M
Matt33
Guest
My recent diocees newspaper says no. But I swear I thought it did. Does anyone have any documentation.
- Status
S
scylla
Guest
Since a SSPX Mass is valid, a SSPX mass would fulfill the Sunday obligation.
Now is it licit?
Check out this thread…
Now after the lifting of of the excommunications does not change their status but what was holy before is still holy. So if you have no other good moral choice otherwise you technically can go, but that would be in an extreme circumstance.
A SSPX Mass is still a Catholic Mass but you should be faithful to your Bishop, the diocesan papers frequently are wrong as they sometimes allow some crazy things to be printed. Regardless if the paper is wrong, if your Bishop offers other options than going to an SSPX and prohibits going there, pay heed.
In Christ
Scylla
Now is it licit?
Check out this thread…
Now after the lifting of of the excommunications does not change their status but what was holy before is still holy. So if you have no other good moral choice otherwise you technically can go, but that would be in an extreme circumstance.
A SSPX Mass is still a Catholic Mass but you should be faithful to your Bishop, the diocesan papers frequently are wrong as they sometimes allow some crazy things to be printed. Regardless if the paper is wrong, if your Bishop offers other options than going to an SSPX and prohibits going there, pay heed.
In Christ
Scylla
R
RUINATION_IPA
Guest
Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses
*Una Voce America has received a communication from the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, concerning an article which appeared in The Remnant newspaper and various websites. At the request of the Commission, we are publishing it below. *
**Pontificia Commissio “Ecclesia Dei” January 18, 2003 **
Greetings in the Hearts of Jesus & Mary! There have been several inquiries about our letter of 27 September 2002. In order to clarify things, Msgr. Perl has made the following response.
Oremus pro invicem.
In cordibus Jesu et Mariæ,
Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins
Msgr. Camille Perl’s response:
Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.
In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.
1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.
2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.
Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was “Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass” and our response was:
**“1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.” **
His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:
“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”
His third question was: “Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass” to which we responded:
“3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.”
Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:
"This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the ‘traditional’ Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.
“You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a ‘right’ to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a ‘right’. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church’s law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice.”
We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.
With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary
*Una Voce America has received a communication from the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, concerning an article which appeared in The Remnant newspaper and various websites. At the request of the Commission, we are publishing it below. *
**Pontificia Commissio “Ecclesia Dei” January 18, 2003 **
Greetings in the Hearts of Jesus & Mary! There have been several inquiries about our letter of 27 September 2002. In order to clarify things, Msgr. Perl has made the following response.
Oremus pro invicem.
In cordibus Jesu et Mariæ,
Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins
Msgr. Camille Perl’s response:
Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.
In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.
1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.
2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.
Points 1 and 3 in our letter of 27 September 2002 to this correspondent are accurately reported. His first question was “Can I fulfill my Sunday obligation by attending a Pius X Mass” and our response was:
**“1. In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.” **
His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:
“2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin.”
His third question was: “Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass” to which we responded:
“3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.”
Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:
"This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the ‘traditional’ Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.
“You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a ‘right’ to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a ‘right’. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church’s law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice.”
We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.
With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
The judgments of the PCED can’t make precedent that takes the force of law, so the letter is not enough; it tells a particular woman that she can fulfill her obligation. Nonetheless, on his blog Fr. Z posted an official clarification stating that because the requirement is only for the Mass to be in a Catholic rite on may fulfill the obligation at an Orthodox Divine Liturgy. Since that seems to put to rest the idea that one needs a Catholic minister to conduct a Catholic rite, we can conclude that the SSPX Masses, being in a Catholic rite, fulfill the obligation.
J
JaMc
Guest
I’ve been reading quite a bit on this subject, and, as Ruination’s quote suggests, the general response to “can I attend an SSPX Mass and does it fulfill the Sunday Obligation” seems to be “ummm … er … uhhh … *hands wringing” … we’d rather you didn’t…" It is somewhat frustrating that Church authorities can’t give a clear, unequivocal answer one way or the other.
P
palmas85
Guest
Yes it can. The naysayers, doomsayers and professional SSPX haters will say that only the person to whom the particular letter was addressed is affected by it. That however defies logic. If that were the case then legal precedents set forth in court cases would apply only to the cases they occurred in. Such is not the case there or here.
If you attend an SSPX Mass solely out of love for and an attraction to the Traditional Mass and there is no Traditional Mass available in your area and you have no desire to join in the schismatic mentality that some in the SSPX have then you are good to go. The Church does caution though that continued attendance at these Masses might lead to the development of a schismatic attitude on your part and you must be careful in the regard.
Those who despise the SSPX would say otherwise. Just look at the wails and gnashing of teeth that ensued when the Holy Father lifted the excommunications.
If you attend an SSPX Mass solely out of love for and an attraction to the Traditional Mass and there is no Traditional Mass available in your area and you have no desire to join in the schismatic mentality that some in the SSPX have then you are good to go. The Church does caution though that continued attendance at these Masses might lead to the development of a schismatic attitude on your part and you must be careful in the regard.
Those who despise the SSPX would say otherwise. Just look at the wails and gnashing of teeth that ensued when the Holy Father lifted the excommunications.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Similar wails and gnashing of teeth ensued after Pope John Paul II DECREED to have the bishops grant “wide and generous” application of the Missal of 1962. Why can’t these Papal directives at least be acknowledged if not obeyed?
P
palmas85
Guest
I think because they don’t mesh with what these self proclaimed defenders of the faith expect from the reforms. They anticipated and still do anticipate that the old would and must pass away, and good riddance by the way, and let the new ways in amidst cheering and blaring of trumpets…
Let us never forget that new and progressive must be good and sought for old and traditional must therefore be bad, excluded and hopefully forgotten…
To acknowledge these decrees would indicate that perhaps, just perhaps, everything new just might not be so good and beneficial. So, it is better to ignore them or to pay lip service to them as is often done.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
It doesn’t defy logic. It comports with canon law. Canon law is not a case law system in which precedent has binding force on future decisions. The reality is that judicial decisions do, in fact, apply only to the cases they occurred in.
Consult the CIC: can. 16 §3. An interpretation in the form of a judicial sentence , however, or of an administrative act in a particular matter does not have the force of law and only binds the persons for whom and affects the matters for which it was given.
You may note that in my post I both asserted that the letter fails to definitively prove a universal principle and that SSPX nonetheless fulfills the Sunday obligation. You don’t have to be an SSPX hater to rule out the letter, you just have to bother to read the canons and accept what they say.
M
malphono
Guest
I don’t recall much in the way of wailing when that silly “indult” came out. But that’s not surprising: the entire thing was structured in such a way as to grant local ordinaries (who were, for the most part, appointees of that same Pontiff and also, for the most part, devotees of the OF) an overly abundant amount of “discretion” as to when, where, and how the Missal of 1962 could be used. I’d venture to say that the suggestion “‘wide and generous’ application of the Missal of 1962” was not exactly ignored. More likely the bishops interpreted it as being meaningless, since that is exactly what it was: meaningless. The amount of “discretion” afforded the local Ordinary was so abundant that it was essentially a “veto power” which, of course, they loved having, and with it were thus able to deny the faithful the widespread availability of the EF.
Much louder were the wails after Summorum Pontificum when that veto power was taken away. There are still “obstructionist” bishops who will do whatever they can to thwart the celebration of the EF, but it’s interesting that a good portion of them seem to be the very same bishops who loved having that veto power. At least the availability of the EF has increased dramatically and if there’s a problem with one of the “obstructionist” bishops, it’s now possible to launch an appeal that has a chance of being heard.
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello Andreas,
Could you tell me where to find the clarification you mentioned?
Thanks.
Dan
E
Extempore
Guest
I find it sadly amusing that you state the PCED “can’t make precedent that takes the force of law” but apparently Fr. Z’s “clarifications” do?
How confused is that?
Well, assuming that we’re attributing the “force of law” to Fr. Z’s comments (I prefer to think of them as what they are - opinions - but, nevertheless) trying to compare the SSPX to the Greek Orthodox is pretty ridiculous.
The Greek Orthodox church openly denies various essential points of Catholic doctrine. The SSPX do not deny any point of Catholic doctrine. The Greek Orthodox are schismatics who desire no reconciliation with Rome.
Finally, your insinuation that the Fraternity Priests are something other than Catholic priests adds a note of pettiness to your statements that is, quite frankly, unnecessary.
E
Extempore
Guest
O
Ottaviani
Guest
Let me get this straight: Father Z’s internet web blog is the official word, but the Pontifical Commission of Ecclesia Dei is not?
Alrighty then. enjoy your kool-aid… Drink deep.
A
Auntie_M
Guest
If you know for sure who these Bishops are that are “obstructionist” and know them by name, then why don’t YOU launch an appeal. Now, if you are just spreading rumors, I’d be very careful as what you are saying is libelous/slanderous.
M
malphono
Guest
If you bothered to look, you’d see references in this forum to the very same thing by a number of members. For example [post=4916929]here[/post] and [post=4870982]here[/post] and [post=4884274]here[/post]. That’s just a sample of some recent posts. There are plenty of others. The issue is not new.If you know for sure who these Bishops are that are “obstructionist” and know them by name, then why don’t YOU launch an appeal. Now, if you are just spreading rumors, I’d be very careful as what you are saying is libelous/slanderous.
If you want to kid yourself that such bishops do not exist, that’s up to you. I really don’t care one way or another. But the truth is never libel or slander. End of my exchange.
A
Auntie_M
Guest
I’m sorry that you took my statement as offensive, as you seem to have done, No offense meant.
But, It is not libel or slander, IF it can be proven… I did not say they don’t exist, just that YOU could launch a complaint since you seem to know them by name. Don’t you?
E
Extempore
Guest
I think its funny when people on a web board appear to seriously accuse each other of libel and slander.
Yes, you can call anonymous people names, and make insinuations about them personally but it will never be either libel or slander simply because you can’t impact the reputation of a person whom you don’t even know.
End of rant.
Yes, you can call anonymous people names, and make insinuations about them personally but it will never be either libel or slander simply because you can’t impact the reputation of a person whom you don’t even know.
End of rant.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
The clarification was from a Vatican dicastery - I didn’t say Fr. Z “issued” a clarification, but that he “posted” one. Please, though, don’t let that keep you from shooting from the hip. Then you might have to actually engage the canons instead of presuming their content.
I didn’t insinuate anything. I said they were not Catholic ministers, which was a way of searching for a term to describe 1) Catholics who are 2) priests but who 3) possess no jurisdiction within the Catholic Church (outside of danger of death or moral/physical impossibility - conditions in which, by the way, Catholics might also approach an Orthodox priest . . . if only the cases were’nt entirely dissimilar I might find some slight grounds for comparison there
).Similar does not equal congruent, and the fact that an Orthodox priest is in schism while an SSPX priest is not does not obliterate whatever similarities may exist between them. Furthermore, my line of argumentation relied on the principle that “if the lesser can, then so can the greater,” for it was premised upon the fact that if one can fulfill the obligation with the Orthodox then certainly one could fulfill it with the SSPX who are neither heretical nor schismatic.
M
malphono
Guest
Yeah, I know who some are, and so do you. I also know who some are not, and so do you. Read the posts. Take a poll.I’m sorry that you took my statement as offensive, as you seem to have done, No offense meant.
But, It is not libel or slander, IF it can be proven… I did not say they don’t exist, just that YOU could launch a complaint since you seem to know them by name. Don’t you?
In any case, to open a dossier, a complaint would have to come from persons within the particular jurisdictions involved. Not my business. I’m not the “White Knight” (or “Crusader Rabbit” or “amicus curiae” whatever). Evidently you’re either not interested in the EF at all, or you live in a jurisdiction where the motu proprio is respected, else you’d likely not have made the remark in the first place.
But that’s it. I’m done. Last post on this in this thread.
- Status