Don't Hate Me. I Am Going To A SSPX This Sunday

[dyspepsic]

I’m watching the Holy Father’s Good Friday Service and am very excited, because the official preacher to the Pope is a Brother from the same Brothers who run my parish.

He is wearing is preaching the Good Friday sermon, but is wearing the Brothers’ habit and no priestly vestments, as directed by his Order.

He is explaining the importance of good exegesis in understanding the symbols of the Gospel on the passion. I thought that what he said about Chris’ts tunic applies here.

He explained that the tunic was most likely not seamless, as this was not the Jewish tradition, but that the seamless tunic is John’s symbol for the seamless Church which must always preserve her unity.

He speaking about the importance of bringing unity to the Church. He is also preaching to the Pope on how God has poured out the Holy Spirit on all Christian denominations and calls the Pope to bring all of us to unity. He’s explaining that schisms are part of our history, but that the Holy Spirit works through dialogue and comprimise when the essentials of the Church are not in play.

The part that I have heard so far is on the importance of Ecumenism and the cross and how it is Peter’s job to make it happen.

It is beautiful to observe the Pope’s humility as he is preach to by this simple Brother in his simple Capuchin habit.

I’m very excited to see a Capuchin selected as the official preacher and confessor to the Pope.

It is important that he is stressing how we must be hasty in charity, but not hasty in communion, because that takes time and dialogue. Notice that he says dialogue and love. We need this.

JR

I don’t want to detract from the wonderful things you have said about this. But, does he have the Order of Deacon, necessary to preach?

 

[JReducation]

We have to be very careful here. Because of their excommunication these folks are outside the Mystical Body of Christ. (Mystici Corporis - Pius XII)

Christ is ‘there’ in the Eucharist because of the way the sacraments work - ex opere operato - by the very proper use of the matter and form. This could also be argued that Luther’s Mass was valid.

Being outside the Church makes their salvation questionable. Let’s not be easy on them, more so than our theology allows.

If you just heard the Holy Father’s Good Friday service, the Capuchin Friar who preached to the Pope and the Vatican household, explained that this is not true or have ever been true, but Pius XII has been incorrectly applied.

As to Luther’s mass, his celebration was valid. He was an Augustinian Friar, even though he was excommunicated. The sacrament of Holy Orders or his solmemn vows as a friar cannot be undone. His successors didn’t have a valid mass. Luther was not a bishop, so he could not ordain. His celebration of the mass may have been ilicit, but not invalid. This is the theology of solemn vows and of Holy Orders. Luther had both, solemn vows and Holy Orders.

The Brother explained that excommuncation puts you outside of the physical Church, not outside the Mysical Body. You are outside the Church which is at the center of the Mystical Body and the only Church who holds the fulness of truth. He also explained that the Holy Spirit and God’s salvation works through our separated bretheren, even though their communion with us is incomplete, because they are still part of the Mystical Body.

He also explained that salvation comes through Christ and Christ’s saving act is not limited to the Catholic Church. The role of the Catholic Church is to bring all people to the fullness of truth, not to condemn or threaten. He spoke specifically of Protestants, Orthodox and other schisms. They are united to us through Christ, even though they are not united to us through Peter.

In explaining previous statements such as the one that you just made, he also explained that the situations of the Church today are not the same as those of the Church in the previous millenium any more than they were in the first century. He explained that schisms have always existed, but we have to be ready to respond quickly with charity and respect. He then quoted from different interpretations that St. Francis gave to different parts of scripture and applied it to ecumenism.

The entire theme of this Good Friday Service is ecumenism and taking away the stigma that we impose on those who separated from us.

This would not be preached to the Pope by his official preacher and confessor, if it were not doctrinally sound.

JR

 

[MrS]

If you just heard the Holy Father’s Good Friday service, the Capuchin Friar who preached to the Pope and the Vatican household, explained that this is not true or have ever been true.

Excommuncation puts you outside of the Institutional Church, not outside the Mysical Body. He also explained that the Holy Spirit and God’s salvation works through our separated bretheren, even though their communion with us is incomplete, because they are still part of the Mystical Body.

He also explained that salvation comes through Christ and Christ’s saving act is not limited to the Catholic Church. The role of the Catholic Church is to bring all people to the fullness of truth, not to condemn or threaten. He spoke specifically of Protestants, Orthodox and other schisms. They are united to us through Christ, even though they are not united to us through Peter.

In explaining previous statements such as the one that you just made, he also explained that the situations of the Church today are not the same as those of the Church in the previous millenium any more than they were in the first century. He explained that schisms have always existed, but we have to be ready to respond quickly with charity and respect. He then quoted from different interpretations that St. Francis gave to different parts of scripture and applied it to ecumenism.

The entire theme of this Good Friday Service is ecumenism and taking away the stigma that we impose on those who separated from us.

This would not be preached to the Pope by his official preacher and confessor, if it were not doctrinally sound.

JR

All good stuff, JR. Thanks for sharing. Hope some posters hear benefit from it.

Happy Easter.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t want to detract from the wonderful things you have said about this. But, does he have the Order of Deacon, necessary to preach?

He is a priest. He is the Pope’s official preacher and confessor.

However, his religious order does not allow their Brothers to wear priestly vestments or use the title Father, except when they celebrate mass, because they have to avoid all external signs of clericalism. Also, they have to copy their Holy Father St. Francis, who was not a priest. Only Francis is ever called Father.

Of course, they do have common sense. Lay people often call them Father and the don’t get offended.

By the way, Capuchins do not need to be deacons to preach. As long as they have been granted permission from the proper authorities, they may preach. The same applies to Dominican Friars. Both orders are orders or preachers.

The difference is that a Brother who is not a Deacon cannot preach the homily at a mass, but the Good Friday service is not a mass, nor is the Liturgy of the Hours. Even at mass, they may preach, but it has to be after communion, not after the gospel. This is to avoid the confusion between the role of the deacon and the other Brothers. Preaching at mass is the role of a cleric, especially after the Gospel.

In our parish, sometimes the priest will make the homily very short to allow time for a longer sermon after communion by one of the other Brothers. This is rare, but sometimes there are special circumstances as a visitor.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I don’t want to detract from the wonderful things you have said about this. But, does he have the Order of Deacon, necessary to preach?

I should have added to my response the Capuchin-Franciscans do not have deacons. This is not allowed by their rule. If I am correct, none of the four Franciscan branches have deacons.

They ordain friars to the deaconate as a step to the priesthood. In some cases they ordain them deacon and priest within a few months of each other. In Franiscan practice, the deaconate is a period of internship, not a permanent state. It’s a transitional state. Their Brothers must first make solemn vows for life. After they make solemn vows for life, they apply to their major superior for permission to be ordained priests. It is up to the major superior to grant this. If the major superior grants it, the deaconate is short, not permanent.

You never enter the Capuchin-Franciscans to be a priest. You enter to be a friar (Brother). If you were to tell the vocation director that you want to be a priest and that the way of St. Francis is secondary to you. he would appropriately refer you to the diocesan vocation director where you would be ordained a secular priest and follow the spirit of St. Francis privately, not in community or in vows.

If you see a Capuchin preaching, he is either a priest or a non-cleric. The transitional deacons usually preach to the friars, not to the laity, and do not perform marriages or baptisms unless the superior of the house approves it.

My entire Catholic, philosophical and theological training was with Capuchins. I worked with them in the missions for more than 7 years. That’s why I know them so well. Later I worked under a Capuchin Bishop. I was always attracted to St. Francis, St. Teresa and Blessed Mother Teresa, so I majored in their theology and worked closely to them or for them. That’s how I know their rule and traditions so well.

I should have clarified about their deaconate in response to your question.

JR

 

[jmcrae]

Because he had a scheduling conflict that couldn’t allow him to attend his usual TLM. Msgr. Perl has already said that if you attend an SSPX mass merely because you wish to attend a TLM then it is not a sin.

No Msg. Perl did not say that “you” could go. He said that one particular lady (not you) in one particular and unique circumstance could go. She then broadcast the letter, mistakenly thinking that his words applied to everyone.

When he realized that she had done this, he published a public letter stating in no uncertain terms that the previous letter had been a private correspondence, and that in general (ie: in the case of you and me), he forbids attendance at SSPX chapels, but gave this one woman an exception, due to her unique circumstances (which have never been disclosed).

 

[dyspepsic]

He is a priest. He is the Pope’s official preacher and confessor.

However, his religious order does not allow their Brothers to wear priestly vestments or use the title Father, except when they celebrate mass, because they have to avoid all external signs of clericalism. Also, they have to copy their Holy Father St. Francis, who was not a priest. Only Francis is ever called Father.

Of course, they do have common sense. Lay people often call them Father and the don’t get offended.

By the way, Capuchins do not need to be deacons to preach. As long as they have been granted permission from the proper authorities, they may preach. The same applies to Dominican Friars. Both orders are orders or preachers.

The difference is that a Brother who is not a Deacon cannot preach the homily at a mass, but the Good Friday service is not a mass, nor is the Liturgy of the Hours. Even at mass, they may preach, but it has to be after communion, not after the gospel. This is to avoid the confusion between the role of the deacon and the other Brothers. Preaching at mass is the role of a cleric, especially after the Gospel.

In our parish, sometimes the priest will make the homily very short to allow time for a longer sermon after communion by one of the other Brothers. This is rare, but sometimes there are special circumstances as a visitor.

JR

Okay, he is a priest, and he is preaching. Priesthood assumes the Order of Diaconate.

Preaching is preaching, whether it is done at Mass after the Gospel, or at the end of Mass, or any liturgical service. The liturgy assumes that preaching, any preaching, be done by deacons, or highter. "Except, Canon 765 allows preaching to religious in their churches or oratories with the permission of the superior competent according to the norm of the constitutions."

Canon 766 allows lay persons to preach in a church or oratory, if necessity requires it in certain circumstances or advantageous , with due respect to canon 767#1.

Which says, “among the forms of preaching the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent”.

More information than any of us wanted, I guess.

 

[JReducation]

All good stuff, JR. Thanks for sharing. Hope some posters hear benefit from it.

Happy Easter.

I am hoping that those who struggle with whether or not those who are separated from the Catholic Church are saved or can be saved, will have a clearer understanding of the fact that they can.

I would think that if you have family or friends who are outside the Church and this is a concern for you, this sermon will help.

Often people on these threads post that SSPX, Orthodox, Protestants or others are schismatic, heretics, outside the Mystical Body. Today’s sermon in the Vatican clarified that this is a misunderstanding of Church teaching. These persons are outisde the physical Chruch or in an incomplete communion, such as the Orthodox, but not outside the Mystical Body.

This is good theology and important, because it can bring some end to some debates on these threads.

JR

 

[Richie_Nelson]

Wishful thinking my friend, wishful thinking…

 

[JReducation]

No Msg. Perl did not say that “you” could go. He said that one particular lady (not you) in one particular and unique circumstance could go. She then broadcast the letter, mistakenly thinking that his words applied to everyone.

When he realized that she had done this, he published a public letter stating in no uncertain terms that the previous letter had been a private correspondence, and that in general (ie: in the case of you and me), he forbids attendance at SSPX chapels, but gave this one woman an exception, due to her unique circumstances (which have never been disclosed).

This is wrong at so many levels. Just because one gets a dispensation for a specific situation, doesn’t make it a dispensation for the world

Second, these are private matters between you and the spiritual director, confessor, pastor or the person who had the auhority to do so.

You don’t publish these things when they are for your eyes alone. That puts the other person on the spot.

This IS disturbing.

JR

 

[JReducation]

"Except, Canon 765 allows preaching to religious in their churches or oratories with the permission of the superior competent according to the norm of the constitutions."

Canon 766 allows lay persons to preach in a church or oratory, if necessity requires it in certain circumstances or advantageous , with due respect to canon 767#1.

Which says, “among the forms of preaching the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent”.

Their application is within the law. They have their superior’s permission.

 

[JReducation]

Wishful thinking my friend, wishful thinking…

It is always my hope that these debates will come to an end, as we become better informed of what the Church teaches.

JR

 

[MrS]

It is always my hope that these debates will come to an end, as we become better informed of what the Church teaches.

JR

Perhaps they really are better informed… they just want or need to argue… no one will listen to them at home

 

[Unitas]

This is wrong at so many levels. Just because one gets a dispensation for a specific situation, doesn’t make it a dispensation for the world

Second, these are private matters between you and the spiritual director, confessor, pastor or the person who had the auhority to do so.

You don’t publish these things when they are for your eyes alone. That puts the other person on the spot.

This IS disturbing.

JR

A smaller protion of the letter was leaked to The Remnant. Once Perl found out about it, he decided to release the entire letter for the sake of context. Now it’s somehow out of context? Perl had the entire thing published so we would have that context.

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.”

That bolded part specifically applies to the OP. He couldn’t go to his local one because of scheduling, and he wished to merely participate in a TLM, not to adhere to a schism.

We have all of the context that others claim excuses him and not others. He asked Msgr. Perl a simple question, which we have, and Perl answered it, which we have.

If the SSPX are trully schismatic and merely attending their masses is sinful, then no special permission given in one person’s circumstance can change that. If it’s wrong for one, then it’s wrong for all.

If going to an SSPX mass is intrinsically evil, as many here are purporting, then there is no way a member of a papal comission would ever allow it, let alone have the ability to change it. Special permission can’t change an evil nature into a good one. Since Perl did in fact allow it, we can’t say that merely attending the mass is always and everywhere sinful.

Please read the actual document in question before jumping to conclusions.

 

[JReducation]

A smaller protion of the letter was leaked to The Remnant. Once Perl found out about it, he decided to release the entire letter for the sake of context. Now it’s somehow out of context? Perl had the entire thing published so we would have that context.

That bolded part specifically applies to the OP. He couldn’t go to his local one because of scheduling, and he wished to merely participate in a TLM, not to adhere to a schism.

We have all of the context that others claim excuses him and not others. He asked Msgr. Perl a simple question, which we have, and Perl answered it, which we have.

If the SSPX are trully schismatic and merely attending their masses is sinful, then no special permission given in one person’s circumstance can change that. If it’s wrong for one, then it’s wrong for all.

If going to an SSPX mass is intrinsically evil, as many here are purporting, then there is no way a member of a papal comission would ever allow it, let alone have the ability to change it. Special permission can’t change an evil nature into a good one. Since Perl did in fact allow it, we can’t say that merely attending the mass is always and everywhere sinful.

Please read the actual document in question before jumping to conclusions.

I am reading what Perl responds and it makes more sense. It does not mean that SSPX are not schismatic. The Orthodox are also schismatic and we can attend their mass and even receive communion with authoritative permission. The mass itself is valid. The difference between the two is that SSPX is excommunicated and Orthodox are not. But that has no bearing on this case or the validity of the Eucharist. The issue here is a moral question not a question of canon law.

What Perl is reffering to is what Moral Theology calls “material”. The matter here is why the person is attending the mass of a schismatic group. The matter, in this case is to fulfill their ogligation using the Tridentine rite. If the matter were a sign of solidarity with the SSPX, then it would be a sinful act of disobedience.

This is why it’s important to understand the different concepts of moral theology before passing jugment.

JR

 

[bear06]

A smaller protion of the letter was leaked to The Remnant. Once Perl found out about it, he decided to release the entire letter for the sake of context. Now it’s somehow out of context? Perl had the entire thing published so we would have that context.

There was originally a problem with context and there was also a problem with the fact that people took this reply and attached it to the laity at large. Msgr. Perl led off with the fact that this letter was a private communication between a specific person in a specific circumstance.

He couldn’t go to his local one because of scheduling,

 

[JReducation]

There was originally a problem with context and there was also a problem with the fact that people took this reply and attached it to the laity at large. Msgr. Perl led off with the fact that this letter was a private communication between a specific person in a specific circumstance.

 

[Unitas]

There was originally a problem with context and there was also a problem with the fact that people took this reply and attached it to the laity at large. Msgr. Perl led off with the fact that this letter was a private communication between a specific person in a specific circumstance.

. He couldn’t go to his local one because of scheduling, and he wished to merely participate in a TLM, not to adhere to a schism.

If you have this much trouble understanding my post, why should I trust your understanding of Perl’s words?

The circumstance of the person who made the original querey has never meen made known

We have the original question. We have Perl’s original answer. Nothing will be good enough for you because you don’t want it to be.

 

[JReducation]

Why is this debate so important?

The important part is the response. The response is clear. It is also available in the Catholic Catechism, even if Msgr Perl had not written the letter.

Shouldn’t we be focussed on the Paschal Mystery?

Rememer what Teresa of Avila wrote:

"Let nothing disturb you,

Let nothing frighten you

All things pass away;

God never changes.

Patience obtains all things.

He who has God

Finds he lacks nothing;

God alone suffices."

As Luther said on his deathbed, “all of these debates are straw.”

JR

 

[bear06]

. Perl provided the context so that we wouldn’t get the wrong idea. Well I’d agree with you here as long as you’re also including the fact that the letter addresses a certain person in a certain circumstance.

Uhh, read post #1 on this thread, maybe?
Your selective quoting (ha, there’s that phrase again) cut out the operatative subject of the sentence:

There’s two separate issues at hand. One is sin. Does one sin just because they are attached to the EF and the SSPX one is the only one around. No and the Church has said that from Ecclesia Dei forward. Does the chapel fulfill the Sunday obligation? This is an entirely different question which you seem to be ignoring. One could be sinning by trying to fulfill their Sunday obligation at a chapel when nobody has ever said that it does fulfill the Sunday obligation outside of the Msgr. Perl letter that was directed to a certain person in a certain circumstance. If you quote any of that letter without including the “was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us” you are selective quoting big time. That whole phrase changes the entire application of the letter.

If you have this much trouble understanding my post, why should I trust your understanding of Perl’s words?

I’m not having trouble understanding you. I just don’t agree with you not grasping that the letter dealt with a person in a specific circumstance (one we will never know for a very mysterious reason). Again, this changes who the letter applies to and in no way paves the way for all to fulfill their Sunday obligation at a chapel. The response was YOU may fulfill you Sunday obligation. Not the FAITHFUL may fulfill their Sunday obligation. These are two very different statements.

We have the original question. We have Perl’s original answer. Nothing will be good enough for you because you don’t want it to be.

You have never seen the original letter and neither do we. Pray tell, what is the circumstance of the original person who put out the query? I’ve been dying to know for years! Sorry but this has bothered me for years. I’ve made repeated requests to the publications that carried the original response to produce the original letter. The letter has never been made public by the Vatican nor the original person who made the query.