I think a real distinction which may or may not be important is that the Orthodox churches were born from the legitimate possessors of sees taking their whole churches into schism, whereas the SSPX arose from a non-territorial group of clerics and (to a vague extent) laity leaving communion.
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 think a real distinction which may or may not be important is that the Orthodox churches were born from the legitimate possessors of sees taking their whole churches into schism, whereas the SSPX arose from a non-territorial group of clerics and (to a vague extent) laity leaving communion.
The above is the response of one archdiocese.Back to the original post actually, is this a new development?
a) we are dealing with Catholic faithful who – provided they have performed no explicit actions – in no way wish to leave the Roman Catholic Church;
b) attending Masses celebrated by priests of the SSPX is not in itself a delict and does not bring about excommunication;
**c) only those of the faithful who see the SSPX as the only true church, and who make this visible externally, incur the penalty of excommunication; **
d) it is consequently not at all appropriate to regard as non-Catholic the children baptised in the chapels of the SSPX, and to treat their marriages to another Catholic as mixed marriages;
e) when baptism by a priest of the SSPX is attested in writing and the parents of the newly baptised do not see the SSPX as the only true church, then this attestation sufficews for registration of the baptism in the Liber Baptizatorum of the parish of baptism, under the running number 0. On the basis of this registration, a baptismal certificate can be issued.
Neither of these diocesan responses represent the universal response of the Catholic Church to the schismatic movement of Lefebvre.Any Catholics in and of the Diocese of Lincoln who attain or retain membership in any of the above listed organizations or groups [note: the SSPX were among those listed] after April 15, 1996, are by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) under interdict and are absolutely forbidden to receive Holy Communion. Contumacious persistence in such membership for one month following the interdict on part of any such Catholics will by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) cause them to be excommunicated. Absolution from these ecclesial censures is "reserved to the Bishop. This notice, when published in the Southern Nebraska Register, is a formal canonical warning. [Formal Canonical Warning of Excommunication (March 22, 1996)]
I note in Bp. Bruskiewitz’s response that the same thorn of ambiguity persists with regard to the laity - the SSPX is a priestly society, so they have no lay members (except, perhaps, for a small number of tertiaries I may have heard of).The above is the response of one archdiocese.
In the diocese of Lincoln, there was a different response from Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz:
Neither of these diocesan responses represent the universal response of the Catholic Church to the schismatic movement of Lefebvre.
One might also want to note that the Remnant (or any other publication for that matter) has ever printed the original query. Why, you might ask? Good question.The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us.
I think Msgr. Perl’s is speaking for the Holy See, and as such authentically represents the Vatican response.Would have Msgr. Camille Perl of the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission made the following statements without approval from Rome…
Furthermore, the excommunications of members of the SSPX by Bp. Bruskewitz were upheld by the Vatican, so it too represents the Vatican insofar as it pertains the members from the Diocese of Lincoln.While it is true that participation in the Mass 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 schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.
It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.
(Msgr Camille Perl, Secretary, Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, N. 343/98, Rome, 27 October 1998).
I think Msgr. Perl’s is speaking for the Holy See, and as such authentically represents the Vatican response.
In another letter he stated,
Furthermore, the excommunications of members of the SSPX by Bp. Bruskewitz were upheld by the Vatican, so it too represents the Vatican insofar as it pertains the members from the Diocese of Lincoln.
Am I missing something here. That link demerzel posted is a link to an article which quotes the diocese of Salzburg’s paraphrasing of the Vatican. It’s not directly from teh Vatican and since.
Yes I am familiar with the letter from 1998. It does seem —that from the letter in 2003----which is the link demerzel85 posted–there has been a change as to how Rome views the situation with the SSPX.
Am I missing something here. That link demerzel posted is a link to an article which quotes the diocese of Salzburg’s paraphrasing of the Vatican. It’s not directly from teh Vatican and since.
What do we really know of the situation and the letters that passed back and forth between Salzburg and the Vatican? Very little. We have paraphrasing and since it’s apparently being reported that the Diocese of Salzburg has gotten it wrong once how are we to believe they’ve gotten it right this time. It would have been helpful for someone to have posted the translation the Diocese of Salzburg has received from the Vatican.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for here, Walking Home. I’m getting confused to say the least. Are we talking about the baptisms or are we talking about Mass attendence? Your article focused on Mass attendence and the Musica Sacra article had a little larger scope. I don’t know if we can say for sure that the Diocese of Salzburg has it right but I think we can say for sure that Msgr. Perl did. My question is, what do these two articles have to do with one another?
Thanks for the clarification. You are correct in the fact that the Church has never formally declared them heretics. Thankfully, the Church is working hard to get them to come back. They, however, seem to have a rejection of the primacy of the Pope no matter how much they deny it but I think it would be sometime before the Church would formally declare them heretics. Hopefully there will be a reunification before then.
Sorry bear06----I made a mistake----the link I used was initially introduced by gelsbern. I got it confused with the one that demerzel85 had.
The link that gelsbern provided was from the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission to Unavoce ---- concerning SSPX Mass attendance.
I believe St. Pio died before the creation of the Novus Ordo.Both St. Pio and St. Josemaria were allowed to continue celebrating the Tridentine Mass after the Novus Ordo was created.
There was a similar situation in Hawaii where the excommunication of the folks who attended the SSPX Mass there was not upheld and thrown out.I think Msgr. Perl’s is speaking for the Holy See, and as such authentically represents the Vatican response.
In another letter he stated,
Furthermore, the excommunications of members of the SSPX by Bp. Bruskewitz were upheld by the Vatican, so it too represents the Vatican insofar as it pertains the members from the Diocese of Lincoln.
It is too bad that most dioceses do not want them and look down upon them.There are those who joing the schismatic group to experience a traiditonal mass, particularly TLM. You don’t have to go schismatic to attend a TLM mass.
Try the FSSP
fssp.com/
YES SIR!!Rome isn’t dragging her feet. They’re dragging theirs. It’s a simple act of obedience: come home and submit to the legitimate authority of the Church. Obey.
Mistreatment of those who are in full communion is truly sad. We must pray for more Bishop’s like most of the newer appointees. On the bright side, I would be willing to bet that there are more bishops open to the indult now than there were 20 years ago. It seems that many of the more notoriously liberal bishops have finally retired.How come you guys tolerate the mistreatment of the indult folks in “full communion” with Rome?
With terrible treatment of the traditionalist “in full communion with Rome”, I can understand why the SSPX do not want to canonically regularize or the Eastern Orthodox join in union.
Many would say that “tridentine” equals conservative and is therefore shunned. And while there may be some that react negatively because of this association, I think it is far more likely that the word “tridentine” has come to represent those who rebel against the Church’s authority. Thanks to the actions of a relatively small but vocal minority (the SSPX) “tridentine” is now synonymous with a sense of arrogance and superiority and a blatent disregard for the Body of Christ. I think that if the SSPX had never separated themselves from the Church but had worked to preserve the old Mass, the Tridentine Mass might not have the stigma that it seems to possess. It’s truly sad that a beautiful and historically significant liturgy has become the popular symbol for disobedience. It’s odd to me that some who prefer the indult Mass seem to feel some sort of kinship with the SSPX. I would think that they ought to feel the opposite. They should be disgusted that a schismatic organization has co-opted their beautiful liturgy as a banner for their rejection of the One True Church.But softly speak the words “TRIDENTINE MASS” in the company of your local ordinary and his chancery priests, or, for that matter, in your local Novus Ordo parish, and you will induce an apoplectic response such as you would not begin to elicit if you had merely bitten the head off of a gerbil and swallowed it. Why is this, I wonder?
Healing, yes.Many people do not know this the majority of the people who go to Orthodox Church of America parishes are descendants of Byzantine Catholics who went into schism because of the uncharity of the American Catholic hiearchy. It got so bad that there were stories of priest being stabbed.
Perhaps do not blame one side for the split. If there is going to be reconcillation healing must occur on both sides.