54 Answers from Bishop Fellay

[TMC]

Pardon me, but why would a SSPX priest tell a Catholic not to attend a licit EF Mass ? This seems very presumptuous on your part ; I’m sorry if my response was unclear, but the article clearly states that their desire is exaclty to ensure Catholics attend licit, valid EF Masses.

Again, the Bishop’s words are clear, he finds the proliferation of the EF a good thing, he only worries that they be properly celebrated (obviously, that would mean licit).

I would like to think you are right, but that is not how I read the question and answer:

1. What advice do you give to Catholics who, since and thanks to the Motu Proprio, now have a traditional Mass closer to them than a chapel of the Society of St. Pius X?

My advice to them is to ask the priests of the Society for advice first, not to go with their eyes closed to just any traditional Mass that is celebrated nearby. The Mass is a treasure; but there is also a way of saying it, and everything that goes with it: the sermon, the catechesis, the way of administering the sacraments… Not every traditional Mass is necessarily accompanied by the conditions required for it to bear all its fruits and to protect the soul from the dangers of the current crisis. Therefore ask the priests of the Society for advice first.

The question was about EF masses that have become available because of the Motu Proprio - which would be licit EF masses approved by the proper bishop. What other kinds of EF masses would have resulted from the Motu Proprio? Bishop Fellay does not say that people should only go if they are held at a parish in good standing with Rome, or only if approved by the local bishop, etc, he says only go if the SSPX priest approves of it. He says this approval (not the pastor’s approval, not the local ordinary’s approval, not the Pope’s approval) is required to “protect the soul from the dangers of the current crisis” - which must be a reference to a belief that there is something wrong with the Masses being celebrated by non-SSPX Roman Catholic priests today. What else could it mean?

 

[basinite]

This interview was released in 2 parts. This one is obviously the first half. Maybe the OP can provide a link to the 2nd half when it is posted. Assuming, of course, that this thread isn’t locked.

I will.

P.S.

If they do lock this thread just go to Fish Eaters. A similar thread is running on Fish Eaters’ website. Pax.

 

[roadsend]

… To deliberately drive past a church that has a licit EF mass to attend the SSPX chapel, because the SSPX priest adviced you not to go to that particular mass is an act of disobedience on the part of the Catholic. The Catholic does not have the right to make that choice. It would be like attending an Orthodox mass when there is a Catholic mass available…

I believe we have the right under Canon Law to make that choice.

Can. 923 Christ’s faithful may participate in the eucharistic Sacrifice and receive holy communion in any catholic rite (my bolds), without prejudice to the provisions of can. 844.

and

*Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

…
2. Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful 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 non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.
*
Canon Law says i may attend any Catholic rite or even an Orthodox Mass when “genuine spiritual advantage” exists. It doesn’t say licit Catholic rite.

I would be out of luck if it did since the overwhelming majority of diocesan approved Masses I have attended in the past forty plus years have been illicit for one or more of a variety of reasons.
Luckily only a few of these diocesan approved Masses are likely to have been invalid (invalid matter - corn tortilla altar bread) .

 

[JReducation]

I believe we have the right under Canon Law to make that choice.

Can. 923 Christ’s faithful may participate in the eucharistic Sacrifice and receive holy communion in any catholic rite (my bolds), without prejudice to the provisions of can. 844.

and

*Canon 844 (c.671 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches)

…
2. Whenever necessity requires or genuine spiritual advantage suggests, and provided that the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, it is lawful for the faithful 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 non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid.
*
Canon Law says i may attend any Catholic rite or even an Orthodox Mass when “genuine spiritual advantage” exists. It doesn’t say licit Catholic rite.

I would be out of luck if it did since the overwhelming majority of diocesan approved Masses I have attended in the past forty plus years have been illicit for one or more of a variety of reasons.
Luckily only a few of these diocesan approved Masses are likely to have been invalid (invalid matter - corn tortilla altar bread) .

I think that there are two points here that are different, even though they find themselves in the same situation.

Licit: A licit mass is one that is authorized by the proper authority. An Orthodox mass is both valid and licit. Orthodox priests are authorized to celebrate mass.

An action may be ilicit, but it does not make the mass ilicit. The mass continues to be licit. For example, let’s say that the priest decided to change the readings. This is ilicit. He is making changes that he may not make. But the mass is licit, because his permission to celebrate it is not rescinded even though he broke the rules.

Valid: if all the necessary elements are present, the mass is valid. It makes no difference if it’s celebrated by a priest in full communion with the Church, an SSPX priest or an Orthodox priest.

Now we have to move into the question of “necessity and spiritual advantage”. Necessity means that you have no other choice. If the SSPX is the only EF mass and if you derive spiritual advantage from the EF, then it is allowed for you to attend mass at the SSPX chapel. The is made clear in the letter that Msgr Perl wrote in response to a similar question.

unavoce.org/resources/protocol-53999/

If the local diocese has a licit EF mass, there is no canonical necesity to attend an ilicit celebration of the EF.

The difference here is that every mass celebrated by a priest or bishop of the SSPX is illicit, even though it is perfectly executed. It is the mass itself that is illicit, not a particular action such as changing the readings. The mass is illicit, because they are suspended. A suspended priest is not supposed to celebrate the sacraments until the suspension is lifted.

The law would not protect a person who passes up a licit EF mass (authorized by either a bishop or a religious superior) to attend an EF mass that is not authorized by anyone in authority to do so.

As to spiritual benefit, the question here would be what is the spiritual benefit to attending the EF mass celebrated by the SSPX priest and the EF mass celebrated by a Salesian at a local parish? That is where Canon Law may provide a little wiggle room. Spiritual benefit, properly understood means that it stears us away from sin and toward the perfection of charity.

Canon law sets up the criteria for choosing where to go to mass.

1. You can attend any Catholic mass.
2. You can attend mass in an Orthodox church as long there is a need to do so, because the Orthodox mass is both valid and licit. Valid, because they have all the necessary elements. Licit, because they have permission to celebrate mass from their patriarch.
3. You can attend an illicit mass (Catholic or other), if there is a need to do so.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[roadsend]

If I understand your line of thought, a Mass is licit, even if it is effected with numerous illicit actions and accretions.

I have attended Masses that contained heresy in the sermon, and the musical lyrics, as well as theologically sloppy changes to the words of the Mass itself. They also contained a variety of accretions/rituals not in the rubrics.

I sure have trouble accepting these Masses as licit almost to the point of considering my continued presence there as my consent and approval of what is going on.

 

[JReducation]

If I understand your line of thought, a Mass is licit, even if it is effected with numerous illicit, actions and accretions.

I have attended Masses that contained heresy in the sermon, and the musical lyrics, as well as theologically sloppy changes to the words of the Mass itself. They also contained a variety of accretions/rituals not in the rubrics.

I sure have trouble accepting these Masses as licit almost to the point of considering my continued presence there as my consent and approval of what is going on.

Licit means legal. If Father X has permission to celebrate mass, the mass is legal.

If Fr. X changes the readings, has a lay person read the Gospel or some other goofy thing, the action is illegal, not the whole mass.

The whole mass becomes illegal if either A) Father does not have permission to celebrate it or B) the consecration is invalid.

The problem with reading the canons without the notations is that they were intended for an audience that was trained on how to read them. In the 1970s, when they were written, Pope Paul VI assumed that the readers knew certain things. Along came Pope John Paul II in 1978, read them, made a few changes and promulgated them in 1983 under the same assumption. Only students, scholars, bishops and religious superiors of men were going to read them. Even parish priests were not expected to read them. The parish priest simply picked up the telephone and called the chancery or the tribunal with his questions.

Now that the canons are on the internet and the books are much less expensive, so that many people can afford them, not just libraries this created a challenge for the lay reader. To respond to this challenge, the commentaries have been put together. One should always refer to them. The lawyers can tell you what they meant when they wrote the law and point you to what they were referring.

The best commentary that I have is Code of Canon Law: Annotated by the University of Navarre. I have several commentaries, but this is my favorite. Even though the translation is rather terse the notations are very good. The paper back edition is under $60.00.

To better understand this question of licit, valid, jurisdiction, necessity, etc one would do well to read the notations to the code. They define these terms. The code assumes you know exactly what they mean. Therefore, the code will not break down the meaning for us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

If I understand your line of thought, a Mass is licit, even if it is effected with numerous illicit actions and accretions.

I have attended Masses that contained heresy in the sermon, and the musical lyrics, as well as theologically sloppy changes to the words of the Mass itself. They also contained a variety of accretions/rituals not in the rubrics.

I sure have trouble accepting these Masses as licit almost to the point of considering my continued presence there as my consent and approval of what is going on.

We walk by faith and not by sight.

I think we can be so focused on external issues that we forget the underlying spiritual realities. Mass is not about feelings, it is about the Real Presence of Christ. Being Catholic is not about tradition, it is about the universality of the Church in communion with the Holy Father. Seeking what is called here “happy-clappy Kum-Ba-Ya” feelings is no worse and not better than avoiding Christ, or the unity of Catholicism because of disdain for those feelings. When I here people put down a parish because it is all feel good, I can’t help but question whether even this attitude is letting our feelings become too important.

 

[laszlo]

Licit means legal. If Father X has permission to celebrate mass, the mass is legal.

If Fr. X changes the readings, has a lay person read the Gospel or some other goofy thing, the action is illegal, not the whole mass.

The whole mass becomes illegal if either A) Father does not have permission to celebrate it or B) the consecration is invalid.

Perfect explanation. Also the conclusion: Like the Bible the Tradition and the Canon Law needs official comments. We do not know good and evil, we need the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

Licit means legal. If Father X has permission to celebrate mass, the mass is legal.

If Fr. X changes the readings, has a lay person read the Gospel or some other goofy thing, the action is illegal, not the whole mass.

Maybe I’m splitting hairs here but if this is an ongoing action, say, liturgical dancing, then do I assent to that illegal act by being there Sunday after Sunday and not seeking a Mass elsewhere?

 

[laszlo]

Maybe I’m splitting hairs here but if this is an ongoing action, say, liturgical dancing, then do I assent to that illegal act by being there Sunday after Sunday and not seeking a Mass elsewhere?

It depends on the circumstances.

If you, getting involved could change the situation, (e.g. by talking to the pastor, appealing to the bishop) then you should not leave.

If the situation is hopeless and you find appropriate Mass elsewhere, then you shall attend that Mass

If yo do not find appropriate Mass elsewhere then not attending Mass is mortal sin, even in this situation. The Mass regardless of the abuses is licit, and Christ’s sacrifice, a real value.

 

[pnewton]

Maybe I’m splitting hairs here but if this is an ongoing action, say, liturgical dancing, then do I assent to that illegal act by being there Sunday after Sunday and not seeking a Mass elsewhere?

Consider this. Let us say that we had a faithful Catholic here that reaallllyyy preferred the TLM and attended an SSPX Mass often as the only option for that Mass, even though he did not like the acts original acts of schism and desired greatly a reconciliation with Rome. Would you think that his attendance constituted assent to their illicit actions? Of course not. Likewise, attendance can not be stretched to assent in a Mass with dancing, in my opinion.

 

[Warrenton]

I live in a diocese where a priest, who had leanings way to the left of center, was removed from ministry, and his congregation broke away and formed their own church, *“in the catholic tradition” *(their words, not mine). They had “open communion”, married & women priests/deacons, performed marriages for same sex couples, etc.

What I do not understand is how is what the SSPX is doing any different from this situation?

The people of this community believed with all their hearts, minds & souls that what they were doing was the right thing to do

Hi! There are a few distinctions that jump out right away. The SSPX does not have married priests, female priests, or same sex marriage.

The community you describe has invented these things in the absence of any Church tradition. As you know, the SSPX relies on the authority of Church teaching up to 1965. If the Church in 1960, let us say, approved same sex marriage, or had priestesses, then the comparison would be apt.

Which raises the second point of your post, namely subjective intent. The SSPX have a good faith argument to make in their favor - in short, they rely on about 1000 years of Church teaching to support it. It is hard to imagine what the “community” that broke away in your diocese could rely on to support the innovations thay have introduced. While they may believe that they are right, their belief would be difficult to justify in good faith.

Cheers!

 

[Warrenton]

Perfect explanation. Also the conclusion: Like the Bible the Tradition and the Canon Law needs official comments. We do not know good and evil, we need the Church.

We do know good and evil. The Church teaches it, and we can accept it through the power of reason, or if this fails, from faith in the Church.

The Church, however, never asks people to believe in something irrational.

At least, maybe not until relatively recently.

 

[Warrenton]

. Being Catholic is not about tradition,

This does not seem quite accurate?

 

[Denise1957]

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

This seems, at least to me, to be very presumptious on the part of the SSPX.
While I understand the desire to hold onto tradition, part of our tradition is that the Pope makes the rules.

I live in a diocese where a priest, who had leanings way to the left of center, was removed from ministry, and his congregation broke away and formed their own church, *“in the catholic tradition” *(their words, not mine). They had “open communion”, married & women priests/deacons, performed marriages for same sex couples, etc. This “schism” , as it is called in my community, by all accounts, has been very difficult for our Bishop and some of our priests & lay people because they believe that what this community was doing was the right thing to do.

What I do not understand is how is what the SSPX is doing any different from this situation?

The people of this community believed with all their hearts, minds & souls that what they were doing was the right thing to do, just as I am sure that the people who belong to the SSPX do. But in the end, isn’t their disobedience born of the same idea, that they are right and the Magisterium in wrong?

I would have to agree that people in both communities believe that they are doing the right thing, and, that in the end, they both believe and are convinced that the magisterium is wrong.

I don’t mean any disrespect by saying this, but it does seem to be an innovation (which has no basis in tradition) that a fraternity of priests would believe that they have the authority to dispense Catholics from their Sunday obligation, or the authority to provide marriage annulments, or the authority to set up seminaries that are not under the authority or jurisdiction of the Catholic Church. These, too, are innovations, IMO. They are just not the same type of innovations as the left-leaning Catholics that you mentioned.

 

[TMC]

I live in a diocese where a priest, who had leanings way to the left of center, was removed from ministry, and his congregation broke away and formed their own church, *“in the catholic tradition” *(their words, not mine). They had “open communion”, married & women priests/deacons, performed marriages for same sex couples, etc.

What I do not understand is how is what the SSPX is doing any different from this situation?

The people of this community believed with all their hearts, minds & souls that what they were doing was the right thing to do, just as I am sure that the people who belong to the SSPX do.

Hi! There are a few distinctions that jump out right away. The SSPX does not have married priests, female priests, or same sex marriage.

The community you describe has invented these things in the absence of any Church tradition. As you know, the SSPX relies on the authority of Church teaching up to 1965. If the Church in 1960, let us say, approved same sex marriage, or had priestesses, then the comparison would be apt.

Which raises the second point of your post, namely subjective intent. The SSPX have a good faith argument to make in their favor - in short, they rely on about 1000 years of Church teaching to support it. It is hard to imagine what the “community” that broke away in your diocese could rely on to support the innovations thay have introduced. While they may believe that they are right, their belief would be difficult to justify in good faith.

Cheers!

The situation with the SSPX is not quite like the parish described by Oneofthewomen, but it is very like the Old Catholics. The Old Catholics broke off from the Church after Vatican I because they believed that some of the teachings of Vatican I (principally Papal Infallibility) were inconsistent with the deposit of the faith. The Old Catholics tended to be more progressive, and they are now similar (IMO, anyway) to the more progressive branches of Anglicanism. For many years the Old Catholics denied being a separate Church --they believed themselves to be the true remnant of the real Catholic faith to which the rest of the Church would eventually return (in fact, I think some of them still believe this).

The parallels are clear. Like the Old Catholics, the SSPX reject some of the teachings of an ecumenical council - this time Vatican II. Like the Old Catholics, they believe they have it right and the rest of the Church has it wrong, and they believe reconciliation will require the rest of the Church “returning” to their views. Pope Benedict has been working to keep the SSPX from becoming a traditionalist version of the Old Catholics. This interview suggests to me that much work is still to be done, and causes me concern that the SSPX will continue to drift away. We can, and should, continue to hope and pray that doesn’t happen.

 

[pnewton]

This does not seem quite accurate?

I strongly believe what I said. At the core of being Catholic (the meaning of the word) is not about Tradition. The Orthodox have Tradition, yet are in less union with the Catholic Church than a new Catholic who knows very little of Tradition. The significance of our Catholicism is our that we are universally united with the Holy Father. However, we are more than Catholic, but first are (and were called) Christians. Tradition, like Scripture, is a means of revelation. We must remember that we are to worship the end, not the means; Jesus, not Tradition, or Scripture. I did not suggest that Tradition does not play a vital role, just that it is a role, not who we are. Our focus is Jesus(we are the Bride of Jesus). We are Jesus(we are the Body of Jesus). This is what it means to be Catholic. I just think we need to keep this in perspective when we throw darts back and forth across the aisles. I can’t speak for you, but for me, dancing, Latin, English, Old Mass, New Mass, Middle’aged Mass, are insignificant issues in light of the reality of what we are supposed to be. I think it is great to has things out, but if we lose sight of the great priority, then we build our opinions on sand.

This sermonette is not directed at Traditionalist per se. In fact, when I started, I had more in mind the uncharitable way that AB Fellay and his supporters get treated sometime. I count myself among the guilty, not that I am volunteering for a free moderator penalty.

 

[Warrenton]

I strongly believe what I said. At the core of being Catholic (the meaning of the word) is not about Tradition.

Thank you for your cogent explanation. I re-read it a couple of times, and as so often is the case, think the difference in our statements is less a result of difference in doctrine than in where we chose to start the inquiry and how we place things in order of importance.

I strongly agree with you that a hallmark of Catholicism is unity. This issue, to my thinking, is what sets SSPX apart from all other, how shall we put it? “dissidents.”

Everyone else pretty much wants to be separate, but they don’t.

If the Church were to declare them in schism, excommunicate them or whatever, what the Church would lose would be a claim to justice.

Any Catholic would be hard pressed to find docrinal fault with the basic proposition of SSPX, which is basically “what was right yesterday is right today.”

Since Vatican II, the Church has witnessed all manner of abuses, and treated them, when it has even addressed them, leniently. It has treated the Orthodox leniently, it has permitted Catholics to mingle in Protestant services, and in general, shown a marked clemency to many individuals who come from unauthorized faith traditions (eg, Charismatics) or from traditions that actively defy the Roman claims to Catholic primacy.

A basic premise of justice is equal treatment. For Rome to adopt a more punitive stance toward the SSPX, which is less culpapble than other groups with more evident culpability in terms of disunity, would offend justice.

At worst, per Vatican II, SSPX are separated brothers. There is far less distance between SSPX and Rome than Constantinople or Moscow and Rome.

An argument over doctrine among Catholics is in essence different than any argument with non-Catholics and Catholics. In justice, both sides need to keep working.

 

[Warrenton]

The parallels are clear. Like the Old Catholics, the SSPX reject some of the teachings of an ecumenical council - this time Vatican II. Like the Old Catholics, they believe they have it right and the rest of the Church has it wrong, and they believe reconciliation will require the rest of the Church “returning” to their views. Pope Benedict has been working to keep the SSPX from becoming a traditionalist version of the Old Catholics. This interview suggests to me that much work is still to be done, and causes me concern that the SSPX will continue to drift away. We can, and should, continue to hope and pray that doesn’t happen.

I would be more inclined to agree with your view if SSPX adopted more progressive views.

Vatican I and Vatican II were very different councils, and convened for very different purposes. The dcotrine of papal infallibility and primacy had already been used in the past, and was certainly well known. It had been a subject of controversy for 900 years at least, among the Greeks.

In contrast, Vatican II was largely novel, some of it quite so, such as Lumen Gentium.

The disareement between SSPX and the Vatican is fundamentally different, because the case of SSPX rests on no less authority than Trent. Moreover, Vatican II has been markedly difficult to define as a council, and its texts continue to generate debate as to proper meaning and construction, now almost 50 years on. This does not even get into the morass of whether Vatican II was “implemente” properly.

SSPX is in a class by itself, which is why it has been treated differently. Like you, I pray the work of both sides continues, and that Rome deals with SSPX with at least the same clemency as has recently been shown to old enemies like Muslims and Lutherans.

 

[ProVobis]

Consider this. Let us say that we had a faithful Catholic here that reaallllyyy preferred the TLM and attended an SSPX Mass often as the only option for that Mass, even though** he did not like the acts original acts of schism and desired greatly a reconciliation with Rome**. Would you think that his attendance constituted assent to their illicit actions? Of course not. Likewise, attendance can not be stretched to assent in a Mass with dancing, in my opinion.

Good answer. Thank you.