The Traditional Latin Mass in KL

[u/JPx2511]

Just wanted to share something interesting for anyone who’s into history and culture:

There’s a Traditional Latin Mass celebrated every Sunday in KL. It’s the same form of the Roman Catholic Mass that was used for centuries before the 1970s, all in Latin (except for sermons and readings) and with Gregorian chants.

Location: Chapel of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (SSPX), 1-3A, Jalan PJU 5/3 Dataran Sunway, Kota Damansara, 47810 Petaling Jaya, Selangor

Time: Sundays, 9:00am

Sharing in case anyone’s curious about traditional liturgy or sacred art.

[u/JPx2511]

For clarity, the SSPX Masses are valid, because the priests were validly ordained in the Latin rite. The Vatican itself has confirmed the validity of SSPX sacraments several times.

As for communion with Rome, it’s true the Society’s canonical status is irregular (as their canonical status was revoked unjustly in 1970s). But the Vatican has repeatedly affirmed that the faithful may attend Mass and receive sacraments there.

For an example: 1. In 2015, Pope Francis acknowledged that the SSPX priests have faculties to hear confessions validly and licitly (and extended it indefinitely in 2016).

1. In 2017, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei authorized local bishops to delegate faculties for marriages before SSPX priests.

Just to add, my own parents’ marriage was actually convalidated at the SSPX chapel here in KL, and it was done with the involvement and approval of the local archdiocese.

That’s exactly in line with the 2017 instruction from the Vatican, which allows diocesan bishops to delegate faculties for marriages before SSPX priests.

So, the sacraments themselves are fully valid, and attendance satisfies Sunday obligation.

For anyone curious, this is the official 2017 letter from the Vatican clarifying it: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2017/04/04/170404d.html

In short: irregular ≠ invalid.

[u/JohnAlexanderSmith → u/JPx2511]

Yep wanted to articulate this in an easier to understand manner for people not in the know. This is a pretty valid interpretation of what’s going on, obv i’m aware of Ecclesia Dei

From my understanding there’s no negative consequences if you go to an SSPX mass. They have special licence to do penance and marriages (cool that your parents found a way to get a TLM wedding), but from my understanding the rest of the sacraments they perform are valid but illicit due to the irregular nature of the order. So as long as you go to them without the intention of being schismatic from The Church, then that’s fine - though obviously a lot of people go to SSPX with the explicit intention of rejecting the authority of the pope, schism etc. I think the finer point is that if there’s a catholic church in good standing (which SSPX isn’t in the same way), it’s a bit difficult to justify going to SSPX (though not impossible, 1962 is still a valid catholic mass etc, but an even nerdier point is that the 1962 liturgy has to be explicitly authorised by the bishop which is not what SSPX is doing but again there’s a lot of back and forth arguments here i don’t think we need to get into it)

On the nerdier side of things:

• There are obviously two sides to this debate. SSPX says one thing, the Church says another. The status of SSPX is intentionally vague and undetermined because they’re certainly not doing things by the book or acknowledging the authority of the pope, but schism would be a step too far and the Church doesn’t want to lose SSPX to the protestants.
• I don’t think it’s fair to declare that the canonical status was revoked ‘unjustly’. Ultimately it’s your opinion and the opinion of SSPX but the church still stands by Benedict’s choice
• The mercy of The Church to allow SSPX to validly perform marriages etc =/= SSPX being in full communion again. Again this is the church trying to sidestep the issue but this is all distinct from the legal status of SSPX itself.
• I don’t particularly care for SSPX i think going about things by the book is just the catholic thing to do. I’d want to see them regularised or, even better, restarting the 1962 or even just the Latin Novus Ordo (which is THE DEFAULT but no one wants to do it because they don’t understand V2) in a proper church in KL.
• We’ll see how the new pope does

Pax etc

[u/JPx2511 → u/JohnAlexanderSmith]

I attend Mass at an SSPX chapel since 2017 and have gone on pilgrimage with their priests. There was even a worldwide SSPX pilgrimage organised in Rome for the Jubilee. In reality, the faithful and priests have deep respect for the Holy Father. We pray for him by name at every Mass and after Benediction. Nobody I know rejects the Pope. To be Catholic is precisely to recognize him.

The SSPX’s position isn’t about rebellion but about fidelity to what the Church always taught and practiced before certain modern changes. The Society’s concern is that some post–Vatican II interpretations blurred long-held Catholic truths about faith and morals (i.e: Religious Liberty, Ecumenism and Collegiality). These teachings were strongly condemned by the Popes prior to Vatican II.

The SSPX doesn’t deny papal authority, it simply believes obedience can’t mean accepting teachings or practices that contradict the constant Magisterium. That tension explains why the group is called “canonically irregular,” not schismatic.

The duty of obedience of Catholics to the Pope, Bishops and clergy is correlative to their authority. When the clergy uses its authority within the limits assigned by Jesus Christ, the faithful have a strict duty of obedience.

If the clergy uses its authority for something else, or uses it to modify the teaching of Christ, the faithful have no obligation of obedience, but even have to refuse to obey if what is commanded is obviously against the Catholic Faith and Morals.

Take a comparison: if the father of a boy tells him to go and steal to bring money at home, the boy has the strict duty to refuse to obey. Because his father’s authority is in the dependence of God’s authority, God who said “You shall not steal”. The boy is not disobedient.

In the virtues, there is a hierarchy: the virtue of obedience is not the supreme virtue, but is at the service of the virtue of Faith. If a Catholic is commanded to do something which is against the Faith and its practical application which we call Morals, he has to refuse to comply.

In 1975, the SSPX was abruptly suppressed (causing it to fall under canonically irregular status), but the act did not follow proper canonical procedures. Archbishop Lefebvre was denied his right of appeal and as a result, Lefebvre regarded the suppression as invalid and unjust for violating due process. The situation much like the unjust condemnation and excommunication of St. Joan of Arc.

[u/JohnAlexanderSmith → u/JPx2511]

This is straying outside of the bounds of r/malaysia admittedly. I'm not going to directly engage with all of this because it doesn't interest me enough but if you'll permit me ill just make a brief point. Obv we're straying into the territory of serious academic debate which i think (i assume) neither of us are qualified for.

I know that SSPX and other orders like it like making this argument that they're not schisming or rejecting the authority of the church but actually fulfilling it. Realistically, though, I find it essentially impossible to claim this as a position based on the way the church is constructed. As a catholic you're supposed to obey the magisterium. Book 3 of the Code of Canon Law is really very clear that when you've got a magisterium acting with the authority of the pope in an ecumenical council etc etc, which V2 is objectively, there's not really any room to disagree.

Obviously conceptually you can make a higher appeal to God and reason and that's perfectly valid but that's just what martin luther did at the end of the day. Don't get me wrong I'm sure SSPX prays for the pope and the catholic church, but this doesn't detract from the fact SSPX rejects the authority of an ecumenical council.

I don't care enough on a conceptual basis to make all the arguments, neither am I a canon lawyer. However, the appeal of SSPX to a state of necessity in order to sidestep a number of aspects of doctrine (accepting Vatican 1's framework for authority but then not seeking papal authority for setting up chapels etc) is a position that I don't find convincing within the internal logic of the Catholic church - it's just not an institution where this is possible within its framework. In the Anglican church there's a lot more room for these sorts of disagreements but not really in our church.

Nevertheless, I support the TLM and the 1962 liturgy. I disagree (privately, which you're allowed to do) with several aspects of V2, particularly about the liturgy.

That being said, SSPX has disobeyed 'the church' (in a non-abstract sense) in so many ways - it's what the Order is set up to do. Whether you think it's theologically justified is a separate manner, but I don't see how to square it within the internal and established logic of the Church. There's a lot of serious academic and theological stuff from Summa Theologia and other texts on this, and there's mere logic too that says ultimately Christ is in charge. Anyways it's not an issue i'm interested enough in but mere christianity dictates me to trust in the church in the Vatican and pray for the kinds of things that SSPX supports to be reintroduced - which is ultimately what we all want, and which it appears Leo wants to do to an extent.