Pro Multis

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

Arianism is a Christological view originally held by followers of Arius, a Christian priest who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 4th century. Arius taught that God the Father and the Son were not co-eternal, seeing the pre-incarnate Jesus as a divine being but nonetheless created by (and consequently inferior to) the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist. In English-language works, it is sometimes said that Arians believe that Jesus is or was a “creature”; in this context, the word is being used in its original sense of “created being”.

I cannot see from any of my posts what would lead you to believe that I lean toward or would lean toward heresy. This is the type of thing over which I am more and more incredulous: the leaps in logic, or rather, illogic, that people of a certain camp are willing to make (not to mention the calumny to which they apparently don’t mind stooping).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

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.

So you conclude from the letter you cited and which I posted in full that it’s perfectly legitimate to assist at the Masses offered by the SSPX (from which we would then have to conclude that they are either not schismatic nor leaning toward schism, and that there was, as of the date of Msgr. Perle’s letter, no danger of the grave sin of schism such as HH Pope John Paul II warned of in Ecclesia Dei)? Depsite the fact that Msgr. Perle specifically says that this letter (a private communication) was to address a specific circumstance?

 

[TradyDaddy]

Arianism is a Christological view originally held by followers of Arius, a Christian priest who lived and taught in Alexandria, Egypt, in the early 4th century. Arius taught that God the Father and the Son were not co-eternal, seeing the pre-incarnate Jesus as a divine being but nonetheless created by (and consequently inferior to) the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist. In English-language works, it is sometimes said that Arians believe that Jesus is or was a “creature”; in this context, the word is being used in its original sense of “created being”.

I** cannot see from any of my posts what would lead you to believe **that I lean toward or would lean toward heresy. This is the type of thing over which I am more and more incredulous: the leaps in logic, or rather, illogic, that people of a certain camp are willing to make (not to mention the calumny to which they apparently don’t mind stooping).

Simple. When someone tries to discuss a topic based on previous continual teachings of the church, you almost always go to the default argument that “the overwhelming majority of Bishops as well as the last 5 popes have …etc”. The point was that during the Arian crisis, “the overwhelming majority of Bishops as well as the existing pope…”

There is one difference JKirk. Back then, the average Catholic did not have 20 centuries of consistent teachings to look to for back up. Today, we do, but we pay no heed because the “current living majesterium over-rules all the past theologians, Popes and Councils.”

 

[Walking_Home]

So you conclude from the letter you cited and which I posted in full that it’s perfectly legitimate to assist at the Masses offered by the SSPX (from which we would then have to conclude that they are either not schismatic nor leaning toward schism, and that there was, as of the date of Msgr. Perle’s letter, no danger of the grave sin of schism such as HH Pope John Paul II warned of in Ecclesia Dei)? Depsite the fact that Msgr. Perle specifically says that this letter (a private communication) was to address a specific circumstance?

---

I must say—you are getting good at spinning. This is what I said in a previous post. It follows what Msgr. Perl stated in the letter. As long as the intent is not to separate themselves from Rome—there is no sin. Apparently —you over-rule Msgr. Perl.

Quote=Walking_Home
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.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Simple. When someone tries to discuss a topic based on previous continual teachings of the church, you almost always go to the default argument that “the overwhelming majority of Bishops as well as the last 5 popes have …etc”. The point was that during the Arian crisis, “the overwhelming majority of Bishops as well as the existing pope…”

There is one difference JKirk. Back then, the average Catholic did not have 20 centuries of consistent teachings to look to for back up. Today, we do, but we pay no heed because the “current living majesterium over-rules all the past theologians, Popes and Councils.”

I would maintain that there has been no disconnect, merely further explanation and explication. Plus, I firmly believe that in the end (and through the whole of it), Christ’s promise will not fail and the Church will not falter. “Will not fail” includes the “current” magisterium (there’s only really one continuous one). And based on that, I give the Pope, the bishops, the Holy See, at al, the benefit of the doubt (since they possess the charism to lead the Church). I deny no teaching of the Church. And on the topic of this thread, the Holy See applied its authority and said that there was not question about the invalidity of masses (which was clear, since the Church, per Trent, cannot propose to the faithful a defective Mass). On the sub topic, one cannot make Msgr. Perle’s letter say something that it doesn’t say. It was addressed to one particular person with one particular set of circumstances and it doesn not alter the fact that the SSPX is lead by excommunicate bishops, has priests who possess no faculites, and the faithful are warned by the Holy Father against assistance at their masses. If you regard these simple statements of facts as heresy, well, you’re at odds with the Church. Until the Church tells me I’ve lapsed into heresy, I don’t think I’ll be loosing any sleep.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

I must say—you are getting good at spinning. This is what I said in a previous post. It follows what Msgr. Perl stated in the letter. As long as the intent is not to separate themselves from Rome—there is no sin. Apparently —you over-rule Msgr. Perl.

Quote=Walking_Home
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.

That doesn’t follow (and you’re spinning so much you might want to sit down and rest, head between knees, lest you faint). Msgr. Perle clearly stated that the letter “was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us.” If you are able to imply from it that Pope John Paul II had a change of heart, well, I think I can imply from it that it was very narrow in its scope dealing with “specific circumstances” and that the Holy Father HADN’T had a change of heart at all. Make of that what you will.

 

[Walking_Home]

That doesn’t follow (and you’re spinning so much you might want to sit down and rest, head between knees, lest you faint). Msgr. Perle clearly stated that the letter “was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us.” If you are able to imply from it that Pope John Paul II had a change of heart, well, I think I can imply from it that it was very narrow in its scope dealing with “specific circumstances” and that the Holy Father HADN’T had a change of heart at all. Make of that what you will.

---

Your are still spinning—turning things this way and that—in your effort it seems–to discredit what Msgr. Perl said.

The “private communication” was a prior letter sent to a person in Sept. 2002. The current letter --Jan. 18, 2003–is meant to clarify whatever it was that was cited in the Remnant of the 2002 letter.

The Jan 18 letter-- further states that pts. 1 and 3 were reported correctly. Pt. 2— is clarified in this letter.

The 2003 letter was published at the request of the Commission.

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

Letter by Msgr. Camille Perl Regarding Society of St. Pius X Masses
Una Voce America has received a communication from the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission, concerning an article which appeared in The Remnant newspaper and various websites. At the request of the Commission, we are publishing it below.

Pontificia Commissio “Ecclesia Dei” January 18, 2003
Greetings in the Hearts of Jesus & Mary! There have been several inquiries about our letter of 27 September 2002. In order to clarify things, Msgr. Perl has made the following response.

Oremus pro invicem.

In cordibus Jesu et Mariæ,
Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins

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.”

…
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]

I’m not attempting to discredit the Msgr.

One person received one letter dealing with his or her particular circumstance. It wasn’t intended to signal anything at all, particularly a change in heart of the part of the Holy See (I’m not saying that the laity who may choose to assist at their Masses are automatically schismatic, but the Holy Father warned them against “imbibing the spirit of schism,” of the grave danger of that). The fact remains that the Bishops are excommunicate, the priests are suspended ad divinis without faculties, and the faithful are cautioned (“We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why”). Yes, certainly it’s not a sin to attend their Mass “for the sake of devotion,” but the caution still remains (the laity were only ever warned by the Holy Father, not themselves excommunicated. The Society is schismatic, but lay people are not MEMBERS, unless you’re dealing with the gray areas of the Third Order). And the caution is real and immediate: there IS danger of entering into a schismatic attitude, even for those who may attend “for the sake of devotion”. At the one I attended, the priest state twice that the NO Mass was an abomination to God. That seems a farily schismatic attitude, that the Mass promulgated for the faithful by the Church is an abomination to God.

So I stand by my original statement. If the SSPX doesn’t want to be confused with schismatics, they should come out of schism. And no, I don’t believe that there was any kind of change between the promulgation of Ecclesia Dei and issuance of the Msgr. Perle’s letter. No change, merely the addressing of a particular circumstance.

 

[Walking_Home]

I’m not attempting to discredit the Msgr.

One person received one letter dealing with his or her particular circumstance. It wasn’t intended to signal anything at all, particularly a change in heart of the part of the Holy See (I’m not saying that the laity who may choose to assist at their Masses are automatically schismatic, but the Holy Father warned them against “imbibing the spirit of schism,” of the grave danger of that). The fact remains that the Bishops are excommunicate, the priests are suspended ad divinis without faculties, and the faithful are cautioned (“We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why”). Yes, certainly it’s not a sin to attend their Mass “for the sake of devotion,” but the caution still remains (the laity were only ever warned by the Holy Father, not themselves excommunicated. The Society is schismatic, but lay people are not MEMBERS, unless you’re dealing with the gray areas of the Third Order). And the caution is real and immediate: there IS danger of entering into a schismatic attitude, even for those who may attend “for the sake of devotion”. At the one I attended, the priest state twice that the NO Mass was an abomination to God. That seems a farily schismatic attitude, that the Mass promulgated for the faithful by the Church is an abomination to God.

So I stand by my original statement. If the SSPX doesn’t want to be confused with schismatics, they should come out of schism. And no, I don’t believe that there was any kind of change between the promulgation of Ecclesia Dei and issuance of the Msgr. Perle’s letter. No change, merely the addressing of a particular circumstance.

Quote=JKirkLVNV
Not bashing, merely stating facts. But I’ll accomodate the quibble:

If the SSPX don’t want to be confused with schismatic groups that DO harp on the “pro multis” point, maybe they should just stop following excommunicated bishops and priests who are suspended ad divinis and utterly without faculties and stop behaving in such a way that the late Holy Father of happy memory felt compelled to warn others of the danger of their company (the grave sin of schism), then they wouldn’t be confused with ANY schismatics.

JKirkLVNV Quote:
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.​

Since the Commission requested the second letter be published it is meant for all—not just one circumstance

My discussion with you started in response to your post above. Our late Pope did not want anyone to associate with the SSPX–therefore - our late Pope trumps Card. Castrillon-Hoyos. I brought in Msgr. Perl’s letter. Even with the situtation the SSPX is in and the caution and so forth-- Msgr. Perl said people could attend and give a contribution ( as long as the intent was not to separate).

I asked you if Msgr. Perl spoke without the consent from Rome or if his statements reflect some change in Rome’s attitude toward the SSPX. You in turn—spun everthing to keep from answering the question–to the extend of saying Msgr Perl didn’t say what he said (discrediting what he said). I can see that you continue this trend.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Since the Commission requested the second letter be published it is meant for all—not just one circumstance Not so. The original letter was intended for one person. The publication of it latter in its entirety was to provide the greater context OF the letter and an explanation in the face of the use of the letter by the Remnant and others to justify wholesale support of the SSPX or assistance at their masses. It was not intended to be a “permission” for the laity in general. It’s clear from the written introduction to the quotation of the letter, by the Msgr. himself.

My discussion with you started in response to your post above. Our late Pope did not want anyone to associate with the SSPX–therefore - our late Pope trumps Card. Castrillon-Hoyos. I brought in Msgr. Perl’s letter. Even with the situtation the SSPX is in and the caution and so forth-- Msgr. Perl said people could attend and give a contribution ( as long as the intent was not to separate). **Again, it was addressed to ONE person, in their PARTICULAR circumstance. It is CLEAR that this office of the Holy See was unable to recommend that this person (and presumably anyone else) attend these masses. **

I asked you if Msgr. Perl spoke without the consent from Rome or if his statements reflect some change in Rome’s attitude toward the SSPX. You in turn—spun everthing to keep from answering the question–to the extend of saying Msgr Perl didn’t say what he said (discrediting what he said). I can see that you continue this trend.

**Walking Home: I said that Msgr. Perle’s letter was what he said it was: it “was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us.” It wasn’t a general OK to associate with the SSPX. I’m not discrediting what he said (and I don’t know the circumstance at all, anyway, that he was addressing). I don’t think the Holy See has changed its official stance. I’m sorry you disagree. **

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking Home:
Since the Commission requested the second letter be published it is meant for all—not just one circumstance Not so. The original letter was intended for one person. The publication of it latter in its entirety was to provide the greater context OF the letter and an explanation in the face of the use of the letter by the Remnant and others to justify wholesale support of the SSPX or assistance at their masses. It was not intended to be a “permission” for the laity in general. It’s clear from the written introduction to the quotation of the letter, by the Msgr. himself.****

My discussion with you started in response to your post above. Our late Pope did not want anyone to associate with the SSPX–therefore - our late Pope trumps Card. Castrillon-Hoyos. I brought in Msgr. Perl’s letter. Even with the situtation the SSPX is in and the caution and so forth-- Msgr. Perl said people could attend and give a contribution ( as long as the intent was not to separate). Again, it was addressed to ONE person, in their PARTICULAR circumstance. It is CLEAR that this office of the Holy See was unable to recommend that this person (and presumably anyone else) attend these masses.

I asked you if Msgr. Perl spoke without the consent from Rome or if his statements reflect some change in Rome’s attitude toward the SSPX. You in turn—spun everthing to keep from answering the question–to the extend of saying Msgr Perl didn’t say what he said (discrediting what he said). I can see that you continue this trend.

I said that Msgr. Perle’s letter was what he said it was: it “was intended as a private communication dealing with the specific circumstances of the person who wrote to us.” It wasn’t a general OK to associate with the SSPX. I’m not discrediting what he said (and I don’t know the circumstance at all, anyway, that he was addressing). I don’t think the Holy See has changed its official stance. I’m sorry you disagree.

Quote=JKirkLVNV
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–Msgr Perl’s letter (the one the Commission wanted published) is intended for the specific circumstances of one person. Interesting—only one person can attend an SSPX Mass and give a monetary contribution (as long as the one person’s intentions are not to separate). This one is really getting out there. Any other persons who attend an SSPX Mass (for the sake of devotion–and with no intend to separate) are left hanging.

Just so I can understand better. You’ve gone from saying the letter didn’t say what I think it said—to it saying it said it for only a particular circumstance.

If there was no change --as you say–between the Holy See and the SSPX at the time the second letter was published—then from where did Msgr. Perl get the consent to sent the second letter and request that it be published. Being that Rome would not want anyone to associate with the SSPX.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

So–Msgr Perl’s letter (the one the Commission wanted published) is intended for the specific circumstances of one person. Interesting—only one person can attend an SSPX Mass and give a monetary contribution (as long as the one person’s intentions are not to separate). This one is really getting out there. Any other persons who attend an SSPX Mass (for the sake of devotion–and with no intend to separate) are left hanging.

Just so I can understand better. You’ve gone from saying the letter didn’t say what I think it said—to it saying it said it for only a particular circumstance.

If there was no change --as you say–between the Holy See and the SSPX at the time the second letter was published—then from where did Msgr. Perl get the consent to sent the second letter and request that it be published. Being that Rome would not want anyone to associate with the SSPX.

The letter I posted in its entirety included a pre-face in which the Msgr. stated his reasons for disclosing the full letter (ie, to provide the CONTEXT for their reply to a query from one individual in one given set of circumstances). The letter as quoted by the Remnant and some websites and in Msgr. Perle’s words, “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.” THAT’S why the letter was presented. The letter was not presented as a permit to adhere to or associate oneself with the SSPX (the warnings of the Holy Father would still apply to the laity, the excommunications still apply, the suspensions still apply, etc., and indeed, the Msgr states that they, speaking for the Holy See cannot recommend attendance upon the SSPX’s masses), the letter was presented to extablish the context which had been left out by the Remnant. One individual, one set of specific circumstances, no change on the part of the Holy See in regards to the SSPX (which doesn’t mean that they aren’t working to bring them home).

I genuinely don’t see how that’s spin.

 

[Resurrexit]

Msgr. Pearl is answering an individuals question, but appears to be speaking in general.

Ok Jkrik - but I still don’t really see why it’s fine for one person to attend an SSPX Mass out of devotion to the 1962 liturgy, (when another is available), and it’s not for another.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Msgr. Pearl is answering an individuals question, but appears to be speaking in general.

Ok Jkrik - but I still don’t really see why it’s fine for one person to attend an SSPX Mass out of devotion to the 1962 liturgy, (when another is available), and it’s not for another.

I don’t know the circumstances of the original petitioner, so I cannot comment on those particular circumstances. Notice, however, that the Holy See “cannot recommend” that people attend these Masses. Why would any Catholic (if we might set the liberal ones. like MacBrien and Chichester aside) want to do something against the Holy See’s recommendation?

 

[Resurrexit]

I don’t know the circumstances of the original petitioner, so I cannot comment on those particular circumstances. Notice, however, that the Holy See “cannot recommend” that people attend these Masses. Why would any Catholic (if we might set the liberal ones. like MacBrien and Chichester aside) want to do something against the Holy See’s recommendation?

The key passage is:

“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.” **

It is not particularly clear. It says that attending Mass just to go to the Old Rite is not a sin, providing you don’t intend to become an SSPXer.

‘We cannot recommend’ - since when do we have to follow recommendations? Order or directives, yes; recommendations and suggestions, no.

What I think is being put across here, is that it is ok to attend the mass, but doing so (particularly regularly) is not a recommended practice.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The key passage is:

“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.” **

It is not particularly clear. It says that attending Mass just to go to the Old Rite is not a sin, providing you don’t intend to become an SSPXer.

‘We cannot recommend’ - since when do we have to follow recommendations? Order or directives, yes; recommendations and suggestions, no.

What I think is being put across here, is that it is ok to attend the mass, but doing so (particularly regularly) is not a recommended practice.

I don’t think they’d say it’s okay, but I don’t think they’d say the laity is necessarily schismatic by doing so. Still, it comes down to why do something the Church can’t recommend?

 

[Walking_Home]

The letter I posted in its entirety included a pre-face in which the Msgr. stated his reasons for disclosing the full letter (ie, to provide the CONTEXT for their reply to a query from one individual in one given set of circumstances). The letter as quoted by the Remnant and some websites and in Msgr. Perle’s words, “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.” THAT’S why the letter was presented. The letter was not presented as a permit to adhere to or associate oneself with the SSPX (the warnings of the Holy Father would still apply to the laity, the excommunications still apply, the suspensions still apply, etc., and indeed, the Msgr states that they, speaking for the Holy See cannot recommend attendance upon the SSPX’s masses), the letter was presented to extablish the context which had been left out by the Remnant. One individual, one set of specific circumstances, no change on the part of the Holy See in regards to the SSPX (which doesn’t mean that they aren’t working to bring them home).

I genuinely don’t see how that’s spin.

---

What is in question is not how much the letter cited in the Remnant is abreviated or truncated. It comes down to what Msgr. Perl said in the letter published for all to see. Already taking into account the status of the SSPX —he clearly states–if attending is manifesting a desire of separating from Rome–that is a sin—otherwise it is not. Since the letter was published at the request of the Commission—it does not rest on you to say it how the letter is to be taken. It is indeed public— and for the Commission to want it public it is intended for more than one person.

You now say Msgr. Perl is speaking for the Holy See–how is it that he can say that to participate in an SSPX Mass for the sake of devotion and make a contribution (with no intent to separate) is not a sin (all within the the context of this second letter).

It is pretty slick --to take the circumstance of the first letter that was meant for an individual and apply it to the second letter that was published by the request of the Commission. As I stated before—anyone else that attends the SSPX Mass with no intention of separating from Rome —is left hanging.

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

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.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

What is in question is not how much the letter cited in the Remnant is abreviated or truncated. It comes down to what Msgr. Perl said in the letter published for all to see. Already taking into account the status of the SSPX —he clearly states–if attending is manifesting a desire of separating from Rome–that is a sin—otherwise it is not. Since the letter was published at the request of the Commission—it does not rest on you to say it how the letter is to be taken. It is indeed public— and for the Commission to want it public it is intended for more than one person.

You now say Msgr. Perl is speaking for the Holy See–how is it that he can say that to participate in an SSPX Mass for the sake of devotion and make a contribution (with no intent to separate) is not a sin (all within the the context of this second letter).

It is pretty slick --to take the circumstance of the first letter that was meant for an individual and apply it to the second letter that was published by the request of the Commission. As I stated before—anyone else that attends the SSPX Mass with no intention of separating from Rome —is left hanging.

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

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.”

I’m really sorry if you think I’m being slick or attempting to be slick. This is not bad motive or conscience on my part. I honestly believe that this is NOT an okay by the Holy See for us to attend an SSPX Mass (“we cannot recommend,” etc.), merely a clarification on a letter that was abused by its recepient. If I was asked by someone if it was alright to regularly attend upon the SSPX Mass, I would cite this same letter to say,“No,” for all the reasons I’ve listed, just as I’ve listed them.

In the end, we are expected to do as our consciences, formed by the Catholic Faith, dictate.

 

[Walking_Home]

I’m really sorry if you think I’m being slick or attempting to be slick. This is not bad motive or conscience on my part. I honestly believe that this is NOT an okay by the Holy See for us to attend an SSPX Mass (“we cannot recommend,” etc.), merely a clarification on a letter that was abused by its recepient. If I was asked by someone if it was alright to regularly attend upon the SSPX Mass, I would cite this same letter to say,“No,” for all the reasons I’ve listed, just as I’ve listed them.

In the end, we are expected to do as our consciences, formed by the Catholic Faith, dictate.

---

I agree and after having read the letter from Msgr. Perl–I would just refer anyone who asked–to the letter. I am not in a position to judge a person --who for the sake of devotion–may want to attend a TLM Mass at an SSPX chapel. After all—Msgr. Perl—taking into account that it is not recommended (and he stated the reason why) still went on to say —that if there was no intention of separating from Rome—it was not a sin and further a modest contribution could be made.

 

[bear06]

Finally, back to a high speed computer!

If the original letter was to be understood in the context that you are taking it, what would possibly be the motive for the clarification saying that it was meant for an individual?! There would be absolutely no need to print a clarification at all if the people who had been passing it around got it right. Correct?

Doesn’t anyone have a problem with the fact that the original two inquiries were never published despite the fact that the answer has been broadcasted far and wide? Since this person who got the response managed to have it seen by all, why does this person not wish to have the original inquiry made known? We can in no way be guaranteed that this permission was given to the population at large. We can only be guaranteed that this answer is for some specific person in a specific circumstance.

What if the letter said something like this? “I’m 95 years old and live across the street from an SSPX chapel. I can barely get around but my neighbor has said he can afford the time to carry me there since it’ll only take him 10minutes once a week. I really desire to attend a Mass somewhere but cannot get to any other Mass, would it be OK for me to attend this chapel?” What do you think the Church would say? “No little old lady who has little comforts in life other than the Mass!” No, instead they say in a strict sense you can. Well she can get to no other so, duh!

I believe that there is a saying that goes something like “He who frames the question wins the debate.” 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.