Pro Multis

[Resurrexit]

Too bad the person in not forthcoming enough to provide the original question. I’ve asked the Remnant to supply it. Guess what? It was never provided. Surprise, surprise.

We do not know what the original circumstances were. Surely if they were relevant, this Msgr. whatever his name is would have provided the detail.

Anyway, this letter was published officially by the Ecclesia Dei comission, as a general answer to the question of whether it is ok to attend an SSPX mass with the right intention.

The answer is yes. Let’s hope we can all handle that.

 

[bear06]

We do not know what the original circumstances were. Surely if they were relevant, this Msgr. whatever his name is would have provided the detail.

Anyway, this letter was published officially by the Ecclesia Dei comission, as a general answer to the question of whether it is ok to attend an SSPX mass with the right intention.

The answer is yes. Let’s hope we can all handle that.

I highly doubt that Msgr. Perl makes private letters public. That’s up to the author. I don’t know how you could possibly be sure it’s not relevant. Notice he said it was a private letter. Usually pastors of the Church do not make private letters public. That still doesn’t excuse the Remnant for not supplying it.

Also, there is no way one can possibly say that this was a general question. Msgr. Perl certainly didn’t say this. He said aspecific person in a specific circumstance. He did not say a genreral person in a general circumstance. We already know that one can attend a Mass with the right intention without sinning. Nobody argued against that, did they?

 

[Resurrexit]

I highly doubt that Msgr. Perl makes private letters public. That’s up to the author.

If there was a relevant detail, for instance you mentioned the old lady, he could have referred to it in a more general way. He would also have made it clear that this was only for the individual, not a general principle. He doesn’t.

We already know that one can attend a Mass with the right intention without sinning. Nobody argued against that, did they?

JKirk said he doesn’t take this to mean that it’s acceptable to attend an SSPX Mass with the right intention.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If there was a relevant detail, for instance you mentioned the old lady, he could have referred to it in a more general way. He would also have made it clear that this was only for the individual, not a general principle. He doesn’t.

JKirk said he doesn’t take this to mean that it’s acceptable to attend an SSPX Mass with the right intention.

I said that the Church didn’t recommend it (from the letter). I said that the letter was not an “okay” of the SSPX by the Holy See (I still say that). I said I would cite this if someone asked me if it was “okay,” and that my response would be “no.” It would still be “no,” right intention or not, because of the danger of persistent exposure to a schismatic attitude. I also would not encourage anyone to assist at an illicit (though not invalid) Mass offered by a priest who has no faculties from the local ordinary and who is not in communion with the local ordinary.

 

[Walking_Home]

I said that the Church didn’t recommend it (from the letter). I said that the letter was not an “okay” of the SSPX by the Holy See (I still say that). I said I would cite this if someone asked me if it was “okay,” and that my response would be “no.” It would still be “no,” right intention or not, because of the danger of persistent exposure to a schismatic attitude. I also would not encourage anyone to assist at an illicit (though not invalid) Mass offered by a priest who has no faculties from the local ordinary and who is not in communion with the local ordinary.

---

So JKirk----you are judge and jury—on the intentions of a person and to top it off----by your words—above Msgr. Perl.

 

[Resurrexit]

---

So JKirk----you are judge and jury—on the intentions of a person and to top it off----by your words—above Msgr. Perl.

As in everything.

 

[bear06]

If there was a relevant detail, for instance you mentioned the old lady, he could have referred to it in a more general way. He would also have made it clear that this was only for the individual, not a general principle. He doesn’t.

JKirk said he doesn’t take this to mean that it’s acceptable to attend an SSPX Mass with the right intention.

What do you think the original inquiry said?

As you’ll notice, Kirk is just saying what the Church has always said. It’s a danger no matter what your intention. It is extremely rare for a person to frequent the chapels and not imbibe the schismatic mentality. Those who come to support the schism are ipso facto excommunicated according to the excommunication decree. Therefore at this time we cannot recommend it. Hmmmm…Where have I heard that before?

 

[Walking_Home]

What do you think the original inquiry said?

As you’ll notice, Kirk is just saying what the Church has always said. It’s a danger no matter what your intention. It is extremely rare for a person to frequent the chapels and not imbibe the schismatic mentality. Those who come to support the schism are ipso facto excommunicated according to the excommunication decree. Therefore at this time we cannot recommend it. Hmmmm…Where have I heard that before?

---

Not quite—until there is more current information from Rome —this is where it stands now—unless of course —a person believes that Msgr. Perl had no right to say the following. It is not recommended if the person has desire to separate themselves from Rome—for that would be recommending a sin. Otherwise —no intention to separate—no sin. I personally will not but myself in the place to judge a person’s intentions current or future if they attend Mass at an SSPX chapel.

“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.”

His third question was: “Is it a sin for me to contribute to the Sunday collection a Pius X Mass” to which we responded:

“3. It would seem that a modest contribution to the collection at Mass could be justified.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

So JKirk----you are judge and jury—on the intentions of a person and to top it off----by your words—above Msgr. Perl.

I told you clearly, I don’t think the letter said what you think it says, so I hardly think I’m above Msgr. Perle. And you need to read more carefully…I didn’t presume to judge any theoretical person’s intentions. I said,“right intention or not,” that I would give the same advice.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

As in everything.

Kindly see the previous post. I’m juding no one’s intentions, merely stating what I would say if asked. I would still say that and I would cite the letter Walking Home provided by link and which I copied in full to the thread. I have no window into any person’s soul nor have I set myself up as any person’s judge. I’ve only put forth what I believe to be the objective stance of the Church (the bishops are excommunicated, the priests are without faculties, the faithful are warned against adherence).

 

[Walking_Home]

I told you clearly, I don’t think the letter said what you think it says, so I hardly think I’m above Msgr. Perle. And you need to read more carefully…I didn’t presume to judge any theoretical person’s intentions. I said,“right intention or not,” that I would give the same advice.

Quote=JKirkLVNV
I said that the Church didn’t recommend it (from the letter). I said that the letter was not an “okay” of the SSPX by the Holy See (I still say that). I said I would cite this if someone asked me if it was “okay,” and that my response would be “no.” It would still be “no,” right intention or not, because of the danger of persistent exposure to a schismatic attitude. I also would not encourage anyone to assist at an illicit (though not invalid) Mass offered by a priest who has no faculties from the local ordinary and who is not in communion with the local ordinary.​

Ok now ----back to going around in circles. The letter didn’t say what it did.

When you state that “No” --right intention or not–then you are judging what a person’s intentions may be—to the pt of going above Msgr. Perl’s own statements. You have convicted them from the start.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Quote=JKirkLVNV
I said that the Church didn’t recommend it (from the letter). I said that the letter was not an “okay” of the SSPX by the Holy See (I still say that). I said I would cite this if someone asked me if it was “okay,” and that my response would be “no.” It would still be “no,” right intention or not, because of the danger of persistent exposure to a schismatic attitude. I also would not encourage anyone to assist at an illicit (though not invalid) Mass offered by a priest who has no faculties from the local ordinary and who is not in communion with the local ordinary.​

Ok now ----back to going around in circles. The letter didn’t say what it did.

When you state that “No” --right intention or not–then you are judging what a person’s intentions may be—to the pt of going above Msgr. Perl’s own statements. You have convicted them from the start.

I’ve told you I don’t believe that the letter says what you believe it says. I’ve explained that. I haven’t “gone back,” I’ve never said that I thought it said what you claim. We aren’t going to agree on this. You believe it says one thing, I don’t. I believe it says another, you don’t. I’m not going to say that I do think it says other than what I think it says. I believe this is one person, one circumstance, I don’t believe that there has been a change. Sorry, but I don’t. I would be lying to you if I said otherwise.

And NO, I’m NOT judging anyone’s intentions (and I don’t think you’re qualified to say that I am), I’m saying that even WITH the right intention or aspiration, I would STILL tell them not to go to the SSPX’s Mass.

 

[Walking_Home]

I’ve told you I don’t believe that the letter says what you believe it says. I’ve explained that. I haven’t “gone back,” I’ve never said that I thought it said what you claim. We aren’t going to agree on this. You believe it says one thing, I don’t. I believe it says another, you don’t. I’m not going to say that I do think it says other than what I think it says. I believe this is one person, one circumstance, I don’t believe that there has been a change. Sorry, but I don’t. I would be lying to you if I said otherwise.

And NO, I’m NOT judging anyone’s intentions (and I don’t think you’re qualified to say that I am), I’m saying that even WITH the right intention or aspiration, I would STILL tell them not to go to the SSPX’s Mass.

Quote=JKirkLVNV
I said that the Church didn’t recommend it (from the letter). I said that the letter was not an “okay” of the SSPX by the Holy See (I still say that). I said I would cite this if someone asked me if it was “okay,” and that my response would be “no.” It would still be “no,” right intention or not, because of the danger of persistent exposure to a schismatic attitude. I also would not encourage anyone to assist at an illicit (though not invalid) Mass offered by a priest who has no faculties from the local ordinary and who is not in communion with the local ordinary.​

Of course not JKirkLVNV—the letter doesn’t say what I think it says. How then–can you make your case.

When you tell someone not to go to an SSPX Mass–because as you said --the danger of the schismatic attitude—what do you mean by that. You are coming across as convicting a person on what the SSPX may do.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**As this thread was a duplicate and has now gone totally off topic it is closed.

Please see:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=120258

for the current discusison on pro multis.

Gentle Reaers:

May I ask your cooperation in checking the board prior to posting in order to avoid duplicate threads? **