Is SSPX in schism and are its adherents excommunicated?

[ethelzguy]

The poster was being quite facetious. All persons mentioned are in good standing.

Lefebvre is in “good standing” ?

 

[Joe_5859]

Lefebvre is in “good standing” ?

I think he was referring to the other people mentioned in that post (the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius and Fr. Z, whoever they are ).

 

[BrendanD]

Forgive me if I’m being obtuse, but I didn’t see any mention of excommunication one way or the other.
It seems to me that this is just a letter that was originally intended as a private letter (not as some sort of official addendum to Ecclesia Dei). So I’m not sure how this letter answers my original question.

The first link was originally a private letter. The second is a public interview, which says “Those who assist at a Mass of the SSPX are absolutely not excommunicated.” I don’t attend the SSPX so I can’t say for sure, but I imagine there are some people that attend just for devotional reasons, and some for other reasons.

Lefebvre’s schismatic action was consecrating bishops without permission, and Ecclesia Dei says that formal adherence to his schism is grounds for excommunication. The disagreement is about what should be considered “formal adherence.” Some say that simply agreeing with the SSPX on various issues constitutes formal adherence to what Lefebvre did 20 years ago, but that’s their personal interpretation, not anything official.

To rephrase my original question: Does Ecclesia Dei or does it not say that supporters of SSPX are excommunicated and the group is in schism?

To summarize: Ecclesia Dei says that Lefebvre did a schismatic action, and formal adherents to the schism are excommunicated. It doesn’t give any definition of how “formal adherence” should be understood though. The various letters and interviews from the Ecclesia Dei Commission shouldn’t be seen as an addendum or contradiction to that, but they explain how the Church is interpreting it.

 

[charlesbarkley]

The first link was originally a private letter. The second is a public interview, which says “Those who assist at a Mass of the SSPX are absolutely not excommunicated.” I don’t attend the SSPX so I can’t say for sure, but I imagine there are some people that attend just for devotional reasons, and some for other reasons.

Lefebvre’s schismatic action was consecrating bishops without permission, and Ecclesia Dei says that formal adherence to his schism is grounds for excommunication. The disagreement is about what should be considered “formal adherence.” Some say that simply agreeing with the SSPX on various issues constitutes formal adherence to what Lefebvre did 20 years ago, but that’s their personal interpretation, not anything official.

omg forgive me but–the letter commands catholics to sieze supporting the society in ANY WAY!!! SIMPLE!!!

To summarize: Ecclesia Dei says that Lefebvre did a schismatic action, and formal adherents to the schism are excommunicated. It doesn’t give any definition of how “formal adherence” should be understood though. The various letters and interviews from the Ecclesia Dei Commission shouldn’t be seen as an addendum or contradiction to that, but they explain how the Church is interpreting it.

 

[charlesbarkley]

charlesbarkley:
WHOOPS!!!

POPE JOHN PAUL II “STOP SUPPORTING THE SOCIETY IN ANY WAY” CLEAR CRYSTAL CLEAR!!!

 

[PrayforMallory]

Apparently you can belong to Papa Stronsay now, and they were affiliated with the SSPX.

It will only be a matter of time. I hope people don’t regret their words.

 

[bear06]

The Ecclesia Dei Commission has made statements that laypeople are not excommunicated for attending the SSPX Masses, that it is not a sin to attend them for love of the traditional Mass, and that they fulfill the Sunday obligation.

Well you got most of it right. Nowhere his there a document that says that everyone can fulfill their Sunday obligation at a chapel. There’s only one that says a specific person in a specific circumstance can.

 

[bear06]

I’m not recommending that anyone attend the SSPX. I was answering the poster’s question of whether the laity attending the SSPX are excommunicated, which they **absolutely are not **

(although some here continue to insist that they are.)

I’m not really sure how you can say who is and who is not excommunicated. You’d have to actually know who is adhering to a schism.

The Ecclesia Dei letter says that it is not a sin to attend SSPX for love of the traditional Mass. It doesn’t say “It’s not a sin for you, but it is for everyone else.” That would be totally relativistic. There is also the public interview where Msgr. Perl said “Those who assist at a Mass of the SSPX are absolutely not excommunicated”, and numerous statements from Cdl. Hoyos explaining that the SSPX are “not exactly in schism”, “not in a formal schism”, etc.

 

[BrendanD]

Well you got most of it right. Nowhere his there a document that says that everyone can fulfill their Sunday obligation at a chapel. There’s only one that says a specific person in a specific circumstance can.

I don’t know what document you’re referring to, but the one I quoted doesn’t say that. The introduction on the Una Voce website explains that they are printing the full, unedited version of the letter.

 

[bear06]

I don’t know what document you’re referring to, but the one I quoted doesn’t say that. The introduction on the Una Voce website explains that they are printing the full, unedited version of the letter.

Read the Una Voce link again. Nowhere does he say that the laity at large is allowed to fulfill their Sunday obligation at a chapel. Msgr. Perl specifically states that the letter:

was intended as a *private communication *dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us.

Nobody knows what those circumstances are. I’d imagine if someone were to find themselves in the same circumstances then they’d probably be able to fulfill their Sunday obligation there too. That said, we’ll never know what those cirumstances are.

unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm

 

[BrendanD]

I’m not really sure how you can say who is and who is not excommunicated. You’d have to actually know who is adhering to a schism.

It wasn’t just my opinion, I was quoting Msgr. Perl of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei. But your point is exactly correct-- no one here has any authority to decide who is excommunicated, and should refrain from making those kinds of judgments.

Ok, you’re missing a lot of documentation here. I believe it says not a sin if done so primarily out of an attachment to the extraordinary form of the Mass, Also, it would be nice if you’d provide a link to Msgr.

Correct, that’s what I meant by, “it is not a sin to attend SSPX for love of the traditional Mass.” The quote from Msgr. is in the link to Fr Z’s blog I posted earlier.

 

[VivatJesus]

I consider myself an obedient Catholic :bowdown2: and** I support the Society and its mission 100%!!! ** Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre!

 

[BrendanD]

Read the Una Voce link again. Nowhere does he say that the laity at large is allowed to fulfill their Sunday obligation at a chapel. Msgr. Perl specifically states that the letter:

Msgr. says that an edited version of the private letter was published by the Remnant, which left out information and context. He says that the full version, which is what we’re reading on the Una Voce website, “presents the larger context of their response.” He specifically said that the part about fulfilling the Sunday Obligation at the SSPX was “accurately reported.” (bolding mine)

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.”

There’s nothing in there suggesting that it is some special circumstance allowing that particular person to attend the SSPX. If that were the case, surely it would have been important to say so in a letter “presenting the larger context” of the original statement.

 

[Timothysis]

I consider myself an obedient Catholic :bowdown2: and** I support the Society and its mission 100%!!! ** Thank God for Archbishop Lefebvre!

How can you claim to be “an obedient Catholic” and knowingly give support to a group that the Holy Father Pope John Paul II warned not to support???

It is this kind of disorganized thinking that runs so deep in the sspx.

 

[bear06]

Msgr. says that an edited version of the private letter was published by the Remnant, which left out information and context. He says that the full version, which is what we’re reading on the Una Voce website, “presents the larger context of their response.” He specifically said that the part about fulfilling the Sunday Obligation at the SSPX was “accurately reported.” (bolding mine)

There’s nothing in there suggesting that it is some special circumstance allowing that particular person to attend the SSPX. If that were the case, surely it would have been important to say so in a letter “presenting the larger context” of the original statement.

If there was no need to point out that it dealt with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote him than he wouldn’t have done so. He not only gave the non-trucated version, he qualified it.

This whole correspondence is suspicious at best. I’ve asked the original publishers of the response to relay the original query. Of course, this has never happened. It’s very Jesuit like. It’s one large mental reservation.

 

[BrendanD]

If there was no need to point out that it dealt with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote him than he wouldn’t have done so. He not only gave the non-trucated version, he qualified it.

I don’t understand how you’re interpreting it then? He was concerned with the publishing of an edited version that lacked context bout the person’s circumstances. Presumably, the full letter he send Una Voce included the context that was missing.

This whole correspondence is suspicious at best. I’ve asked the original publishers of the response to relay the original query. Of course, this has never happened. It’s very Jesuit like. It’s one large mental reservation.

Do you mean the Remnant, or Una Voce? I think Una Voce is trustworthy.

 

[bear06]

I don’t understand how you’re interpreting it then? He was concerned with the publishing of an edited version that lacked context bout the person’s circumstances. Presumably, the full letter he send Una Voce included the context that was missing.

Do you mean the Remnant, or Una Voce? I think Una Voce is trustworthy.

Let me try this again. We have not seen the original query, have we? We do not know the specific circumstances of this person, do we? Msgr. Perl pointed out that his response was dealing with a person and his/her specific circumstance, correct? We cannot possibly say that his full response was given to the laity at large, can we? If it were, there would have been no clarification that it was dealing with the person’s specific circumtance. What is missing is the original question. This is not Una Voce’s fault. The Remnant’s fault was proclaiming “Vatican Admits Society of Saint Pius X Masses Fulfill Sunday Obligation” which was the actual headline of the article that prompted Msgr. Perl’s response. If the Remnant hadn’t misinterpreted the letter, there would have been no need for a response. The Remnant was proclaiming that the Vatican was saying that it was okie dokie for anyone to attend the SSPX chapels for any circumstance and that it would fulfill everyone’s Sunday obligation.

 

[bear06]

BTW, I forgot about this other letter from Msgr. Perl that might be of some interstest to this conversation.

STATUS OF SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X MASSES
Commission Ecclesia Dei​

The following letter was received from the Pontifical Commission established to oversee the granting of celebrets (right to celebrate) to those priests desiring to offer the Holy Mass according to the Missal of 1962. The authorizing decree of the Supreme Pontiff, Ecclesia Dei, was issued in 1988 on the occasion of the schism of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X, and encourages the generous granting of permission for the Tridentine Mass by bishops, in order to facilitate communion with the Holy See of those who have a particular love for the older Rites.
Not all bishops have been generous, despite the continuing pastoral concern of the Holy Father, causing many traditionalist Catholics to attend the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X or of priests operating independant of their bishop. In a famous case the Bishop of Honolulu excommunicated specific Catholics who frequented such chapels, only to have the excommunication overturned by Rome. This action has encouraged traditionalist Catholics to believe that it is not schismatic, and therefore not excommunicable, to attend such chapels. This response from the Commission was precipated by a letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and has been generously shared with EWTN. The letter to the Cardinal had expressed concern for the status of such attendance and asked two specific questions:

1. Is it schismatic in attending the Society of St. Pius X chapels?

1. What does the Hawaiian Case mean to someone attending such chapels?

---

PONTIFICIA COMMISSIO ECCLESIA DEI
N. 117/95

Rome
29 September 1995

Dear …

Thank you for your letter of 4 September 1995 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger. It has been transmitted to this Pontifical Commission as dealing with matters related to our particular competence.

We are aware of the lack of authorized celebrations of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal in [dioceses] and we can appreciate your desire to assist at the traditional Mass. We also recognize your earnest desire to remain in full communion with the Successor of Peter and the members of the Church subject to him, a desire which obviously prompted you to write this letter. In order to answer your questions we must explain the Church’s present evaluation of the situation of the Society of St. Pius X.

1. There is no doubt about the validity of the ordination of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X. They are, however, suspended a divinis, that is prohibited by the Church from exercising their orders because of their illicit ordination.

1. The Masses they celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 844.2). The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called “Tridentine” Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

1. While it is true that the participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute “formal adherence to the schism”, such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a mentality which separates itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. Father Peter R. Scott, District Superior of the Society in the United States, has publicaly stated that he deplores the “liberalism” of “those who refuse to condemn the New Mass as absolutely offensive to God, or the religious liberty and ecumenism of the postconcilliar church.” With such an attitude the society of St. Pius X is effectively tending to establish its own canons of orthodoxy and hence to separate itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. According to canon 751 such “refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the communion of the members of the Church subject to him” constitute schism. Hence we cannot encourage your participation in the Masses, the sacraments or other services conducted under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.

1. The situation of at least one of the “independent” priests . . . to whom you allude is somewhat different. He and the community which he serves have declared their desire to regularize their situation and have taken some initial steps to do so. Let us pray that this may soon be accomplished.

1. Finally, we may say that “the Hawaiian case” resulted in a judgment that the former Bishop of Honolulu did not have grounds to excommunicate the persons involved, but this judgment does not confer the Church’s approbation upon the Society of St. Pius X or those who frequent their chapels.

With prayerful best wishes, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,

Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary

ewtn.com/libraVatican Admits Society of Saint Pius X Masses Fulfill Sunday Obligationry/CURIA/CEDSSPX.HTM

 

[BrendanD]

If the Remnant hadn’t misinterpreted the letter, there would have been no need for a response. The Remnant was proclaiming that the Vatican was saying that it was okie dokie for anyone to attend the SSPX chapels for any circumstance and that it would fulfill everyone’s Sunday obligation.

Msgr. Perl specifically said that Points 1 and 3 of the original letter were reported accurately. Those are the points that deal with fulfilling the Sunday obligation and donating to the SSPX. It would seem to me that it is Point 2 that The Remnant reported inaccurately, since Msgr.'s response indicated that 1 and 3 were accurate.

The Remnant was proclaiming that the Vatican was saying that it was okie dokie for anyone to attend the SSPX chapels for any circumstance and that it would fulfill everyone’s Sunday obligation.

I think it’s just the for any circumstances part that they got wrong. The letter seems to indicate that the SSPX does fulfill the Sunday obligation, but the Remnant left out the part saying that it must be done for attachment to the traditional Mass, not just out of disobedience.

 

[BrendanD]

Interestingly, there seems to be a pretty clear change of policy between this statement in 1995

The fact of not being able to assist at the celebration of the so-called “Tridentine” Mass is not considered a sufficient motive for attending such Masses.

and this in 2003

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.