Pro Multis

[AlexV]

Keep living in fantasy land.

The truth is, the actual 2002 Missale Romanum is SCARCER than the vernacular versions…which in America are outdated and riddled with objective errors, and are NOT protected by the impeccability or indefectibility of the Church.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Irish High King
Without faculties? Are you absolutely certain about that? I’m sure that the President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, HE Dario Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos stated that it was ok for layfolk to assist at SSPX Masses in order to fulfil their Sunday Obligation? That at least, implies they have the faculty to offer Holy Mass.

One pope trumps a whole college of Cardinals. If they’re not in schism, then there would be no effort to bring them out of schism.

Returning you to your regularly scheduled thread.

---

It seems apparent that our Late Pope had a change of heart. Unless you want to go on record that Msgr Camille Perl–out right lied–or spoke without approval from Rome—people can attend and SSPX Mass and even make a monetary contribution. This is with understanding that said people do not intent to separate themselves from Rome.

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

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

It seems apparent that our Late Pope had a change of heart. Unless you want to go on record that Msgr Camille Perl–out right lied–or spoke without approval from Rome—people can attend and SSPX Mass and even make a monetary contribution. This is with understanding that said people do not intent to separate themselves from Rome.

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

I futher clarifed on the “quibble,” did I not? “Bishops excommunicated, priests without faculties, danger of schism” (still in Ecclesia Dei, still the force of papal authority).

And pragmatically, if there’s not a “hitch in the get along,” as it were, if everything is hunky dory between us and the SSPX, then why is there an effort to bring them back? If they’re not gone, why do they need to come back? Someone really should tell both camps, Pope Benedict and Bishop Fellay, that they should stop their efforts at reconcilliation, because where there is no serperation, there’s no need for reconcilliation!

The above is just spin. Search the forums for Msgr. Perle, it’s been explained.

 

[Walking_Home]

I futher clarifed on the “quibble,” did I not? “Bishops excommunicated, priests without faculties, danger of schism” (still in Ecclesia Dei, still the force of papal authority).

And pragmatically, if there’s not a “hitch in the get along,” as it were, if everything is hunky dory between us and the SSPX, then why is there an effort to bring them back? If they’re not gone, why do they need to come back? Someone really should tell both camps, Pope Benedict and Bishop Fellay, that they should stop their efforts at reconcilliation, because where there is no serperation, there’s no need for reconcilliation!

The above is just spin. Search the forums for Msgr. Perle, it’s been explained.

---

So you are basicly saying that Msgr. Perl spoke out of turn–without knowledge by our late Pope. That our late Pope could not at a later time—see the situation with the SSPX differently.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Here’s the whole of the Msgr.'s mind, from the site Walking Home provides:

**Msgr. Camille Perl’s response: **
Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.
In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.
1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.
2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.
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.”
His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:
“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.”
Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:
"This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the ‘traditional’ Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.
“You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a ‘right’ to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a ‘right’. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church’s law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice.”
We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.
With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

So you are basicly saying that Msgr. Perl spoke out of turn–without knowledge by our late Pope. That our late Pope could not at a later time—see the situation with the SSPX differently.

See the above post. Things DON’T seem to be so smooth between the Holy See and the SSPX.

I’m not privy to what the Holy Father thought, only what he wrote, in Ecclesia Dei. What pope’s THINK doesn’t become law or policy or teaching, unless they convey it via speech or writing.

Once again, weighing in to detract from what the Church actually SAYS.

 

[Walking_Home]

Here’s the whole of the Msgr.'s mind, from the site Walking Home provides:

**Msgr. Camille Perl’s response: **
Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.
In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.
1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.
2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.
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.” His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:
“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.”
Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:
"This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the ‘traditional’ Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.
“You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a ‘right’ to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a ‘right’. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church’s law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice.”
We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.
With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary

---

Thankyou for providing the whole thing.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

**Msgr. Camille Perl’s response: **
Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.
In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.
1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.
2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.
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.”
His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:
“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.”
Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:
"This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the ‘traditional’ Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.
“You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a ‘right’ to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a ‘right’. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church’s law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice.”
We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.
With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary

I guess it boils down to where you put the colored letters, doesn’t it?

 

[Walking_Home]

**Msgr. Camille Perl’s response: **
Unfortunately, as you will understand, we have no way of controlling what is done with our letters by their recipients. Our letter of 27 September 2002, which was evidently cited in The Remnant and on various websites, was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us. What was presented in the public forum is an abbreviated version of that letter which omits much of our pastoral counsel. Since a truncated form of this letter has now become public, we judge it appropriate to present the larger context of our response.
In a previous letter to the same correspondent we had already indicated the canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X which we will summarize briefly here.
1.) The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but they are suspended from exercising their priestly functions. To the extent that they adhere to the schism of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, they are also excommunicated.
2.) Concretely this means that the Masses offered by these priests are valid, but illicit i.e., contrary to the law of the Church.
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.”
His second question was “Is it a sin for me to attend a Pius X Mass” and we responded stating:
“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.”
Further, the correspondent took the Commission to task for not doing its job properly and we responded thus:
"This Pontifical Commission does not have the authority to coerce Bishops to provide for the celebration of the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. Nonetheless, we are frequently in contact with Bishops and do all that we can to see that this provision is made. However, this provision also depends on the number of people who desire the ‘traditional’ Mass, their motives and the availability of priests who can celebrate it.
“You also state in your letter that the Holy Father has given you a ‘right’ to the Mass according to the 1962 Roman Missal. This is not correct. It is true that he has asked his brother Bishops to be generous in providing for the celebration of this Mass, but he has not stated that it is a ‘right’. Presently it constitutes an exception to the Church’s law and may be granted when the local Bishop judges it to be a valid pastoral service and when he has the priests who are available to celebrate it. Every Catholic has a right to the sacraments (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 843), but he does not have a right to them according to the rite of his choice.”
We hope that this puts in a clearer light the letter about which you asked us.
With prayerful best wishes for this New Year of Our Lord 2003, I remain
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl Secretary

I guess it boils down to where you put the colored letters, doesn’t it?

---

Not really–what you bolded is related to bishops not offering the TLM and Ecclesia Dei cannot force the bishops to offer it. Our late Pope asked the bishops to offer the TLM generously–but some in turn do the oposite.

So actually–your bolded part gives credence to those who have no access to the TLM—in going to an SSPX Mass.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

Not really–what you bolded is related to bishops not offering the TLM and Ecclesia Dei cannot force the bishops to offer it. Our late Pope asked the bishops to offer the TLM generously–but some in turn do the oposite.

So actually–your bolded part gives credence to those who have no access to the TLM—in going to an SSPX Mass.

Uh-huh, right.

 

[Walking_Home]

See the above post. Things DON’T seem to be so smooth between the Holy See and the SSPX.

I’m not privy to what the Holy Father thought, only what he wrote, in Ecclesia Dei. What pope’s THINK doesn’t become law or policy or teaching, unless they convey it via speech or writing.

Once again, weighing in to detract from what the Church actually SAYS.

---

What Msgr. Perl said --is in writing----so from what you say above–we can conclude —Msgr Perl did speak out of turn and our Late Pope could not at a later date see the situation differently and relay this to Ecclesia Dei.

 

[Ham1]

---

Not really–what you bolded is related to bishops not offering the TLM and Ecclesia Dei cannot force the bishops to offer it. Our late Pope asked the bishops to offer the TLM generously–but some in turn do the oposite.

So actually–your bolded part gives credence to those who have no access to the TLM—in going to an SSPX Mass.

Why do you want to watch a SSPX priest committing a mortal sin in the very consecration of Christ’s Body? Is that a thrill to watch someone profane the Body of Our Lord. What a horrid thing to witness!

Attendance at the SSPX mass is very problematic. And while it could be justified if there were no other mass available, it would certainly be inadvisable.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

What Msgr. Perl said --is in writing----so from what you say above–we can conclude —Msgr Perl did speak out of turn and our Late Pope could not at a later date see the situation differently and relay this to Ecclesia Dei.

What proof have you that he did? When a pope dies, any writing, laws, appointments, etc., that he did not promulgate lapse, are not enforced, are rendered null.

And who’s saying that Msgr. Perle spoke out of turn? As far as I know, the note that HE (the Msgr.) is refering to is what he said it was, a specific incident or occasion, not a writ of license for the whole SSPX or for the reversal of Ecclesia Dei.

 

[Walking_Home]

What proof have you that he did? When a pope dies, any writing, laws, appointments, etc., that he did not promulgate lapse, are not enforced, are rendered null.

And who’s saying that Msgr. Perle spoke out of turn? As far as I know, the note that HE (the Msgr.) is refering to is what he said it was, a specific incident or occasion, not a writ of license for the whole SSPX or for the reversal of Ecclesia Dei.

JKirkLVNV Quote:

See the above post. Things DON’T seem to be so smooth between the Holy See and the SSPX.

I’m not privy to what the Holy Father thought, only what he wrote, in Ecclesia Dei. What pope’s THINK doesn’t become law or policy or teaching, unless they convey it via speech or writing.

Once again, weighing in to detract from what the Church actually SAYS

Quote=JKirkLVNV
I futher clarifed on the “quibble,” did I not? “Bishops excommunicated, priests without faculties, danger of schism” (still in Ecclesia Dei, still the force of papal authority).

And pragmatically, if there’s not a “hitch in the get along,” as it were, if everything is hunky dory between us and the SSPX, then why is there an effort to bring them back? If they’re not gone, why do they need to come back? Someone really should tell both camps, Pope Benedict and Bishop Fellay, that they should stop their efforts at reconcilliation, because where there is no serperation, there’s no need for reconcilliation!

The above is just spin. Search the forums for Msgr. Perle, it’s been explained.​

I am not the one that said the above. I brought in Msgr. Perls statements and asked if you believe-- he spoke without the approval from Rome. If our Late Pope could not in a later time see the situation with the SSPX differently and relayed this to Ecclesia Dei.

Msgr Perls statements reflect a change. Either this was of his own doing or it was with the consent from Rome.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JKirkLVNV Quote:

See the above post. Things DON’T seem to be so smooth between the Holy See and the SSPX.

I’m not privy to what the Holy Father thought, only what he wrote, in Ecclesia Dei. What pope’s THINK doesn’t become law or policy or teaching, unless they convey it via speech or writing.

Once again, weighing in to detract from what the Church actually SAYS

Quote=JKirkLVNV
I futher clarifed on the “quibble,” did I not? “Bishops excommunicated, priests without faculties, danger of schism” (still in Ecclesia Dei, still the force of papal authority).

And pragmatically, if there’s not a “hitch in the get along,” as it were, if everything is hunky dory between us and the SSPX, then why is there an effort to bring them back? If they’re not gone, why do they need to come back? Someone really should tell both camps, Pope Benedict and Bishop Fellay, that they should stop their efforts at reconcilliation, because where there is no serperation, there’s no need for reconcilliation!

The above is just spin. Search the forums for Msgr. Perle, it’s been explained.​

I am not the one that said the above. I brought in Msgr. Perls statements and asked if you believe-- he spoke without the approval from Rome. If our Late Pope could not in a later time see the situation with the SSPX differently and relayed this to Ecclesia Dei.

And I told you that I wasn’t privy to the mind of the Holy Father, only to what he said in Ecclesia Dei. I’ve no idea what he “relayed.” I only know what the current situation is. I also don’t believe that Msgr. Perle’s letter says what YOU seem to think it says and I don’t think (given the letter) that the Msgr. would think so either.

 

[Walking_Home]

And I told you that I wasn’t privy to the mind of the Holy Father, only to what he said in Ecclesia Dei. I’ve no idea what he “relayed.” I only know what the current situation is. I also don’t believe that Msgr. Perle’s letter says what YOU seem to think it says and I don’t think (given the letter) that the Msgr. would think so either.

---

So this is the way to go—in getting out of answering a question. That the letter doesn’t say --what it says. I need to remember that.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

So this is the way to go—in getting out of answering a question. That the letter doesn’t say --what it says. I need to remember that.

Well, when it, in fact, doesn’t say what you imagine it says (some “backdoor” support of the SSPX on the part of the Holy See), then maybe you SHOULD.

 

[AlexV]

Excuse me, Ham1.

You have no way of knowing if an individual SSPX priest is committing a sin at the Consecration. Spare us your judgments.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home​

So this is the way to go—in getting out of answering a question. That the letter doesn’t say --what it says. I need to remember that.

Well, when it, in fact, doesn’t say what you imagine it says (some “backdoor” support of the SSPX on the part of the Holy See), then maybe you SHOULD.

---

The only thing I can go by is the context of the letter from Msgr. Perl. Unless anyone can say —that he was mistaken in his letter–there is a change. Saying that the letter doesn’t say what it says–does not change what it says.

Yes JKirkLVNV—I will remember.

 

[Anima_Christi]

One pope trumps a whole college of Cardinals. If they’re not in schism, then there would be no effort to bring them out of schism.

Returning you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Kirk, had you been around in the 4th century, you surely would have been on the side of the Arians, most of the bishops, and the Pope at the time, and not that of the excommunicated St. Athanasius.