---------------------------------------------------------------------\And you are specifically referring to…?
It came from a letter from Msgr Camille PerlThat’s what I’m asking actually. If what I posted in the first post is not new, where did the original document come from?
Una Voce is one of the many places I have found this letter, I am not sure if they are in union with Rome or not. I am looking to see if I can find this letter elsewhere as well.
- 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."
Una Voce is in union with Rome.%between%
Una Voce is one of the many places I have found this letter, I am not sure if they are in union with Rome or not. I am looking to see if I can find this letter elsewhere as well.
That’s the laity the Msgr. is talking about. Not the bishops (excommunicated) or the priests (suspended). And the old Holy Father warned against the potential danger of schism in attendance upon the SSPX masses, ie, that it could lead to schism. Note also, the Holy See, who Msgr. Perl is writing for, “cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass.” That ought to be enough for any good Catholic.It came from a letter from Msgr Camille Perl
unavoce.org/articles/2003/perl-011803.htm
"
Una Voce is one of the many places I have found this letter, I am not sure if they are in union with Rome or not. I am looking to see if I can find this letter elsewhere as well.
The above is also in the Catechism. It gives me great hope for my many devout and faithful Protestant relatives. That doesn’t mean that schism doesn’t exist now between the SSPX and the Church, anymore than it means that Protestants can actually be seen as good Catholics if we finese it just right.Perhaps dragging feet was a poor choice in words. But as more children are raised in the SSPX and they ordain valid priests, they become their own denomination and will no longer be under the authority of Rome and therfeore there will be no obedience to Rome necessary. Especially after the older priests and bishops pass away and no one from the original incident is left.
I wish I could find the one thing I have been looking for, but there is something about a certain number of generations when it comes to schisms etc… I’ll keep searching.
EDIT: I found what I was looking for.
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html
Chapter I Article 3
If one reads this, and asks what are the real differences between the SSPX and The Catholic church, one would have to honestly answer that there really isn’t all that much difference and so, time is on the side of the SSPX, they can wait it out and once all ties to Rome are complete severed through attrition, they can then approach Rome in the way the Eastern Orthodox churches are and look for an ecclesiastical communion without having to submit to her authority.
Anyway I hope this makes it clearer as far as the angle I am viewing this as an outsider to both groups.
Oh and demerzel85, it applies to the clergy who were originally Roman Catholic, not those who were raised in the SSPX.
The above is also in the Catechism. It gives me great hope for my many devout and faithful Protestant relatives. That doesn’t mean that schism doesn’t exist now between the SSPX and the Church, anymore than it means that Protestants can actually be seen as good Catholics if we finese it just right.
Hmm…the slight difference is that the Orthodox have their Patriarches. It really isn’t possible to compare the state of SSPX with that of the Orthodox. In fact the Orthodox are in a better canonical situation than SSPX. And well this is because the Holy See says so.
Hmm…the slight difference is that the Orthodox have their Patriarches. It really isn’t possible to compare the state of SSPX with that of the Orthodox. In fact the Orthodox are in a better canonical situation than SSPX. And well this is because the Holy See says so.
I suppose that’s possible. BUT…if they don’t reconcile, the bishops will die excommunicate, as the Archbishop did. And the priests, how are they not guilty of very serious sin? We’re starting to split hairs when souls are at stake.
The difference being that the SSPX does have Apostolic Succession. As long as they do not go of the deep end —they will keep it. They can in the future have more bishops and carry on the lineage. If Rome and the SSPX do not reunite----the SSPX will then have the same state the the Orthodox have now.
An important factor is Catholic-Orthodox relations is Apostolic Succession, but it is not the sole reason. SSPX will not be able to claim the same status, even with the passage of time.What about in the future. If they do not loose Apostolic Succession ----- then the lineage will continue.
An important factor is Catholic-Orthodox relations is Apostolic Succession, but it is not the sole reason. SSPX will not be able to claim the same status, even with the passage of time.
I am saying that the status of the Orthodox Church goes beyond that of Apostolic Succession. I am no expert in Orthodox relations, but Catholic-Orthodox affairs are in the form of being the 2 lungs of the same body.
I am trying to understand this demerzel85. If the SSPX does not loose Apostolic Succession-----what will then happen. As long as their doctrine does not break down—then what. The Catholic Church and Orthodox have been separated for hundreds of years—yet they did not loose succession.
I am saying that the status of the Orthodox Church goes beyond that of Apostolic Succession. I am no expert in Orthodox relations, but Catholic-Orthodox affairs are in the form of being the 2 lungs of the same body.
It is possible to have valid Apostolic Succession, but the belief in some sections of the ‘True Church’ now being hidden is a Protestant heresy.Yes — I understand it as far as the Catholic – Orthodox being the two lungs. But does this deny that the SSPX in the future – if no reunion occurs----will then be valid body with Apostolic Succession.
It is possible to have valid Apostolic Succession, but the belief in some sections of the ‘True Church’ now being hidden is a Protestant heresy.
Again it needs clarification. The only Bishops and Priests in the SSPX who are suspended are the ones that were once in communion with Rome and have left her. Any new priests that were brought up solely in the SSPX Rome has no jurisdiction over and cannot suspend them, therefore the younger priests are not acting in disobedience since they were never under the authority to start with. Also, the bishops and priests are suspended from administering the sacraments in the Roman Catholic church, but they are not suspended from anything in the SSPX. What that means is that an SSPX priest or bishop could not walk into a church in communion with Rome and perform Mass, but that does not stop them from performing Mass for those who are in the SSPX.That’s the laity the Msgr. is talking about. Not the bishops (excommunicated) or the priests (suspended). And the old Holy Father warned against the potential danger of schism in attendance upon the SSPX masses, ie, that it could lead to schism. Note also, the Holy See, who Msgr. Perl is writing for, “cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass.” That ought to be enough for any good Catholic.
I wouldn’t think that is anything to boast about. Being schismatic means being in a state of mortal sin. I would think you would be more concerned about your soul than the disobedient and schismatic SSPX!!Of course, **since I am technically a schismatic myself, **I don’t include myself in the “We” portion, but that is for a different topic someday if they create an extra forum for those of us who practice the catholic faith but are not in union with Rome like they did for the Easterners.
I don’t believe I was boasting, I was simply stating that technically I would be considered a schismatic, but in practice that doesn’t appear to be the case considering the close relationship we have with the Roman Catholic Church.I wouldn’t think that is anything to boast about. Being schismatic means being in a state of mortal sin. I would think you would be more concerned about your soul than the disobedient and schismatic SSPX!!
There is no “technical” schism.I don’t believe I was boasting, I was simply stating that technically I would be considered a schismatic, but in practice that doesn’t appear to be the case considering the close relationship we have with the Roman Catholic Church.