's Chicago mission, Our Lady Immaculate, when he told those present that if they didn't like the way the Society was doing things, they should leave.  The Society had no problem with any of us attending the Novus Ordo or the Indult Masses as they were both legitimate means of satisfying our Sunday Obligation.  Now what person in his right mind would not consider Scott's words as sheer hypocrisy?

Fr. Scott, assuming he knows better than legitmate Church authorities calls the Indult Masses "a danger for the faith" and "the work of destruction of Catholic Tradition" which opinion, of course, is suspect given his Protestant background.

He then goes on to tell his readers that those who attend Indult Masses do so because it "means that they do not yet have strong convictions" and that, as such, "they should not be given any positions of responsibility in our chapels."  And, to make sure that no one tries to defend the legitimacy of the Indult Masses, Fr. Scott says that "no person should be allowed to distribute literature in favor of the Indult Mass at our chapels."

We also learn from Fr. Scott that people who attend Mass with the Society and also attend the Indult Masses are apparently viewed as sinners by some and may have suffered some sort of ostracizing at the hands of some Society priests.  Otherwise why would Scott tell his priests that these people "are not to be treated as sinners, or penalized." 

We also find Fr. Scott defending schismatics and sede vacantists and their independent status from Rome, especially ordinations and episcopal consecrations of those of the Thuc line, when Scott says that he is "Putting aside the question of the validity of Thuc line ordinations" of "certainly ordained sedevacantist priests..."

What this apparently means is that he is accepting their independence from Rome as legitimate as he says that "it seems difficult to maintain that they are in formal schism..."  He tells his priests, in this letter, that it is okay for Catholics to attend Masses of these individuals because "Their Masses satisfy the Sunday obligation..." when in fact they do not.

But the Society and Fr. Scott have to defend these Masses as legitimate for Catholics to attend, for if not, then neither is it legitimate for Catholics to attend any Society Masses.

In truth, the ordinary means for Catholics to fulfill their Sunday Mass obligation is through attendance at locations approved by Rome and none other.  This was clearly indicated when the Commission Ecclesia Dei said "The Masses the SSPX celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing. (Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2)   The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called 'Tridentine' Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses." 

In case anyone needs a clarification, "morally illicit" means the same as "sinful."  See "Can. 844 §2 -- Can a Catholic Approach a SSPX Priest for the Sacraments?" immediately below.

What is clear from this is that a Catholic who participates in Society Masses not only commits a sin, but, he does not fulfill his Sunday  obligation; i.e., the obligation cannot be fulfilled with a group which is out of communion with Rome.   As in the case of the Orthodox churches, for instance, if a Catholic cannot attend Mass at a Catholic Church, he is then not bound to go to Mass; his obligation is suspended in this instance.  In any event, the Church says that when a Catholic is in a doubtful situation, his duty is to leave it which definitely applies to the SSPX.

Can. 844 §2 -- Can a Catholic Approach a SSPX Priest for the Sacraments?
by Pete Vere

As a canonist involved within the Traditionalist Movement, I am often asked whether or not a Catholic in good standing with the Church can lawfully approach a priest or bishop of the SSPX for sacraments.  Most often, I am posed this question in reference to Can. 844 §2 which states as follows:

    Can. 844 §2 - Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

One notices that the word "Church" in the above canon is capitalized.  The canon does not say that Catholics may receive the aforementioned sacraments from "non-Catholic ministers in whose *churches* these sacraments are valid."  In interpreting this canon, it is important that we keep in mind the following legal norms outlined in the First Book of the Code of Canon Law:

    Can. 16 §1  Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.

This means that the canons contained within the code are legitimately interpreted by the Holy Father (and his successors) who legislated the Code, as well as those whom he has delegated to interpret the Code.  Secondly, we must keep in mind the following:

    Can. 17  Ecclesiastical laws are to be understood according to the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context.  If the meaning remains doubtful or obscure, there must be recourse to parallel places, if  there be any, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

This means that the canons must be understood according to both the text and the context in which they find themselves.  In cases of doubt, one should seek references elsewhere as to what was the purpose of the law, and the mind of the legislator in passing the law.  In the case of the present Code, the legislator is the Holy Father.

Now if we apply these general norms to Can. 844 §2, we see that the intention of the legislator, within the context of the canon, is to permit Catholics under certain circumstance to receive the the sacraments from non-Catholic ministers of Churches in which the sacraments are valid.  This is not a permission to receive the sacraments from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches the sacraments are valid.   The difference being that the sacraments must be valid owing to the denominational Church to which the non-Catholic minister belongs, and not merely from the validity of the minister's ordination.  For example, one could not receive the sacraments from a priest validly ordained within the Catholic Church who later defected from the Catholic Faith and now ministers within the Episcopalian ecclesial communion.  Nor could one approach a validly-ordained non-Catholic minister who ministers the sacraments independently of the jurisdiction of a Church in which these sacraments are valid.

With this in mind, we must look at parallel laws to see what the legislator means by the term "Church" when granting permission under Can. 844 §2 to receive the sacraments from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches they are valid.  The most important document that clarifies the mind and intention of the legislator is the Pontifical Commission for the Promotion of Christian Unity's "1993 Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Eceumenism." (aka Eceumenical Directory).  Within the Eceumenical Directory, we find parallel laws contained within the following four norms which clarify the intention of the legislator with regards to Can. 844 §2:

123.  Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for any Catholic for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick from a minister of an Eastern Church.

As we can see from the above norm, Catholics may enjoy the full benefit of Can. 844 §2 when approaching a minister of a non-Catholic Eastern Church in which the sacraments are valid, in order to receive the sacraments.

However, this norm does not apply when approaching the minister of a non-Catholic Western Church in which the sacraments are valid.  Rather, this situation is covered under norm 132 of the Eceumenical Directory which are much stricter.   This norm states as follows:

    132.  On the basis of the Catholic doctrine concerning the sacraments and their validity, a Catholic who finds himself or herself in the circumstances mentioned above (nn. 130 and 131) may ask for these sacraments only from a minister in whose Church these sacraments are valid or from one who is known to be validly ordained according to the Catholic teaching on ordination.

Thus, before a Catholic may legally approach a non-Catholic minister within a Western Church in which the sacraments are valid, he must meet the further requirements of certain circumstances defined in nn. 130 and 131 of the Eceumenical Directory.  These circumstances are danger of death or permission of the local ordinary in accordance with local or regional legislation (n. 130), and/or the person be unable to have recourse for the sacrament desired to a minister of his or the Catholic Church (n. 131).  Because the norm specifies Church in the universal sense, and not Church *sui iuris* (i.e., Latin Catholic Church, Ukrainian Catholic Church, Melkite Catholic Church) this norm cannot be interpreted in the sense that the Catholic is unable to approach a Catholic priest of his own liturgical rite.

With regards to the SSPX, this prohibition has been confirmed first by the Pontifical Commission ECCLESIA DEI in protocol N. 117/95 as follows:

2. The Masses [the SSPX] celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2).   The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called "Tridentine" Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

Hence, we see that the Ecclesia Dei Commission, to whom has been delegated the power of authentic interpretation of Can. 844 §2 in this instance, does not consider the lack of opportunity to assist at a Tridentine Mass sufficient cause to receive the sacraments from a Lefebvrite cleric.  Thus in light of Canons. 16-17, as well as the Norms 130-132 of the Eceumenical Directory, one cannot invoke Can. 844 §2 in order to receive the sacraments from a Lefebvrite priest simply because a Tridentine Mass is lacking.

Furthermore, as the SSPX claim no jurisdiction, the Catholic Church is not certain at the present whether the SSPX constistutes a Church like the Eastern Orthodox or the Polish National Catholic Church, or whether the SSPX is simply a loose federation of acephalous (independent) priests and episcopal vagantes (wandering bishops) like the Old Catholic Movement in North America.  Thus where to classify the SSPX schism at the moment represents an internal dilemna for the Church, as noted by the Pontifical Commission for the Propagation of Christian Unity in Protocol Number 2336/94 as follows:

Regarding your inquiry, I would point out at once that the Directory on Ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of Saint Pius X.  The situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church.  The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory.

As well as the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota in the following nullity of marriage case in which a couple attempted to marry before an SSPX priest:

We are dealing with a priest belonging in virtue of ordination to the Society of St. Pius X, which lacked the necessary canonical legitimacy in the Church at the time of the celebration of the marriage... he was like an acephalous or transient or "freelance" priest, and consequently, did not seek from anyone the faculty to assist at the marriage.  [*coram* Antoni STANKIEWICZ, 15 December 1992, trans in Studia Canonica, Vol. 29/2 (1995).]

Hence, until the Catholic Church can resolve this internal dilemna upon how to properly classify the SSPX schism, the Holy See has prudently chosen not to classify the SSPX as a Church.  Therefore, one cannot invoke Can. 844 §2 or the conditions of the Eceumenical Directory in order to receive the sacraments from SSPX ministers -- as in accordance with the mind of the legislator, it is not certain that the SSPX constitute a Church.  Hence as the law must be understood according to the interpretation of the legislator, and as the interpretation of the legislator is not favourable to Catholics receiving the sacraments from Lefebvrite non-Catholic ministers except in danger of death or where one is physically or morally impeded from approaching a Catholic minister of any liturgical rite, Catholics are not legally permitted to receive the sacraments from the SSPX.

(Copyright 1999 Peter J. Vere)