J
JuanCarlos
Guest
Will keep in mind; thank you! Only wish the area was a bit better…
- Status
B
bear06
Guest
Why would you think that? Msgr. Perl said the priests were likely schismatic after so many years and the Vatican never clarified that statement either. That said, it was in an official document, not a magazine/newspaper article. The fact is, the Vatican is trying their hardest to get them to return. They clarify very little and usually only do so at the request of the faithful.
B
bear06
Guest
Archdiocese Los Angeles Alhambra St. Therese Church W Sunday: 1:00 PM
Code:
Los Angeles St. John Vianney Chapel 4th & 5th Sundays: 9:00 AM
Code:
San Pedro Convent of the Little Sisters of the Poor 1st Sunday: 11:30 AM
Code:
Santa Paula Thomas Aquinas College 2nd Sunday: 7:30 AM
Code:
Ventura Mission San Buenaventura W Sunday: 1:30 PM
Code:
Wilmington Sts Peter and Paul W Sunday: 6:30 AM
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
Bear, you’ve said this so many times, ya oughta get them to make it a sticky!
Then you won’t have to keep re-typing it.
B
bear06
Guest
It is tiring but stickies get ignored.Bear, you’ve said this so many times, ya oughta get them to make it a sticky!
R
RevDrNorth
Guest
You note they are invalid. Aren’t they actually valid but illicit? I notice the document says they are validly ordained but suspended. Is this not similiar to the many Old Catholic groups in the US that have valid orders but are illicit and Catholics should not be going there for sacraments (ie they are committing a sin)?
For example, as I understand it groups like the Liberal Catholic Church have carefully maintained Apostolic Succession BUT in no way should a faithful Catholic be heading over for communion and so on (unless on the verge of death).
J
JuanCarlos
Guest
Reverend doctor, the difference is the Liberal Catholic Church and the Old Catholic Church do not claim to be united to Rome and do not claim to be Roman Catholic. Its basically liturgical protestantism, with no offense intended.
The SSPX claim to still follow Pope Benedict XVI as the Vicar of Christ
The SSPX claim to still follow Pope Benedict XVI as the Vicar of Christ
R
RevDrNorth
Guest
No offense taken and I certainly mean none. I realize I am wading into an area with strong emotions on both sides. I have seen people post who are either SSPV or SSPX and have a very strong feeling that they are loyal Catholics.
B
bear06
Guest
To hear confessions (save in danger of death) or officiate at marriages, a priest must have factulties from the local bishop for them to be valid. This is canon law. They are invalid if there are no faculties. You are perhaps thinking of the SSPX Masses. Those are valid but illicit. This is a different situation. BTW, I don’t think that the Catholic Church regognizes the “Old Catholics” as having valid Holy Orders but that’s a whole other subject. Here’s a little about them en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Catholic_Churches
B
bear06
Guest
BTW, the canon requiring faculties is not limited to the SSPX this applies to any priest.
R
RevDrNorth
Guest
I understand what you are saying about the SSPX and SSPV. Thank you for explaining the issue of the Bishop’s involvement.
There are Old Catholic Churches with valid apostolic succession/orders. Certainly the ones in Utrecht come under that category (and they are in Communion with Canterbury). That is how Rome recognizes the Polish National Catholic Church as having valid sacraments (PNCC is Old Catholic but split from Utrecht and intercommunion with Anglican Communion over women’s ordination). A PNC can receive communion in a Catholic Church (as can an EO). This has been discussed on the forum before.
There are some "Old Catholics in the US as well that have valid orders and apostolic succession. Many can legitimately trace their Bishops back through to Bishop Rebiba (Rebiba Succession) andon to the apostles. This is the same sucession that 91 % of Roman Catholic Bishops have due to the fact that one of the Popes consecrated a large number of Bishops causing other lines to die out (long story).
In some cases the succession (US Old Catholic) is recently through Roman Catholic Bishops such as Costa who split with Rome. Many have been very careful to maintain validity (though they may be very liberal). But this is where Fr. Mitch Pacwa noted once on EWTN (paraphrased) in response to question about valid orders…“don’t worry so much about valid apostolic succession/orders. Focus on whether or not they are in Communion with the Holy See/Father”. Truly that is what any Catholic should be doing when searching for a church or sacraments. Are they in communion with the Holy Father?
{Please excuse me for getting off topic here}
J
JuanCarlos
Guest
which Church are you from, Reverend doctor?
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
To be very brief, I would say:
May one licitly attend an SSPX Mass? - Yes.
May one receive Holy Communion there? - No (and if Abp. Burke is correct this is under penalty of grave sin).
Does attendance fulfill one’s Sunday obligation? - No.
Of course, as always, cases of necessity and impossibility may change the latter two, but in normal circumstances these would hold.
May one licitly attend an SSPX Mass? - Yes.
May one receive Holy Communion there? - No (and if Abp. Burke is correct this is under penalty of grave sin).
Does attendance fulfill one’s Sunday obligation? - No.
Of course, as always, cases of necessity and impossibility may change the latter two, but in normal circumstances these would hold.
To be clear, as others, including my beloved Bear, have pointed out, the letter does not say “you” - i.e. someone in general - may attend an SSPX Mass and even give; rather, it says the specific individual to whom it is addressed may attend and give. Canonically, acts such as the “judgment” reached in that letter create no binding precedent; they speak only to the single case for which they were made. For instance, the PCED may have said attendance fulfilled his obligation because of a physical or moral impossibility of fulfilling it elsewhere - this wouldn’t mean that someone living in the shadow of the cathedral in, say, Lincoln or St. Louis could also fulfill their obligation by attending an SSPX chapel.
You’ve righly italicized part of the conditions, but you’ve passed over the far more rigorous test that it is physically or morally **impossible **to approach a Catholic minister. I’m not saying I can’t imagine places where it might be morally impossible for some to approach the Catholic ministers (I’ve lived somewhere that definitely pushed in that direction), but when we’re talking about something unnecessary but greatly beneficial like, for instance, weekly communion, the true spiritual advantage derived therefrom is far easier to establish than the impossibility of getting it anywhere legitimate.
Here the SSPX’s position shoots them in the foot in a way. If they outright claimed their break from Rome and established themselves as a schismatic church, then their own bishops could grant faculties to the priests and they could have valid confessions and marriages. It may take a while for Rome to recognize this, as they would probably want to make sure this wasn’t just some sort of legal feint to try to squeeze some sacramental juice, but it would establish a different reality with different ramifications. As is, though, SSPX priests are Catholic priests who are 1) to my knowledge not incardinated in any Catholic jurisdiction and 2) suspended from celebrating any sacraments. As Catholics, they need faculties for confession and marriage, thus they can’t validly celebrate them (outside of confession in danger of death).
R
RevDrNorth
Guest
Very interesting. Thanks.
A
Anonymous2
Guest
A mistake should be corrected vis Msgr. Calkins letter about attending Holy Mass at SSPX chapels.
Several people have seemed to indicate that attending SSPX Masses constitutes a sin because Msgr. Calkins “was addressing an individual case” and that his letter somehow “does not apply” to the rest of us.
This statement is false for 3 reasons (and probably more):
renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070807
renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070410
I am sure Mr. Mershon can likely be contacted for additional information on his correspondence with the PCED.
And what answer does the PCED give?
Their response, ultimately, is this:
They say simply, knowing full well that their letter has ceased to be a private communication, that those who attend for devotion to the Traditional Mass commit no sin.
I have seen you and others continually give the same mistaken answer regarding this letter of Msgr. Calkins.
I hope you will now cease doing so.
Several people have seemed to indicate that attending SSPX Masses constitutes a sin because Msgr. Calkins “was addressing an individual case” and that his letter somehow “does not apply” to the rest of us.
This statement is false for 3 reasons (and probably more):
- Others have written more generalized questions and received the same response, namely, that attendance at an SSPX Mass, done without intent to separate oneself from the Roman Pontiff, is not sinful.
renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070807
renewamerica.us/columns/mershon/070410
I am sure Mr. Mershon can likely be contacted for additional information on his correspondence with the PCED.
- Father Zuhlsdorf, who used to work with the PCED, also disagrees with your assessment (incidentally, Mr. Mershon’s note on having corresponded with the PCED can be found in the comments section of the following blog post):
- Finally, the letter itself disagrees with your assessment if you read closely.
The letter is therefore being written TO CLARIFY THE ORIGINAL CONFUSION. So we should expect a clear answer.
And what answer does the PCED give?
In other words, the public response, attempting to clarify things, is no longer intended as a private response dealing with “individual circumstances.” They are now addressing the public.
Their response, ultimately, is this:
NB: That reply has NOTHING TO DO with particular circumstances.
They say simply, knowing full well that their letter has ceased to be a private communication, that those who attend for devotion to the Traditional Mass commit no sin.
I have seen you and others continually give the same mistaken answer regarding this letter of Msgr. Calkins.
I hope you will now cease doing so.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Yeah, I hear ya. Some parts of the south bay leave much to be desired. I’ve been there (they have a nifty little store there, too!) and the Church grounds look like they’re pretty safe. The church itself is absolutely amazing and still has its altar rail and high altar!
B
bear06
Guest
Sorry, I know you’ve thought this through but I believe you to be wrong based on the history of the case. When the person received the original response they posted the truncated response far and wide. Many publications printed it with the headline “Vatican says that the Masses of the SSPX fulfill the Sunday obligation” or something to that point then the Msgr. Perl was forced to put out a clarification saying that not only was it a truncated edition of the original letter but that it was also intended for a specific person in a specific circumstance. He wouldn’t have needed to put out a clarification if people had gotten the headline right.
Don’t you find it quite odd that the original query was never published when the response was published far and wide? Of course it is. We all know that “he who frames the question…” If someone wrote the Vatican and said they were a 95 year old women who wasn’t ambulatory but her neighbor would be happy to carry her across the street to attend the SSPX chapel and she really wanted to attend a Mass somewhere to fulfill her Sunday obligation, what do you think the Vatican would say? Of course, we don’t know the specific circumstances that evoked the Vatican response and that’s rather the point. It’s sneaky. I’ve asked for the original query to be made public several times but someone apparently has a reason for keeping it quiet.
As far as Mr. Mershon goes, I’ll read through the articles again but he pretty much just reprints Msgr. Perl’s letter he doesn’t have any further clarification from the PCED on the matter. In other words, it’s his opinion.
A
Anonymous2
Guest
Bear06:
If that scene merits the widespread condemnations heard around the Church, while the same SSPX-bounty hunters ignore the prelates spouting heresy and the faithful committing sacrilege at NO Masses…I think you can see the double standard.
- With due respect, I think you know your guesses as to what might have constituted the “special circumstances” or the idea that “someone has good reason to keep them quiet” are mere speculation.
- Read the letter again. Msgr. Perl’s correction emphasizes the fact that the PCED does not RECOMMEND attendance and forbids it should it occur with a certain unacceptable motive, namely, to enter into schism.
- To reiterate, Mr. Mershon obtained UNIQUE CORRESPONDENCE from his own personal letters to the PCED. I have already noted that, if you are really interested in the question, you can try to contact him to ask him to post the documents he received.
- Fr. Zulhsdorf, who actually worked with the PCED, gave the OK not merely to attend the SSPX Mass, but even in certain cases to receive Holy Communion.
- Though this strays from the strictly legal points of this debate, I have attended an SSPX Mass and can vouch that nothing scandalous takes place. There are no “schismatic initiation rite” ceremonies, no homilies lambasting the pope, no “imbibing of a schismatic mentality.”
If that scene merits the widespread condemnations heard around the Church, while the same SSPX-bounty hunters ignore the prelates spouting heresy and the faithful committing sacrilege at NO Masses…I think you can see the double standard.
J
jkarp
Guest
After reading all of the responses, I decided to revisit my original reply, that SSPX is in a schismatic state, referencing an article in the “Ask an Apologist” forum:
Your response asserts that the reference I posted was only relevant to the time when Ecclesia Dei was first written. However, it occurred to me that this is not true, Ecclesia Dei was written in 1988:
However, the post from Michelle Arnold (CA Apologist) is dated December 12, 2005. I am inclined to place my trust in the Catholic Answers apologists rather than the writings of a magazine article author who has a noticeable bias in his writing. Please note, I write this with a genuine love for the Missa Tridentina. I really feel that in this case, Christian prudence should lend one to err on the side of caution and await with faith and hope the liturgical reforms that are coming.
B
bear06
Guest
I’m pretty sure there very good guesses or we would have seen the original query. Like I’ve said, I’ve asked the publishers of the original, truncated response to print the original query to no avail.
It also leads off with the fact that the response was given to a specific person in a specific circumstance. Like I said, there is no reason to print a clarification if everyone’s headlines were correct.
It really has very little to do with seeking and SSPX for sake of devotion and everything to do with people wanting to fufill their Sunday obligation there. The Vatican has yet to produce a document that says that the faithful at large can fulfill their obligation there and has clarified, no matter how you try and spin it, that the letter they sent out was to a specific person in a specific circumstance.
Again, if Mershon has got the smoking gun, why hasn’t he produced it. I read the articles you sent today, albeit very quickly, and I missed Mr. Mershon even saying he had such a document in regards to fufilling one’s Sunday obligation at the chapel. Maybe you can point out the qote you are referring to. I just re-read the first article and he never refers to some letter he’s received. He’s only referred to the Msgr. Perl letter.
Nobody is arguing whether or not one can attend and SSPX. The question of whether or not it fufills the Sunday obligation is in question. Heck, it might just do it but there has been no document giving this one the thumbs up to the faithful at large and, in fact, when the headlines went out saying it did, Msgr. Perl quickly put out a clarification saying that the permission was given to a specific person in a specific circumstance.
There is hardly a complex exegesis. It’s really quite simple. When people decided to declare the SSPX fufilled the Sunday obligation for the faithful at large, the PCED put out a clarification.
I’m glad that’s your experience. It hasn’t been everyone’s.
I ignore nothing. No double standard here. It’s a red-herring argument and it’s quite silly to think that one should address every ill in the Church when the topic is the SSPX.
- Status